"Thus every action must be due to one or other of seven causes: chance, nature, compulsion, habit, reasoning, anger, or appetite."Here Aristotle enumerates the seven causes to human actions and applies them to the forensic speaker's understanding of wrongdoing in context to the motives, its perpetrators, and its victims. He argues that chance, nature and compulsion are beyond our human control and therefor considered involuntary. In contrast habit, reasoning, anger and appetite are defined as voluntary acts and Aristotle later asserts that:"all actions due to ourselves either are or seem to be either good or pleasant." Although intuiteously anger doesn't seem to fit Aristotle's classification of voluntary acts as either being good or pleasant, he does isolate his definition of anger into a single context of revenge. Thus, anger with revenge creates satisfaction (good)in Aristotles perspective. I disagree with Aristotles premise that all voluntary motivations always implied as good or pleasant. He finds isolated logic in each of his voluntary motives for human action that portrays them in the intended light of being good or pleasant to that individual. In contrast to Aristotle I can find many examples of these voluntary motivations that would universally be viewed as bad or unpleasant for the individual. Take unjustified anger as an example of a motivation that we've seen as the basis to individuals engaging in self destructive behavior which would be perceived in a negative conotation by most.
In book 1 chapter 11 lines 12-27 Aristotle says “what is natural is pleasant, and things akin to each other seem natural to each other, therefore all kindred and similar things are usually pleasant to each other.” He goes on to say that people are most akin to themselves and therefor find themselves pleasant. He then makes an interesting point several lines later: “It is also pleasant to complete what is defective, for the whole thing thereupon becomes our own work.”
I like these ideas, especially as they relate to relationships with others. Aristotle is essentially saying that we like people who are like us and other people like people who are like them. If someone likes you, you are probably like them in some significant way. Likewise, if you like someone, they probably share certain character traits with you. The cool thing is that it is possible to change the types of people who like you by changing the people you like. This means subtly changing something about yourself. I think this is where completing defective things comes in. For instance admiring a historical person's traits can lead us to try to cultivate those traits in ourselves. This leads to more pleasant relationships because we become more like someone we admire. We are no longer defective and now people who admire that same person now admire us because we have become like that historic person. I think this kind of goes along with Miles' comment that sometimes our voluntary motivations conflict with our values. We then want to change because we want what we do to be pleasant - we must complete what is defective so we can like ourselves again.
"There are three things which inspire confidence in the orator's own character--the three, namely, that induce us to believe a thing apart from any proof of it: good sense, good moral character, and goodwill. False statements and bad advice are due to one or more of the following three causes. Men either form a false opinion through want of good sense; or they form a true opinion, but because of their moral badness do not say what they really think; or finally, they are both sensible and upright, but not well disposed to their hearers, and may fail in consequence to recommend what they know to be the best course."
This mouthful says to me that one must have a good sense of ethics to argue anything. It also makes me think of manipulation, the second of the false statements, and the class discussion on the fifth, which was last Friday. We were talking about how manipulation can be either good or bad, and someone said manipulation is only bad. This spurred me to think of football. I say this because a lot of football is about manipulation. With a play action pass, for example, you manipulate the defense to believe you're going to run the ball when you're really thinking pass. The opposite is true with a draw play; a run that is disguised to look like a pass. It is not just offense that manipulates, either. The defense has delayed blitzes, or they sometimes disguise their coverage scheme so the opposing quarterback does not whether they're in man or zone. Special teams can do the same; they can line up for a field goal and instead run the ball, or pass from a punt formation. This is good manipulation depending on which team you're rooting for, but it's all strategic and divisive to throw the opponent off balance.
The mouthful, or handful because I'm typing it out, also tells me how to prove to the audience of my speech that I am trustworthy. If I want the audience to believe me, I best prove I have good sense, that I have moral character, and that I have goodwill. If I prove the opposite, I'm going to get questioning looks on people's faces and they won't listen to me because I am proving that my speech is unethical and should not be listened to.
Com-301 Rhetorical Theory and Application By: Michael L Martin My quote comes from Book 1, Chapter 4. The main matters on which all men deliberate and on which political speakers make speeches are some five in number: ways and means, war and peace, national defense, imports and exports, and legislation. My quote comes from the ways and means section “For men become richer not only by increasing their wealth but also by reducing their expenditure”. I really do like this quote mainly because of the truth of the quote and because of the hard finical times we as a society are currently living in. I call this the opposite effect because in order for it to work to accomplish one thing you need to do the opposite from the other end. This is just how I see it. If our society wasn’t so bent on possessions and remembered history like this quote then maybe we would be better off. Wish full thinking I know; but it is what I believe.
The Rhetoric and the Poetics of Aristotle Book 1, Chapter 2
“Persuasion is achieved by the speaker’s personal character when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him credible. We believe good men more fully and more readily than others: . . .” “It is not true, as some writers assume in their treatises on rhetoric, that the personal goodness revealed by the speaker contributes nothing to his power of persuasion; on the contrary, his character may almost be called the most effective means of persuasion he possesses.”
I like this quote because I believe it is true even to our own demise. The speaker only has “to make us think him credible” in order to have the power to persuade. We may think the speaker is credible because of our perceived judgment of his character. But what we fail to acknowledge is our own lack of or faulty character from hence we make judgments. The speaker only needs to appeal to our character to seem credible and therefore have the power to persuade us. I would like to think of myself as possessing good character therefore a good judge of character, but isn’t that what we all think of our self. If in all honesty my character is lacking and I am not aware, then I am an easy target of persuasion by a speaker of (perceived) good character. It takes a man of upmost character to persuade those of good character, but a well spoken man with perceived good character can persuade anyone. The one who thinks himself to be less than or below another will be easily persuaded by the one who is held in high esteem. This person may or may not have good character but what matters is his character in relation to the listener.
“We believe good men more fully and more readily than others:” Each of us have our own definition of “good” and therefore will believe the speaker who fits into our perceived category of goodness. The danger we have as humans is we enjoy surrounding ourselves with people who are like us and who have similar values. This becomes our “goodness” and may in fact be lacking in what is considered by others to be “good”. As long as we remain with those who are like us, our perceptions of “good” will not be challenged, and this could be to our own demise. Nonetheless, a person’s perceived character is the most effective means of persuasion.
Good and evil can they exist together? "All this being settled, we now see that both the acquisition of good things and the removal of bad things must be good; the latter entails freedom from the evil things simultaneously, while the former entails posession of the good things subsequently." So what i understand is that when you get rid of bad that make things better an that exact moment. but to get the good something must happen first. I know that good and bad exist in all of us but what is unclear to me is if I stop doing something bad (lets say beating dogs) does that really make me a better person because it is replaced with good (not beating dogs). I mau still be very bad because now I kill cats. the bad must be replaced with good it cant just happen. there needs to be a conscience effort to refrain from the bad and engage in the good.I can understand that some things happen simultaneously and others subsequently. like he refers to eating healthy produces health this is subsequent. but I do not see the connection with good and evil am i misunderstanding this? someone HEKO please.
Aristotle, in his book “the Rhetoric and the Poetics of Aristotle” names three different trinities of speech; forensic, ceremonial, and political. He further breaks down and defines each of the trinities. The definition of forensic speech is a speech that uses justice and injustice of persuasion of facts that transpired in the past. The way he defines the ceremonial type of speech is the praising of present values. The third type of speech that he refers to is the political speech which involves expediency of action policy in the future. The quote I chose to represent is: “Or that justice is like silver, and must be assayed by the judges, if the genuine is to be distinguished from the counterfeit (Aristotle Book II, Chapter14, p83-84, 1375:5-7).”
Firstly, I think that this quote falls into two different aspects of the trinity. When I first read this passage, I felt that it may belong to the area of forensic speech as it tends to pertain to the facts held by justice and injustice. If justice is like silver, than its truth is a rare commodity sought after by many, and the appraisal of such a commodity needs to be assessed by those who have an authority/experience to do so. So, if the accountability is to be distinguished from that which is counterfeit, then those whom are experienced need to pay particular observation to what has been (past) defined and interpreted in order to differentiate between that which is truth and that which is not.
After analyzing this passage a second time, I felt that this quote may fall into the area of speech Aristotle refers to as political, as it appears to also ask for expediency of future actions in the determination of fact and fiction.
“The worse of two acts of wrong done to others is that which is prompted by the worse disposition. Hence the most trifling acts may be the worst ones…”
Aristotle here is effectively saying “intention means everything.” Between two acts, the one with the most malice or lack of concern for the affected party is much worse than a greater wrong done unintentionally or even with the best of intentions. The old saying goes “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”, but Aristotle disagrees with this (as do I). To suggest that wrongs done for reasons beyond malice or disgust are all equally as heinous or cruel makes no sense – while some may argue that ignorance is no excuse, there is always the exception.
Accidentally stealing the last piece of cake that someone wanted, for example, isn’t some horrible crime. While it might be a disappointment to the person, it can be easily remedied through various acts of make-up – potentially even a better cake! However, were that cake taken in malice, there would be no chance for make-up even offered – the disappointment was intentionally brought about by the negative disposition; it was intentionally made real through an act of disgust for the victim. To suggest that the two situations are both equally horrible is a fallacy, as while they may be similar, they are not the same. The difference between manslaughter and murder in the legal system is intent. If we are capable of seeing different levels of killing, then why not different levels in significantly lesser slights?
"Likewise, that which is produced by a greater good itself is a greater good; thus, if what is wholesome is more desirable and a greater good than pleasure. Again, a thing which is desirable in itself is a greater good than a thing which is not desirable in itself, as for example bodily strength than what is wholesome, since the latter is not pursued for its own sake, whereas the former is; and this was our definition of good." This quote from Book One Chapter Seven, was a bit confusing to me at first, but after reading it over and over again, I am able to understand that it is talking about how everything that is perceived as being greater than something, must have something that is similar to it. I really liked another example from this chapter than explains how two things being compared to each other to determine which on is greater, must each be the greatest thing from each of the categories being compared. "Thus, if the tallest man is taller than the tallest women, then men in general are taller than women." Although this statement is pretty accurate, this makes me think about all the people in the world and how everyone's height differs. I'm a taller than the average girl, but around the same height as the average boy. These quotes really make me think about everything that gets compared together, and how there are so many more possibilities to look at than just what you think is normal.
One of the best ways to prove a point and get emotion evolves to help sway your argument is to use pathos. Book 2; Chapter 2, “The emotions are all those feelings that change men as to affect their judgements, and that are so attended by pain or pleasure. Such are anger, pity, fear and the like, with the opposites.” (P.91-2, line 20) I like this quote because there are many things involved with causing the right situation to make the use of pathos effectively. Fist the audience must already be knowledgeable on the topic and have a side to which they lean. Let’s say there are two teams one loggers, and the other hippy protesters. You could start on the logger’s side saying we need to cut to have wood to build houses. The protesters would argue that the loggers are “destroying the forest.” The protesters only have to make the statement that gives an example of what the opponent is doing and why that’s really bad. But you could be on the other side of the argument saying that the wood from the logging company is donating the wood and the protesters look bad. You also must know what state of mind that the person(s) is in, that your are communicating with. Things like greed get in the way of peoples decisions, thus the birth of manipulation. Knowing the type of people that will show more emotion, also how; and what sparks their emotions the most. It all circles back to audience. Because if your audience knows nothing about logging, it would be easy to get your audience to hate timber companies.
"These, then, are the frames of mind in which men are easily stirred to anger. The person with whom we get angry are those who laugh, mock or jeer at us, for such conduct is insolent. Also those who inflict injuries upon us that are marks of insolence." (Book 2, Chapter 2; pg 95) Aristotle, clearly, spends much time deliberating on how to properly define and justify the emotions that he outlines. He defines anger as "an impulse accompanied by pain," (Book 2, Chapter 2; pg 92) Aristotle seems to define anger as an uncontrollable emotion. He says that man finds himself in situations where others are in control of others emotions. By "in control" what I mean is that with actions such as mocking or jeering, a perpetraitor is actually responsible for the emotions of anger because they are the ones that evoked that anger. However, what I believe to be true is that a man who has never experienced being mocked will not react the same angry way that a man who has been tormented his entire life would react. My point is that it is not the perpetraitor who is responsible for evoking angry emotions. It is the history that one carries with them that makes them prediposed to anger. Each man, regardless of history, is responsible for their own anger. It is not up to society to ensure that everyone steps lighly around those who have been hurt. It would be nice if we lived in a world where people were that concerned but unfortunatley we do not.
Aristotle Book 2 "Things that cause friendship are: doing kindnesses; doing them unasked; and proclaiming the fact when they are done, which shows that they were done for our sake and not for other reasons."
Friendship is in doing a kindness in standing by a friend in poverty or in hardship. You don't have to help very much. The kindness is measured by the amount of help you are in the friendship. It is no act of kindness if you return a favor. It is not a kindness if what you did was by accident or if it was forced upon you. Just being there with them is a kindness. The fact you could do a kindness for a friend without anything in return is friendship in its self. Just by being a friend the true kindness is being there by the other person. Kindness is not for the person who was doing the helping but the one who was helped. Kindness is something that is needed when a friend needs help but doesn't have the responsibility of repaying it at a later date. A friend shouldn't have to be asked to help out a friend in need. Friendships are deepened by doing acts of kindness when doing them unasked. When a friend does something for a friend she doesn't need a reward. A friend does something for a friend because it is needed. Friends need no other reasons to do something for a friend. Friends do things out of loyalty for one another. Friends do things out of sincerity for one another.
Post 6: Mike Martin My post for this week comes from Book 2, talking about the charter of youth. Their lives are mainly spent not in memory but in expectation; for expectation refers to the future, memory to the past, and youth has a long future before it and a short past behind it. I think this is a great look at youth and this phrase can be applied to today’s youth. I think many young people look to the future more so then they do to the past. They see the past as old news for them and many young people cannot see the experience from the past to help them in the future. There are two reasons why I believe this; first is because in my opinion they do not have much experience to draw from. The second reason is because they live in a fast passed life. Technology today grants them instant access to information, and if they don’t have that instant access they almost cannot function. This is a problem that our youth will have to overcome. They will need to learn patients in order to see thing differently for the future. Again I think this is a very good look at our youth. The phase has stood the test of time because I’m sure it can be applied to all youth no matter when applied.
14 comments:
"Thus every action must be due to one or other of seven causes: chance, nature, compulsion, habit, reasoning, anger, or appetite."Here Aristotle enumerates the seven causes to human actions and applies them to the forensic speaker's understanding of wrongdoing in context to the motives, its perpetrators, and its victims. He argues that chance, nature and compulsion are beyond our human control and therefor considered involuntary. In contrast habit, reasoning, anger and appetite are defined as voluntary acts and Aristotle later asserts that:"all actions due to ourselves either are or seem to be either good or pleasant."
Although intuiteously anger doesn't seem to fit Aristotle's classification of voluntary acts as either being good or pleasant, he does isolate his definition of anger into a single context of revenge. Thus, anger with revenge creates satisfaction (good)in Aristotles perspective.
I disagree with Aristotles premise that all voluntary motivations always implied as good or pleasant. He finds isolated logic in each of his voluntary motives for human action that portrays them in the intended light of being good or pleasant to that individual. In contrast to Aristotle I can find many examples of these voluntary motivations that would universally be viewed as bad or unpleasant for the individual. Take unjustified anger as an example of a motivation that we've seen as the basis to individuals engaging in self destructive behavior which would be perceived in a negative conotation by most.
In book 1 chapter 11 lines 12-27 Aristotle says “what is natural is pleasant, and things akin to each other seem natural to each other, therefore all kindred and similar things are usually pleasant to each other.” He goes on to say that people are most akin to themselves and therefor find themselves pleasant. He then makes an interesting point several lines later: “It is also pleasant to complete what is defective, for the whole thing thereupon becomes our own work.”
I like these ideas, especially as they relate to relationships with others. Aristotle is essentially saying that we like people who are like us and other people like people who are like them. If someone likes you, you are probably like them in some significant way. Likewise, if you like someone, they probably share certain character traits with you. The cool thing is that it is possible to change the types of people who like you by changing the people you like. This means subtly changing something about yourself. I think this is where completing defective things comes in. For instance admiring a historical person's traits can lead us to try to cultivate those traits in ourselves. This leads to more pleasant relationships because we become more like someone we admire. We are no longer defective and now people who admire that same person now admire us because we have become like that historic person. I think this kind of goes along with Miles' comment that sometimes our voluntary motivations conflict with our values. We then want to change because we want what we do to be pleasant - we must complete what is defective so we can like ourselves again.
"There are three things which inspire confidence in the orator's own character--the three, namely, that induce us to believe a thing apart from any proof of it: good sense, good moral character, and goodwill. False statements and bad advice are due to one or more of the following three causes. Men either form a false opinion through want of good sense; or they form a true opinion, but because of their moral badness do not say what they really think; or finally, they are both sensible and upright, but not well disposed to their hearers, and may fail in consequence to recommend what they know to be the best course."
This mouthful says to me that one must have a good sense of ethics to argue anything. It also makes me think of manipulation, the second of the false statements, and the class discussion on the fifth, which was last Friday. We were talking about how manipulation can be either good or bad, and someone said manipulation is only bad. This spurred me to think of football. I say this because a lot of football is about manipulation. With a play action pass, for example, you manipulate the defense to believe you're going to run the ball when you're really thinking pass. The opposite is true with a draw play; a run that is disguised to look like a pass. It is not just offense that manipulates, either. The defense has delayed blitzes, or they sometimes disguise their coverage scheme so the opposing quarterback does not whether they're in man or zone. Special teams can do the same; they can line up for a field goal and instead run the ball, or pass from a punt formation. This is good manipulation depending on which team you're rooting for, but it's all strategic and divisive to throw the opponent off balance.
The mouthful, or handful because I'm typing it out, also tells me how to prove to the audience of my speech that I am trustworthy. If I want the audience to believe me, I best prove I have good sense, that I have moral character, and that I have goodwill. If I prove the opposite, I'm going to get questioning looks on people's faces and they won't listen to me because I am proving that my speech is unethical and should not be listened to.
Com-301 Rhetorical Theory and Application
By: Michael L Martin
My quote comes from Book 1, Chapter 4.
The main matters on which all men deliberate and on which political speakers make speeches are some five in number: ways and means, war and peace, national defense, imports and exports, and legislation. My quote comes from the ways and means section “For men become richer not only by increasing their wealth but also by reducing their expenditure”.
I really do like this quote mainly because of the truth of the quote and because of the hard finical times we as a society are currently living in. I call this the opposite effect because in order for it to work to accomplish one thing you need to do the opposite from the other end. This is just how I see it. If our society wasn’t so bent on possessions and remembered history like this quote then maybe we would be better off. Wish full thinking I know; but it is what I believe.
The Rhetoric and the Poetics of Aristotle
Book 1, Chapter 2
“Persuasion is achieved by the speaker’s personal character when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him credible. We believe good men more fully and more readily than others: . . .”
“It is not true, as some writers assume in their treatises on rhetoric, that the personal goodness revealed by the speaker contributes nothing to his power of persuasion; on the contrary, his character may almost be called the most effective means of persuasion he possesses.”
I like this quote because I believe it is true even to our own demise. The speaker only has “to make us think him credible” in order to have the power to persuade. We may think the speaker is credible because of our perceived judgment of his character. But what we fail to acknowledge is our own lack of or faulty character from hence we make judgments. The speaker only needs to appeal to our character to seem credible and therefore have the power to persuade us. I would like to think of myself as possessing good character therefore a good judge of character, but isn’t that what we all think of our self. If in all honesty my character is lacking and I am not aware, then I am an easy target of persuasion by a speaker of (perceived) good character. It takes a man of upmost character to persuade those of good character, but a well spoken man with perceived good character can persuade anyone. The one who thinks himself to be less than or below another will be easily persuaded by the one who is held in high esteem. This person may or may not have good character but what matters is his character in relation to the listener.
“We believe good men more fully and more readily than others:” Each of us have our own definition of “good” and therefore will believe the speaker who fits into our perceived category of goodness. The danger we have as humans is we enjoy surrounding ourselves with people who are like us and who have similar values. This becomes our “goodness” and may in fact be lacking in what is considered by others to be “good”. As long as we remain with those who are like us, our perceptions of “good” will not be challenged, and this could be to our own demise. Nonetheless, a person’s perceived character is the most effective means of persuasion.
Good and evil can they exist together? "All this being settled, we now see that both the acquisition of good things and the removal of bad things must be good; the latter entails freedom from the evil things simultaneously, while the former entails posession of the good things subsequently." So what i understand is that when you get rid of bad that make things better an that exact moment. but to get the good something must happen first. I know that good and bad exist in all of us but what is unclear to me is if I stop doing something bad (lets say beating dogs) does that really make me a better person because it is replaced with good (not beating dogs). I mau still be very bad because now I kill cats. the bad must be replaced with good it cant just happen. there needs to be a conscience effort to refrain from the bad and engage in the good.I can understand that some things happen simultaneously and others subsequently. like he refers to eating healthy produces health this is subsequent. but I do not see the connection with good and evil am i misunderstanding this? someone HEKO please.
Aristotle, in his book “the Rhetoric and the Poetics of Aristotle” names three different trinities of speech; forensic, ceremonial, and political. He further breaks down and defines each of the trinities. The definition of forensic speech is a speech that uses justice and injustice of persuasion of facts that transpired in the past. The way he defines the ceremonial type of speech is the praising of present values. The third type of speech that he refers to is the political speech which involves expediency of action policy in the future. The quote I chose to represent is: “Or that justice is like silver, and must be assayed by the judges, if the genuine is to be distinguished from the counterfeit (Aristotle Book II, Chapter14, p83-84, 1375:5-7).”
Firstly, I think that this quote falls into two different aspects of the trinity. When I first read this passage, I felt that it may belong to the area of forensic speech as it tends to pertain to the facts held by justice and injustice. If justice is like silver, than its truth is a rare commodity sought after by many, and the appraisal of such a commodity needs to be assessed by those who have an authority/experience to do so. So, if the accountability is to be distinguished from that which is counterfeit, then those whom are experienced need to pay particular observation to what has been (past) defined and interpreted in order to differentiate between that which is truth and that which is not.
After analyzing this passage a second time, I felt that this quote may fall into the area of speech Aristotle refers to as political, as it appears to also ask for expediency of future actions in the determination of fact and fiction.
“The worse of two acts of wrong done to others is that which is prompted by the worse disposition. Hence the most trifling acts may be the worst ones…”
Aristotle here is effectively saying “intention means everything.” Between two acts, the one with the most malice or lack of concern for the affected party is much worse than a greater wrong done unintentionally or even with the best of intentions. The old saying goes “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”, but Aristotle disagrees with this (as do I). To suggest that wrongs done for reasons beyond malice or disgust are all equally as heinous or cruel makes no sense – while some may argue that ignorance is no excuse, there is always the exception.
Accidentally stealing the last piece of cake that someone wanted, for example, isn’t some horrible crime. While it might be a disappointment to the person, it can be easily remedied through various acts of make-up – potentially even a better cake! However, were that cake taken in malice, there would be no chance for make-up even offered – the disappointment was intentionally brought about by the negative disposition; it was intentionally made real through an act of disgust for the victim. To suggest that the two situations are both equally horrible is a fallacy, as while they may be similar, they are not the same. The difference between manslaughter and murder in the legal system is intent. If we are capable of seeing different levels of killing, then why not different levels in significantly lesser slights?
(Added to last post)
Quote from the start of Book 1, Chapter 14, Pg. 81.
"Likewise, that which is produced by a greater good itself is a greater good; thus, if what is wholesome is more desirable and a greater good than pleasure. Again, a thing which is desirable in itself is a greater good than a thing which is not desirable in itself, as for example bodily strength than what is wholesome, since the latter is not pursued for its own sake, whereas the former is; and this was our definition of good." This quote from Book One Chapter Seven, was a bit confusing to me at first, but after reading it over and over again, I am able to understand that it is talking about how everything that is perceived as being greater than something, must have something that is similar to it. I really liked another example from this chapter than explains how two things being compared to each other to determine which on is greater, must each be the greatest thing from each of the categories being compared. "Thus, if the tallest man is taller than the tallest women, then men in general are taller than women." Although this statement is pretty accurate, this makes me think about all the people in the world and how everyone's height differs. I'm a taller than the average girl, but around the same height as the average boy. These quotes really make me think about everything that gets compared together, and how there are so many more possibilities to look at than just what you think is normal.
One of the best ways to prove a point and get emotion evolves to help sway your argument is to use pathos. Book 2; Chapter 2, “The emotions are all those feelings that change men as to affect their judgements, and that are so attended by pain or pleasure. Such are anger, pity, fear and the like, with the opposites.” (P.91-2, line 20)
I like this quote because there are many things involved with causing the right situation to make the use of pathos effectively. Fist the audience must already be knowledgeable on the topic and have a side to which they lean. Let’s say there are two teams one loggers, and the other hippy protesters. You could start on the logger’s side saying we need to cut to have wood to build houses. The protesters would argue that the loggers are “destroying the forest.” The protesters only have to make the statement that gives an example of what the opponent is doing and why that’s really bad. But you could be on the other side of the argument saying that the wood from the logging company is donating the wood and the protesters look bad.
You also must know what state of mind that the person(s) is in, that your are communicating with. Things like greed get in the way of peoples decisions, thus the birth of manipulation. Knowing the type of people that will show more emotion, also how; and what sparks their emotions the most. It all circles back to audience. Because if your audience knows nothing about logging, it would be easy to get your audience to hate timber companies.
"These, then, are the frames of mind in which men are easily stirred to anger. The person with whom we get angry are those who laugh, mock or jeer at us, for such conduct is insolent. Also those who inflict injuries upon us that are marks of insolence." (Book 2, Chapter 2; pg 95) Aristotle, clearly, spends much time deliberating on how to properly define and justify the emotions that he outlines. He defines anger as "an impulse accompanied by pain," (Book 2, Chapter 2; pg 92)
Aristotle seems to define anger as an uncontrollable emotion. He says that man finds himself in situations where others are in control of others emotions. By "in control" what I mean is that with actions such as mocking or jeering, a perpetraitor is actually responsible for the emotions of anger because they are the ones that evoked that anger. However, what I believe to be true is that a man who has never experienced being mocked will not react the same angry way that a man who has been tormented his entire life would react. My point is that it is not the perpetraitor who is responsible for evoking angry emotions. It is the history that one carries with them that makes them prediposed to anger. Each man, regardless of history, is responsible for their own anger. It is not up to society to ensure that everyone steps lighly around those who have been hurt. It would be nice if we lived in a world where people were that concerned but unfortunatley we do not.
Aristotle Book 2
"Things that cause friendship are: doing kindnesses; doing them unasked; and proclaiming the fact when they are done, which shows that they were done for our sake and not for other reasons."
Friendship is in doing a kindness in standing by a friend in poverty or in hardship. You don't have to help very much. The kindness is measured by the amount of help you are in the friendship. It is no act of kindness if you return a favor. It is not a kindness if what you did was by accident or if it was forced upon you. Just being there with them is a kindness. The fact you could do a kindness for a friend without anything in return is friendship in its self. Just by being a friend the true kindness is being there by the other person. Kindness is not for the person who was doing the helping but the one who was helped. Kindness is something that is needed when a friend needs help but doesn't have the responsibility of repaying it at a later date. A friend shouldn't have to be asked to help out a friend in need. Friendships are deepened by doing acts of kindness when doing them unasked. When a friend does something for a friend she doesn't need a reward. A friend does something for a friend because it is needed. Friends need no other reasons to do something for a friend. Friends do things out of loyalty for one another. Friends do things out of sincerity for one another.
Post 6: Mike Martin
My post for this week comes from Book 2, talking about the charter of youth. Their lives are mainly spent not in memory but in expectation; for expectation refers to the future, memory to the past, and youth has a long future before it and a short past behind it.
I think this is a great look at youth and this phrase can be applied to today’s youth. I think many young people look to the future more so then they do to the past. They see the past as old news for them and many young people cannot see the experience from the past to help them in the future. There are two reasons why I believe this; first is because in my opinion they do not have much experience to draw from. The second reason is because they live in a fast passed life. Technology today grants them instant access to information, and if they don’t have that instant access they almost cannot function.
This is a problem that our youth will have to overcome. They will need to learn patients in order to see thing differently for the future. Again I think this is a very good look at our youth. The phase has stood the test of time because I’m sure it can be applied to all youth no matter when applied.
Post a Comment