Page 74 - Gabrijela Kišiček and Igor Ž. Žagar (eds.), What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives, Digital Library, Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana 2013
P. 74
What Do We Know about the World?
other as this kind of unconscious influence can serve as an ideal mask for
manipulation without the sending manipulator having to assume any re-
sponsibility for what he or she is saying and thereby suggesting. We have
already described the objective of persuasion as such that the addressee
should give up his or her own point of view in favour of the sender’s. As
to the nature of persuasion we have pointed out that not only argumen-
tative structures consisting of premises and conclusions are inherently
persuasive but that any speech act potentially contributes to it. What is
at the heart of persuasion according to Danblon (2006: 145) is the strat-
egy of doing as if things were evident when they are not at all. Whenev-
er something is presented as obvious, it turns out to be difficult to ques-
tion, let alone refuse it. The creation of a credible and reliable ethos of the
sender is indispensable to achieve persuasion based right on that premise
within the framework of rhetoric and argumentation. In the following
paragraph we would like to develop that idea a little further.
2.3. The Role of Ethos in Rhetoric and Argumentation
Aristotle distinguished between three modes of persuasion which
are pathos, logos and ethos. Nowadays one tends to overlook that to his
mind the three devices were equally important. Pathos refers to the emo-
tional state of the audience which the speaker has to strive for in order to
make the listeners receptive and sensitive to his or her concerns. Logos
is the capacity of reasoning put into practice in argumentative discourse
mainly in the form of enthymemes and examples. As far as ethos is con-
cerned, it is often translated as the speaker’s character (Danblon, 2002:
69 ff; 2005: 34 ff.). The speaker’s character or personality has to be trust-
worthy and reliable otherwise the addressee won’t follow his or her ar-
gumentation line. Groarke and Tindale (2004: 359) point out the im-
portance of ethos for practical reasons when saying that “ethotic consid-
erations often play an important role in reasoning. They can arise in cir-
cumstances in which we do not have the time, the means or the ability
to investigate a question in sufficient detail to decide the proper answer
to it.” In other words, the addressee follows the sender out of confidence.
According to the principle of ethè in antique rhetoric the orator attrib-
uted a number of positive characteristics to himself in order to make
his personality appear pleasant and trustworthy. As to the variety of de-
sirable characteristics to be striven for, Aristotle himself made up a ty-
pology in which he distinguished between phronesis, practical wisdom,
eunoia, benevolence (or goodwill, cf. Žmavc, 2012: 183), and arétè, vir-
other as this kind of unconscious influence can serve as an ideal mask for
manipulation without the sending manipulator having to assume any re-
sponsibility for what he or she is saying and thereby suggesting. We have
already described the objective of persuasion as such that the addressee
should give up his or her own point of view in favour of the sender’s. As
to the nature of persuasion we have pointed out that not only argumen-
tative structures consisting of premises and conclusions are inherently
persuasive but that any speech act potentially contributes to it. What is
at the heart of persuasion according to Danblon (2006: 145) is the strat-
egy of doing as if things were evident when they are not at all. Whenev-
er something is presented as obvious, it turns out to be difficult to ques-
tion, let alone refuse it. The creation of a credible and reliable ethos of the
sender is indispensable to achieve persuasion based right on that premise
within the framework of rhetoric and argumentation. In the following
paragraph we would like to develop that idea a little further.
2.3. The Role of Ethos in Rhetoric and Argumentation
Aristotle distinguished between three modes of persuasion which
are pathos, logos and ethos. Nowadays one tends to overlook that to his
mind the three devices were equally important. Pathos refers to the emo-
tional state of the audience which the speaker has to strive for in order to
make the listeners receptive and sensitive to his or her concerns. Logos
is the capacity of reasoning put into practice in argumentative discourse
mainly in the form of enthymemes and examples. As far as ethos is con-
cerned, it is often translated as the speaker’s character (Danblon, 2002:
69 ff; 2005: 34 ff.). The speaker’s character or personality has to be trust-
worthy and reliable otherwise the addressee won’t follow his or her ar-
gumentation line. Groarke and Tindale (2004: 359) point out the im-
portance of ethos for practical reasons when saying that “ethotic consid-
erations often play an important role in reasoning. They can arise in cir-
cumstances in which we do not have the time, the means or the ability
to investigate a question in sufficient detail to decide the proper answer
to it.” In other words, the addressee follows the sender out of confidence.
According to the principle of ethè in antique rhetoric the orator attrib-
uted a number of positive characteristics to himself in order to make
his personality appear pleasant and trustworthy. As to the variety of de-
sirable characteristics to be striven for, Aristotle himself made up a ty-
pology in which he distinguished between phronesis, practical wisdom,
eunoia, benevolence (or goodwill, cf. Žmavc, 2012: 183), and arétè, vir-
