Peroation

     In chapter nine of the Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students there is a detailed description as to how arguments were made. The beginning middle and end all have specific names and specific ways in which they should be done (according to Cicero). The part that caught my attention was when the Peroation was discussed. The Peroation is the ending part of an argument and is supped to do three things: summarize, excite indignation and arouse pity or sympathy. This brought me back to when we did the imitatios assignment because the very last part of what I imitated did just that. I remember feeling like I was guilt tripping the audience, for not always agreeing with me.
     I also really appreciate how a rhetor is "supposed" to end an argument using pathos. In my second essay I discussed how important pathos is when making arguments and how it can be lost when reading off of a piece of paper versus speaking to the audience face-to-face. I have always thought conclusions to be important because they are what stays the most fresh in someones mind. The summary serves the purpose of keeping the argument fresh. The second step of exciting indignation reminds the audience how they should feel about the opposing side and the third step, arousing pity and sympathy for the rhetor's own cause gives the anger a purpose.
     It's hard for me to find modern-day examples of perfect Peroation. What first comes to mind is this movie that I watched a couple of years ago called Charlie Bartlett. It was one of the last parts of the movie and the main character had to give a speech that seemingly hit all of those points. At the end he did all three steps but he also did a call for action--which is something that is not included in Peroation.

second essay

Natassja Haynes
Condon
Due November 4, 2014

Read v. Memorization

When first learning the beginning principles and history of rhetoric, it was made very clear that all of the speeches were memorized and spoken. None of the speeches were written down ahead of time. It was a reality that I brushed off because it would never be relevant to me. How wrong I was. In the imitatios assignment, I quickly learned that memorizing and delivering a speech with passion is seemingly vital in the practice of rhetoric. Coming from a background in acting, it has also been my reality that speeches in which the tone and intention are made very clear to the audience are the speeches (monologues) that are most memorable—thus more effective.

In the lens exploring what is effective in modern rhetoric, it is important to understand how rhetoric was practiced in the past as well as the methods in which rhetoric is practiced now. The main difference being that rhetoric has moved from being a solely oral tradition to one where people pen their thoughts before reading them aloud. Some problems have arisen from this matter. Audiences lose attention towards what is being said because it is not being said in a way that makes an audience interested. The original well-intentioned penned words have lost their meaning. Writing a speech and not putting the effort into making it accessible for those who listen to it, now has modern orators losing a main rhetorical device—pathos.

In modern day rhetoric, pathos is becoming more important because attention span is getting smaller and the public is being bombarded with a lot more speeches and a lot more opinions. All of these speeches have been first written and then spoken though. In order for one to stand out in this busy world, it is important to consider old practices of rhetoric.

I cannot suggest that people go back to the ways of old rhetoric—but I am asking for people to consider it. Consider that people are constantly bombarded with facts and logic by seemingly ethical people. The speeches and campaigns that make an audience the most motivated are the ones that play to an audiences emotions. As the class learned through the imitatios assignment, we wanted to listen to the people who were the most passionate about what they had to say. The person who looked the most passionate was the one that had their speech memorized and wasn't reading off of a piece of paper. That piece of paper acted as almost a security blanket for the others that were reading.

I have always thought that theatre and rhetoric have a lot in common. There is a sort of performance factor involved. In fact Aristotle, a famous rhetorician, has written about the the different aspects that make up dramas and how effective they are and the order in which the importance should be considered. The modern day perspective on Aristotle's views of theatre still remain true to the source. The order of importance in which people judge drama goes as such: character, plot, language music, spectacle. This is something very important to consider in a rhetoric frame of mind. What is important out of that list is that character is considered more important than the plot. If this shows where society places its values then that means that society cares about the people then it does the issue itself. They care about a rhetors ethos and they care about the ways in which they use pathos. Yet, in modern-day rhetoric, rhetors only seem to care about the logic—when that may not be the aspect that convinces crowds to give and show support.

In acting, we use something called the three circles to simplify the three modes of life in which people usually live. The first circle is the one were people are the most closed off and shy and not as willing to take in other people. The second circle, is the one in which people are the most open to others and the third circle is the one where people are so confident that they almost steam roll over others. When watching everyone in class have their piece of paper in front of them, reading off of it, it was like they were closed off. The people reading off of their pieces of paper were in first circle and the person who was memorized was in second. As an audience we felt like we could relate to the person who was looking directly at us and holding us accountable with their eyes versus the other people who essentially hid behind their pieces of paper. When a rhetor is without the penned word—they are more likely to be received well by an audience.

I also am earning a major in communications. I am currently taking a class called writing in communications. In the class we practice writing for broadcast news and there are all of these ways to write the text so that the person on the screen will read them properly. I think this is interesting because in the book Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students by Crowley and Hawhee, there is a section that explains that punctuation wasn't originally used in Greek culture—everything was written in one long stream. Punctuation was first used when teachers were trying to teach students how to read aloud. In my communications class, when we write for the news broadcasters, it is a common rule to write using lots of punctuation.

The text written by Crowley and Hawhee also gives a description for usages of certain punctuation that would make it easier for a rhetor reading off of a piece of paper to give. These are suggestions and descriptions of puctuation are also used the news broadcasting world. As well as using different types of types style like, plain, bold, italic, outline and shadow, news broadcasters also use other types of punctuation in unconventional ways. In the book, Reporting for the Media by Bender these ways include using a dash when one wants the speaker to pause. Where in writing a dash can be used as a visual emphasis. Certain syllables in the middle of words will be capitalized—to show which syllables deserve emphasis.

The text written by Crowley and Hawhee makes the observation that “it seems to us that practitioners of modern rhetoric sometimes forget the rhetoric of punctuation in favor of rules about sentence structure.” This is something incredibly important to consider, with the development of writing and using writing in the practice of rhetoric, although punctuation is helpful, it may also be a hindrance. The aspect of punctuation in modern-day rhetoric, not helping is interesting to consider. We have used punctuation our entire lives in writing, so why question it. Yet, when we talk we don't use punctuation, and these speeches are being delivered aloud.

As writing is used in rhetoric, it is also important to consider, that when writing people don't always use the language that they would use when speaking. In the written word people have more time to think about the best way and most efficient way that something can be written. Yet, an audience doesn't always want to hear what is best and efficient. An audience is more perceptive to something that is relatable, and people don't always speak in the best and most efficient ways.

Using the written word in rhetoric makes it a lot harder to pull an audience in but it is not impossible. A modern-day rhetor needs to be more intentional about memorizing and finding those parts of a speech that are the most important. The written word takes away from the naturalistic side—but the facts that are written adds more assurance to the orator. The naturalistic side can be practiced and when the written word is used. As speeches are successful, the pathos is prevalent.

Works Cited

Aristotle. "The Internet Classics Archive | Poetics by Aristotle." The Internet Classics Archive | Poetics by Aristotle. Trans. S. H. Butcher. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Nov. 2014.

Bender, John R., Lucinda D. Davenport, Michael W. Drager, and Fred Fedler. Reporting for the Media. New York: Oxford UP, 2009. Print.

Crowley, Sharon, and Debra Hawhee. Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1999. Print.

Imitatios

Natassja Haynes
Due October 2, 2014
Imitatios

Judgment is for the repulsive

What is attractive to a community is commitment, to an individual independence, to a mind it's own meaning, to an endeavor effectiveness, to an audience acceptance. Women and men and boys and girls and the community should take responsibility where due—the antithesis of is repulsive.

It is the responsibility of an individual to not only accept those in our community but to embrace them. I say this when those who criticize others are within their full rights, in fact judgment is such a common occurrence that we often do not take notice. It is my duty to introduce to you a girl who has been often judged and expose you to her truths as well as society's.

Juliana is a person that hardly anybody knows. Yet everyone knows her story as her story reflects us all. Juliana has a family. She is a child like we have all once been. She attends school. She has a favorite stuffed animal. The factor that separates Juliana is that she has Down Syndrome.

Juliana's differences were made apparent since birth. A fact that has remained relevant to her for her life. She has educated many, and brought together people of all different backgrounds. Although these backgrounds were different, we came together because of our love for her and our willingness to accept.

The amount of times that the judgment of her character has come into account are countless. Whether overtly or secretly whispered.

For it is divine intervention that I met Juliana and I saw her struggles and was given a voice to speak them. Whether it is a life guard at a pool telling her that she cannot swim or en education system that constantly doubts her or the children that point and whisper to their mothers as their mothers shoo them away—the judgment and criticism is prominently there.

It is not Juliana's fault that she is judged. It's ours.

If it is our judgment that is Juliana's enemy; why can't we stop? Judgment is a powerful drug— one in which a person can administer and hide behind with ease. This judgment has been considered a helpful tool, it even makes people feel safer.

When making this argument I realize that it is important to acknowledge that I fully understand the other side of the issue. Who would I be if I had never judged anyone before? I will fully admit to using my judgment towards someone when I am feeling uncomfortable or unfamiliar. I still don't deny judgment being like a drug though. Something to hide behind, instead of abolishing and facing full on.

I have then by means of speech shown you the life of a little girl; I have observed and set up metaphor at the beginning of the speech and I have tried to end her injustice at the price of judgment. I wished to write a speech that would make Juliana and myself proud. Thank you.

Natassja Haynes
Due: October 7, 2014
Rough Draft

Rhetoric Virgin

When taking this class, the idea of rhetoric was foreign to me. After learning the definition, I realized I knew all along what rhetoric was. It seems that the ways of rhetoric aren't foreign but are more undefined to me. The imitatios assignment's purpose was to help people understand the techniques that ancient rhetors used and apply those techniques to an everyday topic. It was my initial intent to copy the style of Gorgias, who was famous for improvising his arguments. This was a very intimidating aspect when I sat down to figure out how to approach improvising an argument. How would I improvise an argument, using the technique of someone who was foreign to me before this semester? I instead settled on imitating a Gorgias speech titled the Econium of Helen.

The imitatios assignment was written purposefully vague—to see how students would approach the matter. Like many, I wasn't sure how closely to follow the speech that I picked. After much deliberation, I decided that I would closely follow phrasing that I liked. For other situations where the phrasing wasn't as optimal within Gorgias' speech I would follow the general constructs and tone.

More specifically, I copied the sentence structure of the first and last paragraphs because they were very strongly and powerfully worded. I saw that within the first paragraph, Gorgias used the device of alliteration. I read that part of his speech out loud and it rolled off of my tongue and sounded good to my ears. I realized that this would a great way to get an audience hooked into the speech. I also realized that Gorgias would switch between speaking to the macro-side and then to the micro- side. Initially he would address the city and then he would address individual’s souls. When writing my speech, I imitated that method of speech. I copied the use of alliteration and addressing the audience on both a macro and micro level.

For the last paragraph of Gorgias' speech he summed up what he said and then said that he hoped that he had spoken a speech that both he and Helen would be proud of. I ended up taking the same approach because I thought that this played to the the emotional side of the audience or the pathos. It is important to use the rhetorical device of pathos because that is what gives a speech the soul. Sections that include pathos are the sections that I am most interested because those are the sections where it seems like the rhetor is most passionate about their speech.

I could see how the first paragraph played to general ideas or commonplaces of the audience and how the last paragraph played to the speakers pathos. In terms of the generalities that I followed, Gorgias used the story of Helen as a commonplace to the audience to speak to the power of language. It was important to me to find a personal story that related to judgment—one that didn't have any preconceptions. It was my choice to not choose a specific story that was well known to everyone. Instead I chose a story where the essence of the story was something that an audience would be well aware of.

There would be no way for people to know this, but the little girl in the speech with Down Syndrome is my sister. I made the choice to not divulge that information about myself because I thought it is something that may take away from my credibility or ethos instead of add to it. I thought that having that story be personal to me would make me deliver the speech better. Yet, I was worried that if the audience were to know my connection they would think me irrational about my point of view.

When doing the imitatios assignment the hardest part I had was trying to figure out how the audience would react and then writing my speech around that. I don't think I have ever been that deliberate towards audience reactions. This plays back to what the class first learned—kairos. When I had to write this speech in the shoes of a rhetor—I felt hyper aware of audience reaction because I felt like that is what these ancient speeches were mainly based off of. It was an intense process for me to go through and analyze audience reaction for every single portion of my speech. Knowing that I may be wrong was also what was alarming. The way I overcame my struggle of interpreting audience reaction was by writing out all of my intentions per section in a separate notebook as I went. Later when I was attempting to memorize my speech I had something that looked like an actors prompt book with me to help memorize line delivery.

I believe that having something similar to an actors prompt book to use in class would really help students with their intentions when delivering their speech. Just as intentional rhetors are about the rhetorical devices they use when delivering their speeches to an audience—actors are very intentional about how they deliver their lines to an audience. Actors have developed a method where they will have their scripts and then they will have three separate columns that tell them a few more piece of information about delivery. The first column is labeled blocking—blocking is where an actor will physically move. The second column is labeled beats—beats and beat changes are literally defined as a unit of action or a change in action. In simpler terms this means that an actor will keep acting with the same motives (beat) until something happens (a beat change) and then the actors motives have changed even if their objective has not. The thirds column is labeled tactics. Tactics are the ways in which an actor will deliver their line. This will normally include just a one word reminder called a visceral verb.

I was thinking that this prompt book could be inducted into class after the students have written their speech. Instead of the tactics section consisting of visceral verbs—it could instead include the types of rhetorical devices used. Again, I believe that this would help with speeches becoming more intentional—I feel like mine became more intentional as I wrote down my intentions.

Although, I ended up using a method that was relevant to me and the ways that I act. It is hard for me to imagine a rhetor not writing any of their speech down and not being as intentional as I was through paper. There is no doubt in my mind that the ancient rhetors were intentional. It just amazes me that they were intentional without using the tools that I did.

This assignment in general gave me a lesson on the value of intentions. I don't think I have ever written anything so intentionally. I realize how important it is to pay attention to detail. Particularly to the kairos-side of written works. I also realize that I can use the methods on which I act in a rhetorical setting and encourage that method for all who struggle with this assignment.

The Econium of Helen

The order proper to a city is being well-manned; to a body, beauty; to a soul, wisdom; to a deed, excellence; and to a discourse, truth--and the opposites of these are disorder. And the praiseworthy man and woman and discourse and work and city-state and deed one must honor with praise, while one must assign blame to the unworthy--for it is equal error and ignorance to blame the praiseworthy and to praise the blameworthy.

(2) It being required of the same man both to speak straight and to refute [crooked speech, one should refute] those blaming Helen, a woman concerning whom the testimony of those who are called poets has become univocal and unanimous--likewise the repute of her name, which has become a byword for calamities. And by bestowing some rationality on the discourse, I myself wish to absolve this ill-reputed woman from responsibility, and to show that those who blame her are lying--and, having shown the truth, to put an end to ignorance.

(3) It is not unclear, not even to a few, that the woman who is the subject of this discourse was the foremost of the foremost men and women, by nature and by birth. For it is clear that her mother was Leda and her father was in fact the god, but said to be mortal, Tyndareus and Zeus--of whom the one, by being, seemed, while the other, by speech, was disproved--and the one was the mightiest of men while the other was tyrant over all.

(4) Born of such parentage, she had godlike beauty, which having received she not inconspicuously retained. She produced the greatest erotic desires in most men. For one body many bodies of men came together, men greatly purposing great things, of whom some possessed great wealth, some the glory of ancient and noble lineage, some the vigor of personal strength, and others the power of acquired cleverness. And they were all there together out of contentious love and unconquerable ambition.

(5) Who it was, then, who fulfilled the love by gaining Helen, and the means and manner of it, I shall not say; for to tell knowing people things they know supplies corroboration but does not convey enjoyment. Having now finished the first section, I shall advance to the beginning of the next section, and I shall set out the causes through which Helen's journey to Troy was likely to come about.

(6) Either by the wishes of Fortune and plans of the gods and decrees of Necessity she did what she did, or abducted by force, or persuaded by speeches, <or conquered by Love>. Now in the first case, the responsible party deserves the responsibility. For the will of a god cannot be hindered by human forethought. For it is not natural for the superior to be hindered by the inferior, but for the inferior to be ruled and led by the superior--for the superior to lead and the inferior to follow. And a god is superior to a human being in force, intelligence, etcetera. Accordingly, if one must attribute responsibility to Fortune and the god, one must acquit Helen of infamy.

(7) But if she was abducted by force, unlawfully constrained and unjustly victimized, it is clear on the one hand that the abductor, as victimizer, committed injustice--and on the other hand that the abductee, as victim, met with mishap. Accordingly the barbarian assailant deserves to meet with barbarous assault, by speech and custom and deed--deserves to be blamed in speech, dishonored by custom, and penalized indeed. She who was forced and bereft of fatherland and orphaned of friends--how is she not to be pitied rather than reviled? For he did terrible things; she was the victim; it is accordingly fair to pity her and hate him.

(8) And if persuasive discourse deceived her soul, it is not on that account difficult to defend her and absolve her of responsibility, thus: discourse is a great potentate, which by the smallest and most secret body accomplishes the most divine works; for it can stop fear and assuage pain and produce joy and make mercy abound. And I shall show that these things are so: (9) explanation to the audience, by means of opinion, is required. Discourse having meter I suppose and name (in the general sense) to be poetry. Fearful shuddering and tearful pity and sorrowful longing come upon those who hear it, and the soul experiences a peculiar feeling, on account of the words, at the good and bad fortunes of other people's affairs and bodies. But come, let me proceed from one section to another.

(10) By means of words, inspired incantations serve as bringers-on of pleasure and takers-off of pain. For the incantation's power, communicating with the soul's opinion, enchants and persuades and changes it, by trickery. Two distinct methods of trickery and magic are to be found: errors of soul, and deceptions of opinion.

(11) Those who have persuaded and do persuade anyone about anything are shapers of lying discourse. For if all people possessed memory concerning all things past, and awareness of all things present, and foreknowledge of all things to come, discourse would not be similarly similar; hence it is not now easy to remember the past or consider the present or foretell the future; so that most people on most subjects furnish themselves with opinion as advisor to the soul. But opinion, being slippery and unsteady, surrounds those who rely on it with slippery and unsteady successes.

(12) Accordingly what cause hinders Helen ... praise-hymn came ... similarly would ... not being young ... just as if ... means of forcing ... force was abducted. For the mind of Persuasion was able ... and even if necessity ... the form will have ... it has the same power. For discourse was the persuader of the soul, which it persuaded and compelled to believe the things that were said and to agree to the things that were done. He who persuaded (as constrainer) did wrong; while she who was persuaded (as one constrained by means of the discourse) is wrongly blamed.

(13) Persuasion belonging to discourse shapes the soul at will: witness, first, the discourses of the astronomers, who by setting aside one opinion and building up another in its stead make incredible and obscure things apparent to the eyes of opinion; second, the necessary debates in which one discourse, artfully written but not truthfully meant, delights and persuades a numerous crowd; and third, the competing arguments of the philosophers, in which speed of thought is shown off, as it renders changeable the credibility of an opinion.

(14) The power of discourse stands in the same relation to the soul's organization as the pharmacopoeia does to the physiology of bodies. For just as different drugs draw off different humors from the body, and some put an end to disease and others to life, so too of discourses: some give pain, others delight, others terrify, others rouse the hearers to courage, and yet others by a certain vile persuasion drug and trick the soul.

(15) It has been said that if she was persuaded by discourse, she did no wrong but rather was unfortunate; I proceed to the fourth cause in a fourth section. If it was love that brought all these things to pass, she escapes without difficulty from the blame for the sin alleged to have taken place. For the things we see do not have whatever nature we will, but rather that which befalls each. The soul receives an impression in its own ways through the sight.

(16) For example, whenever hostile bodies put on their bronze and iron war-gear of ward and defense against enemies, if the visual sense beholds this, it is troubled and it troubles the soul, so that often panic-stricken men flee future danger <as if it were> present. For the strong habitual force of law is banished because of the fear prompted by the sight, which makes one heedless both of what is judged by custom to be admirable, and of the good that comes about by victory.

(17) Some who have seen dreadful things have lost their presence of mind in the present time; thus fear extinguishes and drives out understanding. And many fall into useless troubles and terrible diseases and incurable dementias; thus sight engraves in the mind images of things seen. And the frightening ones, many of them, remain; and those that remain are just like things said.

(18) But truly whenever the painters perfectly complete one body and figure from many colors and bodies, they delight the sight; and the making of statues and production of figurines furnishes a pleasant sight to the eyes. Thus it is in the nature of the visual sense to long for some things and for other things to give it pain. And in many there is produced much love and desire for many things and bodies.

(19) Accordingly, if Helen's eye, taking pleasure in Alexander's body, transmitted to her soul the eagerness and struggle of Love, is it any wonder? If Love, <being> a god, <has> the divine power of gods, how could the weaker being have the power to reject this and to ward it off? But if it is a human disease and an error of the soul, it ought not to be blamed as a sin but ought rather to be accounted a misfortune. For she went, as she started out, in the clutches of fortune, not by plans of the mind; and by the constraints of love, not the preparations of art.

(20) How then is it necessary to regard as just the blame of Helen, who either passionately in love or persuaded by discourse or abducted by force or constrained by divine constraints did the things she did, escaping responsibility every way?

(21) By this discourse I have removed infamy from a woman; I have continued in the mode I established at the beginning. I tried to put an end to the injustice of blame and ignorance of opinion; I wanted to write the discourse, Helen's encomium and my plaything.





Brian Donovan's copyright notice

Translation ©1999 by Brian R. Donovan. This translation is offered by the translator (a Professor of English at Bemidji State University) for the free and unrestricted use of students, teachers, and scholars everywhere, consistent with academic integrity. The translation may be non-commercially reproduced in full in any format, provided that such reproduction includes this copyright notice. Quotations from this translation should be accompanied by due acknowledgment of their source. Commercial publishers wishing to make use of this translation should contact the translator.

Translator's Note

The source text is that of H. Diels and W. Kranz, eds., Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, 6th ed., vol. 2 (Berlin: Weidmann, 1952, rpt. Dublin 1966), as reproduced on the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae CD ROM #D (compilation ©1992 by the Regents of the University of California). Other available translations are those by George Kennedy, in Rosamond Kent Sprague (ed.) The Older Sophists (Columbia: U. of South Carolina P., 1972, rpt. 1990), and by Kathleen Freeman in her Ancilla to the Pre-Socratic Philosophers (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1948).

I have made no attempt here to reproduce or imitate the obtrusively artful and paronomastic style of the original, as Kennedy did; rather, my focus has been on reproducing literal meaning. Where the literal meaning of this translation differs from Kennedy's translation and/or Freeman's, I would suggest that all three versions represent valid optional interpretations.

Notable among my departures from the lead of Kennedy and Freeman are my division of the discourse into five Roman-numbered sections, and my fragmented rendition (in italics) of the first half of Arabic-numbered section 12. All but the last of the Roman-numbered sections are explicitly identified as distinct sections, in my view, by the original's use of the term logos, which in these instances I have translated "section"; and the last seems obviously enough a distinct peroration or coda. As to the first half of Arabic-numbered section 12, which Diels/Kranz aptly describes as "heillos verderbt," I have opted for the admittedly peculiar procedure of "translating" the unemended original mess, partly because Freeman and Kennedy had already gone the other way, translating from the emended Greek version suggested in the Diels/Kranz apparatus. This was thus the road less traveled.

Imitatios

Natassja Haynes
Due October 2, 2014
Imitatios

Judgment is for the repulsive

What is attractive to a community is commitment, to an individual independence, to a mind it's own meaning, to an endeavor effectiveness, to an audience acceptance. Women and men and boys and girls and the community should take responsibility where due—the antithesis of is repulsive.

It is the responsibility of an individual to not only accept those in our community but to embrace them. I say this when those who criticize others are within their full rights, in fact judgment is such a common occurrence that we often do not take notice. It is my duty to introduce to you a girl who has been often judged and expose you to her truths as well as society's.

Juliana is a person that hardly anybody knows. Yet everyone knows her story as her story reflects us all. Juliana has a family. She is a child like we have all once been. She attends school. She has a favorite stuffed animal. The factor that separates Juliana is that she has Down Syndrome.

Juliana's differences were made apparent since birth. A fact that has remained relevant to her for her life. She has educated many, and brought together people of all different backgrounds. Although these backgrounds were different, we came together because of our love for her and our willingness to accept.

The amount of times that the judgment of her character has come into account are countless. Whether overtly or secretly whispered.

For it is divine intervention that I met Juliana and I saw her struggles and was given a voice to speak them. Whether it is a life guard at a pool telling her that she cannot swim or en education system that constantly doubts her or the children that point and whisper to their mothers as their mothers shoo them away—the judgment and criticism is prominently there.

It is not Juliana's fault that she is judged. It's ours.

If it is our judgment that is Juliana's enemy; why can't we stop? Judgment is a powerful drug— one in which a person can administer and hide behind with ease. This judgment has been considered a helpful tool, it even makes people feel safer.

When making this argument I realize that it is important to acknowledge that I fully understand the other side of the issue. Who would I be if I had never judged anyone before? I will fully admit to using my judgment towards someone when I am feeling uncomfortable or unfamiliar. I still don't deny judgment being like a drug though. Something to hide behind, instead of abolishing and facing full on.

I have then by means of speech shown you the life of a little girl; I have observed and set up metaphor at the beginning of the speech and I have tried to end her injustice at the price of judgment. I wished to write a speech that would make Juliana and myself proud. Thank you.

Enargeia: shouting at someone?

The latest reading followed suit of the previous. Instead of talking about logos or ethos though this chapter discussed pathos. I feel like I actually had a good understanding of what pathos was before reading the chapter, so not too much wowed me. There was a section in-particular though that caught my attention. The section labeled: Enargeia. Enargeia is the act of rhetors imagining how their crowd will respond and how this fantasy may just lead to a reality. This is a really interesting device because, I feel like people do this all the time. Not in speeches necessarily but everyday life. When people are planning on talking to each other, especially when it is a tough topic, normally they will think about what they say and try to predict a reaction from somebody else. It is our way of trying to be respectful. I am glad this section also briefly touches on how this device doesn't always work. The text mentions how sometimes people protesting abortion or animal rights can go too far when playing to peoples emotions--saying the signs can be the equivalent of shouting in someones face. Which I agree is the truth. The interesting thing about playing to a crowds emotions is how the crowd may not be able to understand what is happening because emotions have a tendency to be less tangible than how ethically or logically sound something is.

logos

This week's reading was about ethos logos and pathos. More specifically logos and the sub sects of. It was interesting for me to read because although logic was involved it was not involved in the way I thought it would be. What I didn't think logic would be was facts and even thoughwe may not know those facts well or scientifically they were still considered facts.

Past present future

Last week the topic stasis was covered the week before kairos. Now is when the reading gets into some more theory instead of terminology. I try really hard to remember that even though our readings are split up, all of the topic are related and intertwined. Before I had mentioned that with a greater understanding of stasis, kairos could be more easily achieved.
This week the reading mainly discusses how topics of rhetoric were classified and how those are generally handled. The topics are normally split up into three categories: past, present and future. Although, those were given new terms: conjecture, degree and possibility. As rhetors it is important to discuss the classifications of the problems at hand. If that isn't known then the rhetors aren't seeing a problem for what it actually is.