Ridicule or Modesty: Modes of argumentation

I found, as Macey R did, that there were many similarities between Aristotle’s Gorgias and Cicero’s De Oratore. The Kairos of the speeches were very similar in their casual, friendly conversation. I found the styles to be similar, as well as their arrangements and persuasive techniques, although I found Cicero’s dialogue to be more civil and humble. I’ll start with an explanation of the similarities.

I just felt like this guy reminded
me of Antonius; "Your turn, Crassus!
You've got this!"

In both works, an intro is compiled, and then a reflective dialogue is given. Both of the main speakers are writing as they think back to how the situation was at the time. Each of these works uses definition, questions to form their ideas and insight comprehension in their audience. The authors of both make a striking appeal for their side, by arguing that their art is the greatest of all the arts. In this, they both make passionate arguments backed up by reason and examples. They pose similar questions, including thoughts such as ‘can this art be taught?’ and ‘how does one gain this skill?’ It seems as if the arguments and questions, as well as how the arguments are brought up and discussed is very similarly categorized.

The reason that I view De Oratore to be more civil and humble is because of the actions and words of Cicero. While in Aristotle’s Gorgias the questions posed are used to belittle and contradict and make the audience (or others arguing) fumble in their argument, Antonius uses the intellect of others, and relies on multiple witnesses to argue his point. At one point, he even says (after a compliment) “I am describing my own meager achievements.” This is the tone that he holds the entire work. Later, he passes the argument to one who he views to be more eloquent and knowledgeable on the topics discussed. While Gorgias argues with multiple people and uses his intellect and pompous nature to bring shame and ridicule to his competitors, Antonius stays calm and builds his argument on knowledge and ethos, as he discusses is important to oratory. 

"Happiness is a Warm Puppy"

As you can see, my handicapped brother is very happy with his dog.

As one can see in the picture shown, a dog is a serious source of joy for my brother. He would claim that his “Daisy Pooch” as he calls her, is “his best friend” [witness]. It’s not just my brother, though that gets this kind of joy from a dog! I know I feel a sense of peace when I can just cuddle up with a possible/impossible]. But, it’s simply not possible for someone to just rent a puppy anytime they feel like it. It’s inconvenient and with many apartments restricting animals from their premises, it also isn't probable that every student would be willing to take the risk.

puppy pal. I’m not the only one, either- if this weren't true, “Rent-a-puppy” couldn't possibly have thrived so well in Provo! [

Here are some compelling reasons that off-campus housing should include more dog-friendly apartments:

1)      Other campuses allow it! [comparison] A ton of my high school friends are happy at their colleges with a cute little doggie by their side. Obviously it can work on other campuses.

Aren't  my doggies cute?

2)      Just because we allow dogs, doesn't mean we have to bend all the rules put in place by off-campus housing [whole/parts]. Some people believe that we’d have to do it for every apartment, but that simply isn't true [contradiction]. We can keep some sanctioned for “no-pet” housing, but allowing more dog-friendly apartments would be great! This is a minor rule that would greatly improve so many peoples’ lives! Why do you think people have “therapy dogs”?

3)      Along those lines, we don’t have to open it up to all animals, either [genus, species]. Forget stinky ferrets, mice, and even some cats. Let’s just start with loveable dogs.

4)      If we increased puppies around campus, we’d increase happiness, and decrease stress. This could completely improve test scores and overall well-being of students at BYU! [cause/effect].

5)      Clearly God approves of dogs [supernatural], or he wouldn't have put them on Earth for our enjoyment. We should honor His creations.

Okay- maybe that last point is a poor argument, since there are a lot of things on earth that we don’t allow in BYU approved housing…. But it was worth a try.

I can't say no to this cute puppy, either :)

Anyway, I know that could be a great addition to any apartment. I, for one, will definitely be getting a dog as soon as I can [future fact]; after all, as Charlie Brown says, “Happiness is a warm puppy” [maxim/proverb].

Everyday Conversation to Convince a Crowd

In the Funeral Oration of Pericles, many different forms of rhetoric are employed. I didn't recognize most of them when I first read it, as I was mostly focused on form and the classic appeals. After reading “Rhetoric” by Aristotle, I was able to point out a lot of other devices.
One of the devices that I found used was enthymeme. I didn't realize how incredibly common it was in normal speech! Trying to find examples of this in the text, I found some examples where major premises are kept and where they have been omitted. Take, for example, this line from Pericles: “To me it seems that the consummation which has overtaken these men shows us the meaning of manliness in its first revelation and in its final proof.” Here, the premise that courage and gallantry (which was stated several sentences previous and in a different context) is manly.

Reading this text again, I also noticed the very epideictic as well as deliberative aspects of the speech. It is epideictic in the sense that Pericles is talking to a large crowd and praising the men who fought. It is deliberative in the fact that he is exhorting future measures. He is calling the families of these

men to action- either calling to the mothers to have more children or calling to the children and men to stand up and show pride in their city by fighting as well.

Pericles also uses his own testimony to add credibility. In the first few lines he speaks about having a first-hand witness or reliable second-hand testimony of the accounts of battle. Pericles says “I have described nothing but what I either saw myself, or learned from others of whom I made careful and particular inquiry.” If this isn't a direct proof of testimony displayed, I don’t know what is!

Popular Persuasion: Opinions are greater than Truth

Introduction

            This rhetorical analysis of Gorgias’s Encomium of Helen will focus on two chief parts of the judiciary oratory convention that Gorgias implements to various effectiveness: enthymeme and the topic of invention of testimony.

Enthymeme

Aristotle codified enthymemes as a way that
judiciary rhetoricians persuaded the jury.
Today, we are much more aware of what
"memes" are than what enthymemes are.
Would grumpy cat approve of our lack
of rhetorical knowledge?

Rather than being truly epideictic, Gorgias’s Encomium of Helen is more of a judiciary rhetoric.  Gorgias speaks of the past only and uses chiefly enthymemes, which are, according to Aristotle’s Rhetoric, most suited for judiciary rhetoric.  Enthymemes are informal logic that leaves out either a major or minor premise.  They rely chiefly on popular opinions rather than truth to persuade others.  Enthymeme is employed, among many other cases, when Gorgias claims, “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…by the superior….accordingly, if one must attribute responsibility to…the gods, one must acquit Helen of infamy.”  Here, the obvious and common premise that all humans are inferior to the gods is left out of the argument.  These enthymemes are highly efficient to Gorgias’s argument.  He relies on the popular opinion to prove his case.  His arguments, thus, seem logical and indisputable to his audience even though they are not based on pure truth.  Gorgias also secretly employs the pathos of appealing to popular belief whilst maintaining a somewhat deceiving appearance of logic.

Gorgias relies chiefly on enthymemes rather than testimony to
prove Helen as innocent.  Both are methods that Aristotled 
codified as useful for judiciary rhetoric.  However, not
including more instances of testimonymight not be the 
most effective approach.

Testimony 

  Unlike the use of enthymeme to great effect, Gorgias loses some of his ethos and credibility by not truly examining another important judiciary convention—testimony.  Gorgias does not examine any testimony except appealing briefly to the supernatural and the written law.  He calls on the supernatural to acquit Helen as one can see in the previous paragraph, which is effective as an enthymeme.  However, if the popular opinion did not support the supernatural as a motivator, he would lose its effective testimony.  Furthermore, Gorgias briefly compares the ineffectiveness of written law, saying it is not always effective: “For the strong habitual force of law is banished because of the fear prompted by the sight [of battle].”  Here, he attempts to prove that law might be overcome by fear and thus is not Helen’s fault if she does not obey law.  This argument is effective to an extent, but because Gorgias calls upon no other testimony to prove Helen innocent, he is a bit ineffective in this sort of argument.