Aristotle's three book collection, now called Rhetoric, remains the core of the art of Rhetoric. In this post, I'd like to outline three key concepts to Rhetoric: Logos, Ethos, and Pathos. They are the means of persuasion.
Logos is simply an appeal to the intellect of the audience. This is where logical argument and factual evidence enter the argument. Since humans are not totally rational, this appeal alone will rarely win the day.
Ethos is the attempt to make the speaker look honest and respectable to the audience. Ethos become more important in many political debates, especially in current America, where many citizens are not nearly as knowledgeable about topics as they would need to be to understand the logos of a claim.
Pathos is an appeal to the sympathy and empathy of the audience. The speaker uses pathos to create an emotion within the audience to buttress his claim.
Obviously, a speech or argument doesn't need all three, but it really helps. Try to establish the aura of trustworthiness, respectability, and expertise (Ethos). Then attempt to connect with your audience and set an emotional tone (pathos). Only then, once the audience trusts you and is emotionally primed, should you use your logical argument to explain your points. After that, try to reiterate the emotional connection you have with them, and how your experience and expertise has led you to your conclusions.
Good luck!
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Sunday, January 4, 2009
The Present Evil
I don't believe evil exists. Perhaps said less provocatively, I believe that Evil is in the eye of the beholder. Whether some act, person, or thing deserves the moniker "evil" is a matter of opinion, or a matter of perspective. People don't do things and think "I'm doing evil right now." They typically think they are doing good things, but history opines that they aren't. Stalin, for example, did things we typically consider evil, but from his perspective, he did them for what he believed was the greater good. Was he wrong? Yeah, probably. Was he evil? It depends on where you are looking from. He had millions of supporters from whose perspective Stalin was a great man.
What about murders, rape, or other crimes? Those criminals probably didn't think they were evil. They had reasons and justifications in their hearts. Bad ones, from our perspective to be sure, but at least the time they thought they were good reasons.
This seems like a useless distinction. What's the difference, whether a criminal is evil in his own mind, as opposed to society's view? I think it's important to think this way, that evil does not objectively exist, because it humbles us. If we blindly think "there are people or actions which are evil and some which are not evil", it blinds us to the mistakes and crimes History may condemn us for. For example, 30 years from now, someone may say to me, "Hello Sir, may I ask what YOU did to help save the whales? How evil of you to have done nothing!"
In a sense, they are right, or at least History may condemn me/us for doing nothing. We musn't be so arrogant as to think that we know evil when we see it. We simply don't.
In the Christian religion, Satan (or the Devil) is typically seen a a man with horns, carrying a pitchfork, in Hell. Do not be lulled into believing that the supreme symbol of evil doesn't have a skill of disguise. Evil will not surface in your life with a sign saying "evil" on it. Evil isn't the red man with horns and pitchfork. Evil will offer you exactly that which you love, respect, and admire.
It's often called "Presentism". A bias toward the present. It works in both directions. For example, some people have faulted Thomas Jefferson for owning slaves, using today's negative view of slavery as the absolute moral compass. On the other side, some people praise older generations for walking to school uphill both ways (which they wouldn't have done if there were school buses.)
The point here is to consider your actions carefully, While others in the present see them as OK(possibly because they themselves are committing the same evil acts), history may not be so generous.
What about murders, rape, or other crimes? Those criminals probably didn't think they were evil. They had reasons and justifications in their hearts. Bad ones, from our perspective to be sure, but at least the time they thought they were good reasons.
This seems like a useless distinction. What's the difference, whether a criminal is evil in his own mind, as opposed to society's view? I think it's important to think this way, that evil does not objectively exist, because it humbles us. If we blindly think "there are people or actions which are evil and some which are not evil", it blinds us to the mistakes and crimes History may condemn us for. For example, 30 years from now, someone may say to me, "Hello Sir, may I ask what YOU did to help save the whales? How evil of you to have done nothing!"
In a sense, they are right, or at least History may condemn me/us for doing nothing. We musn't be so arrogant as to think that we know evil when we see it. We simply don't.
In the Christian religion, Satan (or the Devil) is typically seen a a man with horns, carrying a pitchfork, in Hell. Do not be lulled into believing that the supreme symbol of evil doesn't have a skill of disguise. Evil will not surface in your life with a sign saying "evil" on it. Evil isn't the red man with horns and pitchfork. Evil will offer you exactly that which you love, respect, and admire.
It's often called "Presentism". A bias toward the present. It works in both directions. For example, some people have faulted Thomas Jefferson for owning slaves, using today's negative view of slavery as the absolute moral compass. On the other side, some people praise older generations for walking to school uphill both ways (which they wouldn't have done if there were school buses.)
The point here is to consider your actions carefully, While others in the present see them as OK(possibly because they themselves are committing the same evil acts), history may not be so generous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
