Last One!

I have studied Toulmin before in English 301 and his model for creating an argument. I found it was important for the composition of my papers. He introduced to me the use of warrants, backing, rebuttals, claims, etc. His model is instrumental in creating an effective argument and are continually used today. I thought Deirdre brought up a good point about Sarah Palin and her rhetorical qualifications as a candidate for vice president, president, governer or any sort of political position. She is seen as a family person who spends a lot of time with her family. She's married, has loving children, etc. However, it's true - how could she possibly stay at home and spend time with her family if she's constantly campaigning, being interviewed on talk shows in the continental US, or launching a reality TV show? Toulmin's model can be used to disprove Palin as an effective candidate through using warrants, backing and rebuttals.

Blog 11/15/10

I thought it was interesting for the readings this week to bring up Black English. I read the book Their Eyes Were Watching God, which is written in Black English and I couldn't agree more that it is considered a dialect. To read that book was, for me, like stepping into the time period. They were of lower class and didn't have much of an education, especially compared to the white people of the time. I found it eye opening to read because obviously, Zora Neale Hurston took the time to carefully piece together a book in a dialect completely foreign to her and her audience. Yes, I completely agree it is a dialect all of its own and I also agree that it should be categorized as a different type of rhetoric because the books of the early 19th century are completely different depending on the race of the author, or main characters. I don't think they should continue to be divided today, but as far as the ones written in the early 19th century, yes I agree 100% white and black rhetoric was completely different.

Blog 11/11/10

I loved reading chapter 12. It was actually relevant to me as a reader. As a DTC major, I am constantly thinking about my use of typeface and what it is saying rhetorically. I wouldn't use an illegible font for content, and I wouldn't use an obnoxious color unless it was necessary. In new media, usability is extremely important. To make succeed in creating a rhetorical website or logo is much more difficult and requires a lot more thoughtfulness in each decision than creating an effective speech. Not only does content need to fit the website's purpose, but also the color scheme, font family and division of information makes a huge difference. As an aspiring web designer, I have had to view a fair amount of heinous websites. You can tell from any website whether the designer has been educated on the rhetorical aspects of design. I was very happy to see ARCS touch on something so relevant to me and several of my peers.

Blog 11/8/10

I found it interesting to read about memory. Probably because I have such a terrible one. I cannot fathom the time when you had to remember absolutely everything if you wanted to relay information. So often I spend my time recounting information online or through notes. I usually need a moment to think about what I've eaten in the past week, and can usually only remember about half of the things. So to ask me what we discussed in English in great detail would be completely out of the question if I couldn't reference my notes. I feel as though memory has lost its importance through the evolution of written communication. I would have the utmost respect for someone who could remember a lot of things in great detail, but I would also consider him a fool for not utilizing the tools available to him. I think that is just kind of how society has molded us - to believe that if we have something, we should use it, even if it means dumbing ourselves down.

Blog 8

In chapter 8 of ARCS, the idea that rhetors today often accept written and published works as trustworthy. I couldn't disagree more. In today's society, I feel as though there are more untrue things written down than true. I don't mean to offend anyone, but take religion for example - how is it possible that every single relgious document could be taken as true? Perhaps one is correct, or perhaps none are. There is absolutely no way of knowing. Even religions within religions contradict one another. Christianity for example has many different facets. There is absolutely no way each of them could be true. So if something as universal as relgion is not true, who is to say that someone who has written an article is speaking the truth? I don't believe most of the things i read. This includes news articles. All too often the truth is bended or made into something it is not. If I write that I saw a unicorn in a stall next to a horse, does that make it true? No. So I wholeheartedly disagree with anyone who says that something written down should be accepted as true.

Blog 6

Boethius brought up several key points involving rhetoric of oration. He talked about how important invention, arrangement, style, memory and delivery are. He focuses a lot on the art of oration and how effective it can be. His values and opinions remain important today, however they've changed drastically as we are no longer an oral cultured society. We are much more concerned with writing, and print and being able to see or read something rather than hearing things. His rules still apply to everything written. we use each of those aspects when we compose a paper, a blog or advertisement. Rhetoric has not changed all that much since its inception. We still use the foundations in which it was founded on to create a successful argument. The only difference is that we usually have something in two mediums. For instance, a speech is still spoken, however it is usually written down first. And advertisements can be heard on a radio, or viewed in a magazine - they may not have the exact same content, but they convey the same point. We must adjust the use of Boethius' points in our arguments depending on which method we choose to communicate with.

Blog 5

Although ethos is of great importance when conducting an argument, it is not the only appeal needed to create a successful argument. The true importance lies within the ability to accurately balance ethos, pathos and logos. Ethos is the most widely disputed of the three, and can have a huge effect on an argument - however, without logos and pathos, there is no support for the author's argument. Chapter 6 in ARCS focused on the importance of ethos and how it can affect an argument. Even an author with a great amount of experience in conducting arguments with ethos can stumble in the area if they do not provide enough hard evidence, or make the argument relevant to the audience through the use of logos and pathos. A lot of attention is paid to ethos, however it is not solely responsible for creating an effective and powerful argument.

Blog 4

The readings this week focused on ethos. Ethos, to me is the most important realm of rhetoric. It explores the credibility of the speaker. It was always explained to me to be the "ethics" of the writer, but that isn't the most helpful definition in my opinion. It seems to me that ethos can make or break an argument. One can "prove" as much as he wants through the use of logos, and can appeal to the emotions of an audience by using heartfelt stories and appeals which tug at the heart strings - but without any credibility, an audience is not going to be easily fooled. Audiences want to believe speakers and they want to why they should believe the speaker. You can prove a point all you want, but until your audience has a reason to believe you, your argument is completely pointless.

Blog 3

The impact of Aristotle's rhetoric is phenomenal on today's communication. He focuses primarily on logos, ethos and pathos. From the time I enrolled at Washington State University I've had the rhetorical triangle shoved down my throat. I feel like I know these things like the back of my hand. I can look at any advertisement and find the ethos, logos and pathos of it. I simply cannot sit and listen to a political speech without listening for those blatant appeals to emotion. Aristotle would probably be proud to know his legacy lives on in nearly every aspect of our lives today and he is continuing to influence us as communicators.

Blog 2

I found it interesting to read about Plato's transcendent truth and that the truth is hidden but we've known that since we were born. I feel that this is true about pretty much everything in our lives. We choose to believe whatever we want. Whether someone has taught us it, or we disagree with someone's opinions. When we communicate with people, we gain pieces of their personality. We take those pieces to form our own opinions and ideas about different topics. Whether it be politics or religion or what kind of music we want to listen to. We take this information and we form our own ideas. So to say that our ideas are predetermined by the life we lived before is interesting because I could, in some way, believe it. The idea that our opinions and ideas are constantly evolving only makes sense because everything has evolved so fluidly. From speaking, to writing to combining the two... I don't find it that far fetched.

Blog 1

This reading made me think about audience and its effect on rhetoric. Without an audience, information is lost. If we have no one to communicate our ideas with, they become moot. If students didn't have teachers to write papers for or complete projects for, then no one would do them. Without an audience, information and ideas become completely irrelevant. This causes me to think about success. For example, politicians need an audience - the public. In America, if we decided to completely disregard elected officials and all their policies and ideas, they would no longer be relevant or important. They need an audience in order to thrive. Furthermore, if the audience does not provide feedback, then the author will only continue to do as he or she desires without a thought as to how effective they are being. So basically, audience is just as important to an argument as the author.