Assignment #7 -- rhetoric

In the video I made for assignment #3 I said "Critical thinking is the process of properly interpreting, applying, and communicating information to shape another person’s perspective." I also suggested that critical thinking is like constructing a building out of concrete blocks. When you're building with blocks you need to make sure that the blocks are substantial and will withstand the elements. You don't want to use cracked blocks in building your argument. And you certainly want to be aware of the cracked blocks that others use in constructing their arguments. (We all need well-developed crack detectors. Or maybe I should say, well-developed crap detectors.) The cracks in the blocks are the fallacies that we've been talking about. (You might want to review the fallacies by checking out the LogicalFallacies.org website.)

The process of assembling well-made blocks into the building (the paper you're writing — the speech you're giving — the video presentation you're making — the social media you're posting) is called rhetoric.

I realize that the term rhetoric has become a somewhat negative term. When politicians stand in front of the camera and attempt to justify their own behavior by accusing their opponents of being crooked we might respond by saying, "that's just a bunch of rhetoric." (Can you identify the logical fallacy of such politicians?*)

This, however, is a misuse of the term rhetoric. Rhetoric itself can be a very positive thing or it can be very negative. Rhetoric is simply the argument — the act of communicating information for the purpose of persuading someone of something (not unlike what you are doing when you write a paper for a school class). There is good rhetoric and there is bad rhetoric. There is effective rhetoric and there is ineffective rhetoric.

No one has had more influence on our understanding of rhetoric than the Greek philosopher Aristotle (384–322 BCE). Since this is technically a philosophy course it is important that you have at least some understanding of who Aristotle was and how his ideas shape the way that we argue or persuade. Watch this 8-minute introduction to Aristotle the philosopher.

Now that you know who Aristotle was, let's work toward making his approach practical as you prepare to write a gazillion college papers and challenge even more half-baked ideas online. Aristotle said that solid rhetoric has three necessary elements: ethos (character), pathos (emotion), and logos (logic or reason). Watch the short video below for an introduction to Aristotle's approach to rhetoric.

Your assignment is to send me at bboydston@piu.edu an email or a Google Doc that summarizes each of the three terms as used by Aristotle -- ethos, pathos, and logos. (If you need to do more research on this topic type the following words into your favorite search engine: ethos logos pathos. You'll be directed to some great online resources. If you're close to a library, you should be able to dig up some valuable information in the books that begin with the call number 140.) After you explain in your own words, what each of these terms means, give me some tips for incorporating each of these appeals into your own writing. For example, I might say, "If I try to persuade the professor that abortion is wrong or right by using a lot of pathos (perhaps emotional stories of people adversely affected by the action) she might think that there is not enough logical foundation to my argument. So, I'll also use some logos (perhaps statistical evidence showing the social harm of the action.)"

There is no length requirement. Your score will not be based on how much you write but on how clearly you explain the three terms and how helpful your application tips seem to be. This assignment is worth up to 50 points.

*I will give you bonus points if you also tell me the logical fallacy in my example.