This chapter provides an overview of the interrelationship between rhetoric and philosophy, introducing its impact on the aspect of constructed social significance.
Furthermore, extensive research on rhetoric includes ethos, logos, and pathos, which form part of the primary frameworks, all of which, given their distinct features, are assumed to be the basis for creating persuasive rhetoric. Ethos is concerned with the credibility of the speaker, logos is a rational appeal, and pathos refers to the emotions of the audience.
These are the three variables discussed further in the following section.
The Reflection of Philosophy in Rhetoric
The use of special features in rhetoric shows a clear connection between philosophy and rhetoric while revealing universal truths. The form of the episteme, as a means to illustrate or communicate an idea, is prevalent in all contexts. It is shaped by the cultural or historical context and becomes the overarching guideline when expressing one‘s own thoughts and behavior whereby one develops one‘s own rhetorical manipulation of the language. Rhetoric is normally used in formal situations. On the other hand, philosophy is seen both as episteme and as rational knowledge, while proving real, actual content
15
(Grassi & Azodi, 1976). The interworking between philosophy and rhetoric is demonstrated in Figure 1, as outlined by Delaplante (2010).
Figure 1 Philosophy and Rhetoric in Argumentation (Delaplante, 2010)
Descriptions of what philosophy does, and how it affects society through the use of rhetoric as a contributing factor in the coherence of body and mind, can further be
illustrated as subsumed comparatively from just two points of view. In a broad sense, while discussing the four cardinal virtues, Hurley-Hanson and Giannantonio (2013)argued that approximately half of what distinguishes entrepreneurs with a measure of success from those who are unsuccessful is total persistence.The outlook for core values and principles of conduct is the most practical understanding of philosophy and is typically reflected in rhetoric. It dynamically meshes perfectly with one‘s biophysical context, such as that of one‘s own nation, the absorption of cultures and the infrastructure of society, or even of political preference.The overall extent of its impact on this concern tends to focus on the
16
broader exterior in terms of the conditions described above. As such, the ideas of what philosophy entails and how it affects the way we perceive the world through the use of rhetoric are found in commonly-seen slogans, proverbs, maxims and even run-on political campaigns on TV. Plebel and De La Cruz (2015) asserted that the notion that language shapes people‘s ability to think has historically been viewed favorably at different levels in the fields of linguistics and philosophy. In education, language features are used to emphasize a certain value, such as the virtue of integrity. In business, the sovereignty of consumers is a concept that successful business enterprises put on a pedestal, and more than anything else, it becomes the universal motto of directness embraced by entrepreneurs. Of course, a person who seeks a way out of an emotional predicament or turmoil and takes comfort in religion would find philosophical benefit in the inspiration found in sacred texts, such as the Bible or the Koran, since these texts are also an assemblage of ancient wisdom manifested by means of proverbs, dictums, and so on. As Jobs (2005) put it, ―You have to trust in something—your gut, destiny, life, karma, whatever.‖ These terms are also very closely connected to religion and thus reveal something of Jobs‘ religious influences.
In a rather specific or narrow sense, the effect of philosophy on mentality, as attributed to the use of rhetoric, emphatically urges that the exclusive and internal assimilation of life experiences (i.e., needs, desires, and wants) associated with some
17
ideology (i.e., a synthesis of certain ideas) could conceivably contribute to some certain type of persona, ethical perspective and rule-based assessment aligned with behavioral models. This was supported by Scott, who stated that ―rhetoric is not far removed from but naturally runs deep in human experiences‖ (Scott, 1973, cited in Druschke &
McGreavy, 2016).
These examples of language use reflect personal traits and ideologies that correspond to a particular pattern of behavior. These features are typically perceived and distinguished in the assessments of behavioral models that depict egocentrism, altruism,
entrepreneurship, and so on, thereby reflecting the identities of the subjects, signifying that each person assumes a unique external nature and identity. The entrepreneurialism of Steve Jobs should not be seen as a mere invention. The best way to comprehend Steve Jobs is through philosophical practices, such as existentialism embodied in the spirit of close your eyes, hold your breath and jump in (Wolcott, 2015).On a more practical level, the guiding wisdom that underpins the mind of philosophy through the craft of rhetoric reveals that ‗the
rhetoric captures the public‘s attention by focusing on context and establishing approaches enhances the participants‘ ability to create ‗words that work‘ by connecting with audiences
through a true understanding and respect for their values‘ (Druschke & McGreavy, 2016).
Of the same factors above, some become the True North, leading the way as a moral
18
compass, or an epigrammatic convincer, as in the example of the proverb ‗never judge a book by its cover‘, which reminds us to get to know a person before making a character
judgment. Others become the Canon or rule, so that if the purpose calls for an absolute belief, then despite any confusion or chaotic circumstances the action must run its course to the bitter end. This can be seen in the use of the old adage ‗honesty is the best policy,‘ which can have disastrous effects when extenuating circumstances have not been taken into
consideration.
The rational process of leading, guiding and governing, as depicted in the meaning of arche and its verb archomai, is essential to keep in mind (Grassi & Azodi, 1976). This syllogism is needed in deducting the truth and stems from epagein (―knowledge‖ in Latin).
Furthermore, since chaos inadvertently repeats itself, from time to time, even with the assistance of our knowledge, chaos cannot be completely resolved, and its common occurrence leads to another question- ‗What then, was the status of mankind before the Muses came along?‘, as indicated by Grassi and Azodi (1976). That is, ―As Plato spoke of it, what the Muses had brought men and why those who devoted themselves to them forgot
everything in favor of musical activities; the chaos was overcome, order was created, a cosmos appeared‖ (cited in Grassi & Azodi 1976, p. 213).
Simply put, great ideas without a touch of rhetoric are nothing more than sketching ‗a
19
pie in the sky‘ so that the craft of rhetoric without philosophy is much more than an empty vessel devoid of meaning. Ideas are full of power; however, without words, they are manacled. It follows, then, thatideas are to the philosopher what feet are to the runner.
That is, what use are they if they are incapable of running, or as it were, spreading, as Jarod Kintz put it (McCann, 2014). Great ideas, like philosophy, from different eras, make their way across multicultural boundaries; they stand as an epic heritage full of human wisdom for thousands of years. So also does the art of rhetoric. Rhetoric provides a formal function, while philosophy, whether episteme or rational knowledge, gives natural,
accurate content (Grassi & Azodi, 1976).
That unique collaboration between philosophy and rhetoric could be as effective as a way to reflect the aim, specifically if it is used either to persuade or to motivate and encourage. As Aristotle states, the construct of rhetorical power refers to the ability to see the possible means of persuasion, which is accessible in every circumstance. Rhetoric is thus somewhat similar to the conditions in which we exist (Druschke & McGreavy, 2016).
What matters most of all is its delivery of philosophy, in which the art of rhetoric provides the very basis for better communication with each other. What follows from this also explains how rhetoric is the manner in which we construct an understanding of one another in our lives (Bender & Wellbery, 1990, cited in Druschke & McGreavy, 2016). Figure 2
20
displays ―The Argumentation for Good Reasons‖ outlined by Delaplante (2010).
Figure 2 the Argumentation for Good Reasons (Delaplante, 2010)
The Rhetorical Triangle-Modes of Persuasion.
Hardly anyone lives their whole life completely off the social network grid. We need
speeches to express ourselves, to voice our thoughts, just as philosophy entails rhetoric to deliver good ideas in order to affect others. Interpersonal skills affect one‘s behavior for using language appropriately to express one‘s thoughts and perspectives in an attempt to
foster and enhance relationships with others (Nan & Liu, 2013). The Oxford English dictionary defines rhetoric as ―The art of persuasive speaking/writing.‖
(https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/rhetoric?q=rhetoric) The Cambridge English dictionary defines rhetoric as ―speech or writing intended to be effective in influencing the general public.‖
21
(https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/rhetoric). The conceptual linkage between these two points clearly leads to the theoretical model of Aristotle‘s ―The Rhetorical Triangle.‖
This theoretical work combines the three primal elements: ethos, logos and pathos.
These elements are used to construct the meaning of contexts and the substantial body of The Rhetorical Triangle/Modes of Persuasion. Each of them accounts for ethical appeals, and concerns a few synchronized responses between the speaker/writer and the audience, if they are considered in these three respects, respectively, and with each other. While designating them as a theoretical structure, its primary aim is to make the distribution of
information more appealing and accessible to audiences if it is adroitly exploited as a tactic.
All of The Rhetorical Triangle‘s directions and suggestions help organize one‘s own
thoughts so that one can then clearly present himself/herself in a persuasive manner. In making the best use of this device, or tactics as the case may be, it empowers one‘s personal
opinions to be clearly recognized and broadly accepted by the audience at the time of the delivery of one‘s discussion or statements. Despite realizing all of the merits it provides,
considering it to provide one with the capacity to be truly and completely sophisticated in one‘s persuasive abilities seems to be a little far-fetched. However, understanding the
Rhetorical Triangle creates a whole new outlook for extending another‘s horizons from
22
those who seek to speak/write effectively and cogently, whereas experienced wordsmiths are truly versed in every accessible means of persuasiveness. The guidelines or instructions of the Rhetorical Triangle are clearly followed by three primary objectives. These
congenial indications are, as they are to be understood by the one who is to converse, to define the theme to be articulated and the expression of one‘s alternative as adaptable and
preferable. Historically speaking, speeches and the power of words have revolutionized the world. This is evident in Aristotle‘s three modes of persuasion: logos, pathos and ethos
(Fritsch, 2012, cited in Mueller, 2013). The examples provided below are historical comparisons of Aristotle and Cicero‘s definition of persuasive rhetoric, as stated in
Rubinelli (2009).
―Aristotle on Modes of Persuasion
Of the modes of persuasion furnished by the spoken word there are three kinds. The first kind depends on the personal character of the speaker [ethos]; the second on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind [pathos]; the third on the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself [logos].(Aristotle, Rhetoric, 4th century BC)‖
―Cicero on Modes of Persuasion
Cicero explains that the art of speaking relies wholly on three means of persuasion: to be able to prove opinions, to win the audiences‟ favor, and finally to rouse their feelings according to the motivation which the case requires: The method employed in the art of oratory, then, relies entirely upon three means of persuasion: proving that our
contentions are true…, winning over our audience…, and inducing their minds to feel any emotion the case may demand. (De Oratore 2, 115)‖
The Aristotelian fatherhood of the proportion Cicero aims to address here is again evident.
23
Cicero‘s rendition reflects the artistic proofs of Aristotle (Rubinelli, 2009 cited inNordquist, 2019).
Modes of Persuasion – Ethos
Ethos concerns the credibility and authority of the speakers who, in discussions or arguments, both deal with the subject. For example, your professor‘s ethos stems from the
years of academic preparation needed to become a lecturer. As a result of the professor‘s expertise, one is thus able to acknowledge the professor‘s perspective on a specific topic
or recommendation depending on the scholarly field of expertise. Knowledge-based statements contain a rational component; they reside in the realm of episteme and
theoretical thoughts (Grassi & Azodi, 1976). This type of persuasion broadened its impact and evolved into a sense of identification as a consequence of its knowledge gained on a
particular area of research during the years of practice, which forms the credibility and authority of the orator‘s character. Ethos comprises two critical elements that concern the
moral practice of the public speaker‘s craft; these two elements are a legitimate basis and a laudable influence (Hyde, 2008). Typically, it brings to light someone as a pundit or specialist who becomes engaged in the exercise of speech, both in his/her profession and through years of experience in certain fields of vocation, and then acquires credibility as a
24
speaker and authority as a writer, which has since been acquired in turn. They can range on a large scale from those whose professions were termed ―Orthopedist,‖ ―Pediatrician,‖
and ―Cardiologist‖ to ―Scientist,‖ ―Novelist,‖ ―Mathematician,‖ and so on.
Modes of Persuasion – Logos
In Greek, consistency is seen as a consequence of the efforts of reasoning and organizing in all that accounts for the term ―logos‖ on a basis of which it accentuates one‘s thoughts required to correspond with what one articulates in one‘s statements. Logos is also a concept that portrays the quest for celestial comprehension and the pursuit of physical world knowledge, as generally advocated by ancient Greeks. In a religious sense, logos has been used in both in the Old Testament (as demonstrated in Jewish thought) and in the New Testament (Christian thought) to mean the Word, or the Words of God. These concepts are manifested in biblical texts, such as ―The Word was at the beginning, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God‖ (John1:1) (http://www.o-bible.com/cgibin/ob.cgi?
version=hb5&version=kjv&version=bbe&cv=kjv&book=John&chapter=1). In these religious traditions, logos or the Word, has power. Chen (n. d.) further argues that logos refers to the leading source or essence of all that necessarily emanates from that source and is the channel of communication between humans and God.
Aristotle describes logos as central to the idea of syllogism. Syllogism is defined as
25
a means of critical thought in which the conclusion of certain perspectives is approached, or directly caused, by two recognized or alleged propositions (prerequisites) that have been claimed or generally thought to be true and valid.The Aristotelian definition of a syllogistic form that extrapolates a conclusion necessitates a combination of a general statement that works as a major structure of premises and two other specific statements. For example, knowing that all dogs are animals and that all animals come with four legs, therefore, all dogs possess four legs. We could thus simply draw the conclusion that all dogs with four legs are assumed to be animals. A syllogistic argument is typically laid out in three-line forms. The first statement introduced is based on facts, evidence or statistics;
the second and the third statements create a syllogistic effect in which both of them appeal to logos. Some of the oldest-written syllogistic techniques are thought to have been
established by Hinduism in India; one that has been commonly respected by the Nyaya School of Philosophy as one of the six conventional Hindu schools. Please refer to the Wikipedia Website: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyaya). Logos is the scaffolding of the main body of the argument and is designed by appealing to reason. Arguing from the logos perspective requires one‘s intelligence and knowledge of how to use the facts along with supporting evidence in order to strengthen the effect of persuasion in regard to one‘s standing. Graphics can be used together with the facts to present a logos style of argument.
26
However, one needs to be conscious of the fact that simply presenting tons of graphics without promoting proof or facts could be anything but an appeal to logos. When one is making an appeal to logos, that person firmly believes that there is an argument that requires articulation, while acknowledging that it is somewhat difficult to believe or support any statement that does not make any significant logical contribution. With due reason, to include appeals to logos in one‘s argument becomes pivotal. If the purpose of the argument aims at convincing someone of something, then logos is a strategy that helps to achieve the goal. The three rhetorical discourse modes—logos, ethos and pathos—
correspond to all three forms of persuasive speech (i.e., forensic, epideictic and deliberative). Even though they go beyond their scope in persuasive oratory, they
supplement one another. For instance, logos puts emphasis on speech per se, ethos outlines the speaker, and pathos acts on the audience (Steinberg, 2006).
Modes of Persuasion-Pathos
The final argument of Aristotle‘s modes of persuasion is pathos, which mostly
refers either to the emotional pulse or the heartstrings of the audience. Its full commitment is therefore to create an effective sentimental scenario that enables the audience, as
expected, to associate itself with the given discourse, such as through the use of
27
compliments and humor, particularly during the opening parts of the speech. However, the essence of pathos functions as more than just a basic appeal to the emotions; it needs to set forth common values, shared perspectives and interests that encourage the audience to connect further with the delivery of the message, as well as to help communicate
trustworthiness and to present a logical argument. It is typically believed that securing only an emotional response from the audience to the text lacks a sense of bonding with the speech. Admittedly, one of the aims of the speaker is to encourage the audience to identify the subjects and then to consent to the perspectives and beliefs that are being communicated.
In other words, the cogency of one‘s arguments, when relating to pathos, lies in the
development of audience identification; which must be articulated in order to touch deeper feelings, perceptions and values. The motivation of one‘s emotional appeal can be fully satisfied by using narrative approaches, which would, in fact, be the most pertinent in expressing one‘s emotions, and by the choice of rhetorical devices, such as metaphors and metonymies, in which the use of tropes and philosophical concerns are unequivocally incorporated and effectively distributed to the audience through imagination (Leggett, 2012).In other words, audiences have indeed been subjected to certain potential effects precipitated by a number of rhetorical devices, such as those of metaphors, whereby the mental impact could give rise to a response, whether or not it is thought to be an emotional