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.

Stasis in life

The third chapter in the readings is all about the term stasis. Stasis: agreeing to disagree. I had never realized before how important this was when it came to Rhetoric. My understanding of rhetoric so far was that it was always about finding solutions to problems. I now realize it is more about the process for finding those solutions. Last chapter discussed timing and when certain topics should be talked about according to relevance. When applying both kairos and stasis, I realize how subtle of an art this is.
It is funny how school work can apply to everyday life because just before I had read the chapter my best friend and I were talking. We ended up talking about feminism for an hour. I am a feminist and she is not. We both listened to what we had to say and could agree that we would never see eye to eye on the matter. Yet the process of us talking about how we couldn't agree was what was important. Now I know how she feels about these issues and I can apply kairos in everyday life around her more carefully.

Game of Thrones and Kairos?

 How the Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students text is written reminds me of how my dad speaks. He is a lawyer, so when he talks he makes sure to cover every angle of a topic, no matter if it is necessary. In terms of the text—every angle is very thoroughly discussed, much like how I'd imagine a rhetor to talk or for that matter my dad. Side note: I am really loving the use female pronouns in this text—the only other textbook that I have read that uses female pronouns was another textbook written by women about sociology.
Context-wise: chapter two discusses the rhetoric device Kairos. Kairos is used to describe how important timing can be for any rhetor. The topic of discussion was a little dense for me so the best way for me to learn what the text was talking about was to translate what Kairos meant into the Game of Thrones universe (spoilers).
In the HBO series, Game of Thrones there are many plots and subplots to follow. One of the main plots that every character seems to ignore is the huge herd of Whitewalkers (snow zombies for those of you unfamiliar with the show) on the other side of the Wall (think Great Wall of China) threatening to break-through and kill the population on the other-side. All of the characters ignore this because it is not relevant to them—they cannot see the potential harm that these Whitewalkers can inflict on them. Once the Whitewalkers actually break though the Wall it will become relevant and people will then discuss the issue at hand. Meanwhile, characters are more busy discussing and fixing issues that are more relevant—this is essentially what Kairos is. Instead of discussing things that will be problems or have always been problems—Kairos is discussing topics that are problems right now. Relevant problems in the Game of thrones universe may be the fact that Kingslanding is broke or that someone just assassinated the king.

So what does Kairos mean to us now? How can we use this device? Well, we first have to keep up on what is relevant in culture. I used Game of Thrones to describe Kairos. In my description, I was actually using the Kairos device because Game of Thrones is a relevant show. After finding the relevant topic, we can then write or speak about it knowing that our audience is interested in the topic.

-Natassja Haynes