ARCS
chapter4
For this chapter, I think it’s interesting
that sometimes Aristotle’s idea of degrees, conjectures, and possibilities can
overlap with each other. I realize that in many cases the three topics have
connected with past and future prediction or assumption. One example listed in
the chapter is “he might be a bad leader in the past but now he is a good
leader, and he might be a better leader in the future.” This example not only
applies to degree (which measure how great or lesser the leader’s value in the
past and future), but also involves conjecture (which predicts whether he is a
good leader in the past and will be a good leader in the future) and
possibilities (whether it’s possible for him to be a bad leader in the past and
a good leader in the future).
This chapter also discussed the idea of
common place and ideology. I think it’s interesting that the reading discussed
how ideology is related to degree; it said “the power of an ideology is measured
by the degree to which it influences the beliefs and actions of relatively
large groups of relatively powerful people” (p. 97). It also said in the same
page that “Ideologies that are subscribed by large groups of people are called dominant
or hegemonic” and the ideologies of small groups are called minority (p.97). According
to these descriptions, I think that ideology might be one of the factors which
cause inequality, racism as well as other unbalanced social phenomenon. It is
because different ideologies are maintained by different groups including
racial and gender groups, groups that are bigger or have more people may have
more power over the small groups on the sense of ideologies or ideological sense
of existence. The three measurements (conjectures, degree and possibilities)
may also contribute to social inequality as much as ideology does. This is
because if people don’t keep any measurements or hold any standards for other
people, especially for those who hold different ideologies from them, they won’t
create a social structure that suppresses or persecutes minority groups. I
think one reason minority groups are still under domination, suppression or the
process of assimilation is because the group they belong to has fewer
supporters (by which I mean people who hold the same ideology within the group).
Gay discrimination is a good example, gay people are widely unaccepted or
rejected by many societies or career fields not because they hold bad or
unworthy qualities, but because they hold fewer supporters or power than the
heterosexual groups; and that’s how heterosexual groups can have a say about
gay people are bad, unworthy and abnormal. If you think about it, laws can be
considered as ideology because they are believed by people who think serious crime
is evil and unjust. In my opinion, some ideologies are beneficial such as laws
because it helps maintain what we call justice, but on the other hand, ideologies
reinforce social inequality because there can never be equal amount of people
within communities that subscribe different ideologies. This reading about commonplace
and ideology is interesting because it helps analyzed some small elements (commonplace,
ideology, value measurements) that can bring up large social issues like social
inequality.
RT,
Aristotle, pp. 169-240
The reading illustrated and analyzed
Aristotle’s rhetoric. In book 1, Aristotle discussed his philosophical
rhetoric, such as enthymeme, maxims(statements), examples, artistic and
inartistic proofs, ethos, pathos and logos, four kinds of governments
(democracy, oligarchy, aristocracy, and monarchy), ethical appeals, motivation,
written laws and equity. Book two talks about ethical and pathetical appeals, and
four lines of argument (the possible and impossible, fact past, fact future and
degree). Book three covers the importance of delivery, prose style (appropriateness,
correctness, clearness and metaphors), the importance of statement, proof, and
epilogue. I really like the way Aristotle said “anyone is your judge whom you
have to persuade” (p. 219). I think that what he said is very true because you
can’t just expect that everyone have the same perspective, yet sometimes you
just find you are in a group where everybody believes the same idea, thus when
you are against one person you are against the whole group. Moreover, I really
agree with what he said about “just is not always beneficial” (p. 227). This
remind me of execution, bystanders might think it’s just to put a criminal to
death, but this case will not appear justly to the criminal’s family and
friends, nor it will appear as just to the criminal himself. I think Aristotle’s
rhetoric is very use-worthy, because he not only taught what methods people
should use to argue and persuade, but also introduce moral lectures to
audiences (what is the right and appropriate direction to argue).
没有评论:
发表评论