ARCS
chapter 7
This chapter mainly focuses on pathos and
emotional appeal. I find it interesting when Aristotle said emotions are “those
things through which, by undergoing change, people come to differ in their
judgments” (p. 175). I quite agree with this definition of emotion because in
my personal experiences, I have encountered similar examples; those who are angry
at me tend to have opinions differ from those who are not angry. That is when I
realize how emotion can change people’s judgment towards things or people.
Personally, I think emotion can lead people towards inaccurate assessment about
events that happened in their lives because having emotions like anger or fear
may create prejudice or bias which blind people’s eyes and take them away from
the truth. One example I can think of is victim’s family tend to blame for the
suspect because they are triggered by hatred and sadness of their loved one’s
death, but that doesn’t prove that suspect is the murderer, nor does it mean
the suspect deserves severe penalty. I also find it interesting that “emotion
seem to be a means of reasoning” (p. 175). I can also find examples for this
concept from real life, like if a parent feels joyful having her child around,
she may keep being nice to the child until she spoiled him. It is interesting
how emotion guide our actions. This makes me wonder whether people can still
process their reasoning or action if they don’t have emotion because as the
chapter discussed, emotion has “heuristic potential” (p. 175). Though I know it’s
impossible for people to not have any emotion because we are all mortal beings,
but if thinking involves expressing emotion, and emotion triggers biased
thoughts, then it is possible that people’s beliefs and actions are biased
results. But I don’t think that people always experience very strong emotions
so that they are always irrational, because people only experience strong emotion
when others stimulated them (no one feels angry or fearful or sad all the time
unless they are psychotic). I don’t think that all emotions stimulate biased
thoughts either, some thoughts are triggered by emotion but they are truthful
beliefs or concepts. Like when Aristotle said that “emotion can change people’s
mind” he is telling the truth because we can apply this idea to all personal
life experiences, but he may have made up this idea while he was confronting
some emotions. I also feel interesting about the three criteria for
understanding how emotions are aroused (p.176). These three criteria include
knowing the state of mind of the person, who will be triggered by emotions, and
what can trigger these emotions. I think that these criteria are almost like steps
towards manipulation that do not always bring good effects, especially in
rhetoric. I remember in the movie The
Girl Interrupted, Lisa knows Daisy’s secret emotions and she pushed her over
the edge and Daisy killed herself. Even though I don’t think it is that easy to
know one’s deepest thoughts or state of mind, I still think the rhetors should know
how great the effect of these criteria can bring before they use them. I
believe that rational thoughts or reasons can reduce the effectiveness of emotional
appeal because if you know the reasons or purpose behind the emotional appeal,
your emotions won’t get aroused so easily. For instance, you know that a
commercial ad’s purpose is to attract consumers, thus you won’t easily trust the
emotional effects in the ad, or get persuaded to buy the product.
RT, Anonymous,
pp. 492-502
This reading includes the principles of
letter writings. The basic styles for letters are written composition, metrical
composition, rhythmic composition, and prose composition. There are five parts
of a letter; they are Salutation, the Securing of Goodwill, the Narration, the
Petition, and the Conclusion. The reading mainly focused on principles of Salutation
and Securing Goodwill. I find it interesting if a Ruler is sending the Pope a
letter, he had to mention the God’s name like the Lord or the Christ in the
beginning of the letter, which is unusual in normal letters. I also think it’s
interesting that any letter that is written by a Pope, an emperor, or to a
Monk, the Christ’s name and the church’s name also need to be mentioned.
Although these formats are unique and interesting, I can rarely use them in daily
life because I’m not a ruler or a Pope, so I would say these formats are not
that useful to me. I also think it’s interesting that both the lord or the high
class people, and the servants need to use polite language in the starting of a
letter. If a Lord is writing his servant a letter, he needs to start with “Loyal”
servant or “devoted” follower. Likewise, a servant needs to call his master “his
most beloved” lord. These manners are polite but sound a lot like flattering to
me, which is interesting. I think that nowadays people who hold higher
positions in a company also need to use respectful language in Salutation while
writing letters to their subordinates, especially while discussing business
affairs, but the language modern people use will not be as flattering as the
words that ancient people(emperors, lords, servants…etc) use.
没有评论:
发表评论