Reading Prompt #1
Hello and congrats on navigating through the blog process and making it to our spot!
For our first prompt, I am asking you to comment on question 2 on page 13 of our reader: Another definition of rhetoric is "pompous or pretentious speech." Speculate on how such a definition might have come about.
Additionally, comment on Aristotle's language (Hint--think gender).
For our first prompt, I am asking you to comment on question 2 on page 13 of our reader: Another definition of rhetoric is "pompous or pretentious speech." Speculate on how such a definition might have come about.
Additionally, comment on Aristotle's language (Hint--think gender).
posted by DrEmmerling at 7:33 PM
28 Comments:
To begin with, I looked up the definitions of pompous (exaggerated dignity) and pretentious (extravagant outward show) and it immediately became clear where the new definition of rhetoric came from.
A key element of rhetoric is establishing the creditability of oneself. Unfortunately, some speakers might have shown too much creditability, resulting in parts of the audience believing them not to be philosophers, but braggarts. Also, when delivering a rhetorical speech, one must engage the audience and appeal to their emotions, or pathos. Speakers might deliver an overly theatrical, very flourishing display, resulting not in a rhetorical speech, but in a pretentious display. As a part of delivering logos, the speaker must appear as a very logical, very intelligent person. If the speaker tries to appear as too intelligent, he loses respect. The pompous element emerges again.
All of this is further compounded by the fact that during Aristotle’s time, males predominately delivered the speeches, appearing intelligent and gripping. Independent, intelligent women probably grew jealous that they too could not display their ideas in the same way. Women probably began not hearing the true message of the speech, but heard arrogant men, trying to display false emotions and phony intelligence.
As I write this, it appears to me that there is a very fine line between delivering a truly rhetorical speech the way Aristotle described it, and giving a pompous, pretentious speech.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Pompous: characterized by an exaggerated display of self-importance or dignity; boastful, vain-glorious, arrogant, inflated (Oxford English Dictionary)
Pretentious: claiming or demanding distinction or merit esp. when unjustified (American Heritage Dictionary)
Knowing the definitions of pompous and pretentious, the reason as to why these words would be used to define rhetoric becomes a little bit clearer. To me it seems that the person or group of persons who defined rhetoric this way were a bit disgruntled. Being that Aristotle’s audience was educated males, it is possible that women, not being included in education, developed the definition. However, if this essay was directed towards a general public the use of the word “man” alienates the female audience. While the man might see speaking in rhetoric as being proper and intelligent, women may see it as the men being arrogant.
A rhetorical speaker must convince his audience that he is a credible source (an expert in the field of discussion), and that his information is accurate and worth accepting. He must also appeal emotionally to his audience (manipulating their feelings and morals) so not only their minds, but also their hearts agree with him. It is easy to see how an overzealous speaker could appear extremely pompous and pretentious, thus causing one of the definitions of rhetoric to be just that. A speaker who is too sure of himself or trying to hard to convince the audience of the validity of his knowledge would seem very pretentious. Also, if this speaker is too obviously tugging at the heartstrings of his listeners his emotional appeals will backfire and become manipulative and pompous.
Many times when people feel that they are being spoken down to as if they were of lesser intelligence, or even if they do not understand the concepts being presented by a speaker, they will criticize the speaker. This is an attempt to make themselves feel more superior. This may have often been the case with rhetoric speakers, as they would have generally been more educated the common man of the time. In this case as well the speaker would be labeled as pompous and pretentious.
I didn't notice a large gender issue in Aristotle's language. He did use the words "him" and "man" but to me it seemed like this was just a general reference to man as a race which also includes women. I used this strategy myself in my first paragraphs when I referred to a hypothetical speaker as a he. I didn't mean a man discriminately, I simply didn't want to take the time to write he or she.
Another possibility, however is that in his day speakers were primarily male. Women were seen as quiet housewives, not outspoken intellectuals.
When rhetoric is defined as “pompous or pretentious speech” an image of some old Greek guy with a white beard billowing out his ideas to anyone that will listen comes to my mind. This idea that rhetoric speech is used to impress can also be seen in a definition of rhetoric that I found online, which states rhetoric as “language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but is often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.” Pompous can be defined as “affectedly and irritatingly grand, solemn, or self-important”, while pretentious is defined as “attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent culture, etc., than is actually possessed.” These definitions only further agree with the image that I have concocted in my head of an almost arrogant figure that is eager to voice his opinion on anything and everything that is happening around him. The image can be described as him because Aristotle lived in a time when the Greek educational system was made up entirely of males and the society as a whole was male dominated. The philosophers of Aristotle’s time (himself included) seemed eager to ‘jump to conclusions’ about everything, since many of the ideas they were discussing were just beginning to be analyzed in great detail. This eagerness to “be the best” and “know the most” seemed to have led to definitions as rhetoric being defined as “pompous or pretentious speech” because some of the audience that was listening saw the voices of opinion as too strong and too confident.
To be effectively persuasive does not necessarily correspond to being pompous or pretentious. A confident speech may come across as extravagant, so the association is understood, but a good rhetorical speech does not always need to comply with "exaggerated dignity" or an "extravagant outward show".
In Aristotle's time he spoke of men delivering great rhetorical speeches, mentioning nothing of women. I am not sure if this is because he is making use of "man" as a general term including mankind, or because women were not usually seen as intellectual beings in his time.
Rhetoric, defined by Aristotle, is to transmit an idea that follows one’s own credibility, or ethos, to a receiving party, while appealing to that party’s emotions, or pathos, and reason, or logos. In order to fulfill the ultimate goal of persuading the receiving party in one’s favor, confidence must be practiced. This self-assurance is essential as an author or speaker because by definition to persuade is “to move by argument, entreaty, or expostulation to a belief, position, or course of action”; without that self-assurance, I think, the argument would remain as an argument and would never transition to a belief (Webster online Dictionary). My observation brings me to the other definition of rhetoric, “pompous or pretentious speech”. Pompous and pretentious basically mean overly wordy or showy; and to fit my observation the words pompous and pretentious also suggest confidence.
Aristotle, to connect to his male-dominated audience, used “pompous and pretentious speech”. He assumed that his audience included educated men and not women. Women, during Aristotle’s time, did not have the opportunity for education as men had. This lack of educated women resulted in a male-dominated audience for philosophers like Aristotle.
P.S. - Ironically, the definition “pompous and pretentious speech” is, in itself, wordy.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Although Aristotle believes that the intrinsic function of rhetoric is not persuasion, but a method of communicating truth, in contemporary society, rhetoric is most often defined as the skill to persuade an audience through the manipulation of language. Because the main goal of rhetoric is to sway an audience, it can be argued that the true meaning and purpose of the speech may become lost or twisted within the framework of rhetoric. Therefore, rather than concerning themselves with the truth in a debate sophist might become more concerned with winning the argument by “outsmarting” or confusing their audience or opponent with hollow rhetoric. Oftentimes, empty rhetoric acts to arouse specific emotions with the intention of turning the original topic of debate into a more controllable emotional issue. This tactic could be most easily exercised on less or uneducated individuals. Similar to how patients may feel intimidated by a doctor’s use of unfamiliar medical jargon and; therefore, just “take a doctor’s word for it” when he/she recommends a treatment (or something of the sort), a less educated (which, in ancient Greece, the “birthplace” of the study of rhetoric, included women) audience may feel intimidated by overwhelming or sophisticated rhetoric. Perhaps this tactic contributed the alternate definition of rhetoric that describes rhetoric as grandiose, excessively ornamented, or pretentious speech.
Keeping in mind that to speak rhetorically is to speak effectively and persuasively, there is certainly a difference between this and speaking pompously/pretentiously. For instance, rhetorical communication is effective communication logically, emotionally and with credibility, whereas pompous communication lacks in the emotional realm. To be more specific, pompous speaking is expected to frustrate the audience, whereas rhetorical speaking is expected to persuade the audience. One way in which a “rhetorical” speaker could be seen as pompous would be relying too much on their own credibility, or ethos. Likewise, one way in which this speaker could be seen as pretentious would be relying so much on the emotional aspect that they seem biased, manipulative, or both. The truth is, if one is to be an effective rhetorical speaker, they must create an equal balance between emotional, credentialed, and logical persuasion.
To comment on the gender aspect of Aristotle’s language, I must say that he is envisioning a male audience in mind. If I had read his excerpt not knowing it was written centuries ago, I might have assumed this was simply a way to avoid the trouble in continually using phrases such as “he or she.” But taking the gender roles of his society/era into consideration, it is evident that Aristotle spoke this way knowing that his students were male.
the idea that rhetoric can be seen as pompous and pretentious is easier to understand in the context of Aristotle's day than in our current society. Many times the rhetoric of which he speaks was someone giving a speech in a courthouse or a public square. In these instance it would be more effective for the speeker to be showy and wordy in order to evoke the audiences pathos and explain his logos. However, it can still be seen today in some rhetorics which use many images and analogies. I do feel though that Aristotle's original defiition is a much better description of what a rhetoric is.
p.s.- In Aristotle's day it was most common for men to make speeches so his language is geared totally towards males.
The goal of rhetoric is to persaude your audience to see things from your point of view. In order to accomplish this, however, Aristotle and his fellow philosphers had to establish themselves as credible sources. The greek culture was an oral one, that is being a strong public speaker was of paramount importance. Therefore the logical way for a philosper to establish himself (for it would invariably be a male), was to deliver a dazzling oration. The better the public speaker a philospher was, the more respect he would earn, which would make his orignal goal of persausion easier. Since the philosophers were always trying their best to put on a show with their words, it is easy to see how a critic or rival philospher would accuse a philosopher of being pompous or pretentious.
In the paragraph explaining the ethos of the speaker, Aristotle displays the assumption that all public speakers will be male: "This trust, however, should be created by the speech itself, and not left to depend upon an antecedent impression that the speaker is this or that kind of man." At the time of Aristotle, Greek culture was strongly segregated, women were expected only to be the wives of men. The thought of a women delivering a rhetoric to a group of men was unthinkable.
It seems that the definition of rhetoric, "Pompous or pretentious speech," comes from what it sounds like. Someone trying to get a point across would use rhetoric and would claim that was is being said must be recognized as true (even if it is not). What rhetoric is, is a way to prove with language that what is being said must be considered. Several ways of using rhetoric in writing or speech were introduced in the reading assigned. Such were: logos (logic), pathos (emotions), and ethos (own character).
It is very interesting how readings can be organized in such ways, like explained in this reading, to understand them better.
Aristotle's way of exposing his views included only men, since men had greater power at that time. Men were the educated individuals and were the ones who "mattered." It seems that women, regardless of their capability to do what men did, were not given a chance.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
To fully understand the question I looked up the meanings of 'pompous' and 'pretentious'.
*pompous-Characterized by excessive self-esteem or exaggerated dignity (dictionary.com)
*pretentious- Claiming or demanding a position of distinction or merit, especially when unjustified (dictionary.com)
Rhetoric seems to use several methods (logos, pathos, and ethos) to attempt to receive credibality and as persuasion tools. These three forms of persuasion are used to appeal to a certain audience or convince that audience of something, or used by the reader to determine the validatity or meaning of the text. The words pompous and pretentious seem to seek the same acknowledgement of credible work that is the basis of rhetoric.
In addition, at times, rhetoric exibits the extravagent qualities of the word pompous. For example, a Presidential campaign speech may include exaggerated statements or promises in an attempt to appeal to the people, which would result in higher approval ratings.
Something pretentious seeks merit, or demands to be recognized as credible, which seems to be the whole point of papers, speeches, or any text.
In conclusion, I feel the alternative definition for rhetoric is only semi-accurate because I beleive pompous and pretentious are good descriptive words for rhetoric, but I feel there is probably one other that would fit and explain a little more.
I did not see an exaggerated gender issue in Aristotle's work because I interpreted his use of "man" as referring to the human race. I think I also accepted his predominant use of man because during his time men were the intellectul beings, while women were seen as purely housewives and were used for child bearing and raising children/managing the home. As time passes, and that sterotype starts to change (as more successful women, or women writers emerge) it seems women are used in text more frequently.
Knowing what it means to be pompous and pretentious, i feel as though Aristotle's reasoning as to why he used any one of his rhetoric devices was based mainly on gender. The specific way he presented his arguments were based on the fact that his audience was mainly white men. So, when these advertisements from poverty-helping organizations try and persuade the reader, they hit at the heart (pathos). This type of persuasion is still in link to Aristotle's gender hit. In order for these two organizations to attract the people they need to give money, which is most likely rich, white, families(men), they need to show one of the worst possible situations. Nobody wants to see a little girl, with big puppy-dog eyes, and especially one from Africa. First off, the fact that it's a little girl gets to a lot of dad's becasue it would be like seeing their own baby girl on t.v., and it gets to mom's becasue the can relate. This can also be argued that many people react emotionally towards this becasue women represent inferiority and weakness. Also becasue these organizations said the little girls were in Africa also plays along the part that everybody feels sorry for Africa. People look at it as a third world country and think there is no help for it. So in conclusion, i think that though rhetoric can mean a pompoous or pretentious speech, i feel that it has evolved over time and is now used wisely in persuasion.
When looking and reading about the two young girls it is very clear why these organizations chose to use the girls as there appeal to pity. When I think of Africa I think of a disease ridden and very poverty stricken place. These girls represent that completely. They look sick and hopless. It is that all they want is to be taken away, anywehere from where they are now.
In relation to popmpous or pretentious speach it is easy to see how rhetoric is described in such a way. One of the key elements of rhetoric is to persuade, and when I think of a pompous or pretentious person, I think of a cocky egotistical person who can persuade anyone to do what they want.
When reading about Aristotle's language it is easy to see where he is coming from. When looking at the time he published his works he was dealing with mainly men. So his work is going to be biased towards women.
The articles use pictures of the young African girls because of the suggestion that little girls are defensless, weak and adorable, and that many Africans live in poverty and fear of AIDS. The images are meant to make you sympathize with the innocent faces and scared eyes. This is a pretentious act, considering that not all Africans live in poverty or fear of AIDS. The ads rely on extreme stereotypes and connotations to pull you in.
The text is vivid and taps into the readers pathos - don't you feel bad for the poor little girl? "Poverty kills" bluntly states the organizations' problem. Then, they go on to describe how the organization has targeted "the source of the problem". This is slightly pompous, but it is a tactic that conveys ethos, or the strength of the character of the organization. Who wouldn't want to join a group so noble that it can say: "Together we're providing hurting families with things like food, clean water,(etc.)." These are all methods of persuation
Aristotle's language has a lot to do with the time era that he wrote (or spoke) in. It was a time when men were higher than women.
Rhetoric is the ability to discover the elements of persuasion within a writing or a speech, and the ability to use persuasion in ones own writing and speech.Rhetoric can also be described as "pompous or pretentious speech." This definition holds true to Aristotle's definition of Rhetoric.This is true because prentenious speech is a speech that claims merit and position. this idea brings in the key aspect of ethos, which is the credibility and merit of the speaker. The idea of prentenious speech also icorporates the aspect of logos becuase in order to gain position one must have strong arguments. A pompuos speech is one with a high self-esteem and an elevated diginty. When presuading someone and speaking with a high slef-esteem, the speaker can form a pathos, which reassures the audience. Therefore when defining rhetoric as a "Pompous or pretinious speech" the three key aspects of rhetoric; ethos, pathos, and logos are all evident.
In Aristotle's writing about rhetoric he writes the article to a male audience. For example at the end ot the article he writes "To master all three obviously calls for a man who can..." this quote shows that that the Gender norms in ancient Greece only allowed men to write.
Rhetoric is a means of persuasion. In order to persuade someone to agree or believe in the issue which one is attempting to persuade, one must believe that they are correct. When one,the persuader, strongly believes that they are right, it is often, and easily assumed, that the one being persuaded feels demeaned. In this interaction it is human nature to make assumptions about the persuader and their intended "persuasive strategy", without feeling as if they are pushing their ideals upon you. The entire basis of rhetoric believes that one's opinion dominates over anothers, very easily being interpreted as pompous or pretentious.
Both of the ads choose to portrayed African girls because they are targeting western readers. The two girls in the ads are the opposite of what an American is stereotyped of being. The ads do not only portray poor children, but only girls. By revealing the two girls in the ad, it is implied that girls have fewer possibilities of surviving than boys. Therefore, the emotional appeal is presented by choosing small girls from a poor country, which is implied to be Africa. This causes the readers to feel emotional sadness because there are less fortunate people. The ads are using both visual and written effects to persuade an emotional response from the readers. The ads contain visual and writing that describe the hardships that African children are forced to deal with.
Aristotle had a unique way of explaining rhetoric reasoning. For example, in the two ads the logos, pathos, and ethos of the readers are targeted. For instance, the reader’s logic reasoning, emotional appeal, and ethics are tested. The readers know that Africa have an extremely high poverty rates. The pictures in the ads create a sad setting. Lastly, the readers know that it is ethically correct to help people in need, especially children.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
The two african girls used on the ads are used on this ads to show how helpless anf poor they look. the fact that it is obvious that they are from africa makes the viewers feel pity towards them because for some reason when africa is mentioned people usually picture poor children that do not have enough to eat.
The goals for rhetoric is a smart and sneaky way to persuade the audience. in order for it to work, one has to be able to say what the audience wants to and know how to appeal to their emotions and thoughts.
when reading about aristotles it bothers me how biased he is towards women. but then i realize that around the time that he wrote this prompts, it was only men that he dealt with.
In order to captivate an audience some speakers feel it is necessary to exagerate both their motions and words. This technique is used commonly in persuasion and rhetoric. Yet if the speaker is over the top(aka Tom Cruise confessing his love for Katie Holmes on Oprah)he or she may be viewed as pretensious and shot down as a credible source. In order to be considered a reliable source, the speaker must have confidence but if he or she is overconfident they may be seen as pompous. There is definately a thin line between confidence and pompous and it all depends on the spectator.
When speaking Aristotyle only addressed men. Back when he was alive women were not involved with philosiphy and not even considered to be intelligent humans and it wasn't necessary to address them when speaking about such highly intelligent topics.
I do fully believe that in order to be believable in any sort of scenario where people need convincing, it helps to have the pompous edge that rhetoric requires. It’s certainly not always what you say, but how you say.
I’ll take an example for my own life. Over the past few summers I’ve taken part in a service program where we’ve been repairing houses on Native American Reservations. I do know a fair bit about construction, more than probably your average individual, but I’m certainly no expert. At the organization I work at we have a little guideline called the 60-40 rule, where you know sixty percent of your job and make up the other forty. That’s where the rhetoric comes in. I can know essentially how something works, but If I’m able to put enough know-how and the right amount of pompousness to it, it usually comes out fine. Oh, occasionally the roof gets put on upside down, or a team accidentally paints a house the wrong color, but most of the time, it works in my favor :)
"Rhetoric may be defined as the art that deals with the effective use of language-either spoken or written-to inform, persuade, or motivate an audience." For a writer to express themselves in a persuasive or motivated manner, they have to have confidence in what they are writing about. If a writer is modest or humble, they will not be able to persuade the audience or completely understand their point of view. THis is why the definition probably came about.
Rhetoric and pretension have long gone hand in hand. It is easy to see that there has been a long tradition of Aristotle providing the basis for what has been modern writing. I feel that there has been a great tradition of his manual showing us what is actually very obvious.
African girls are easy targets for the sympathies of Westerners. First of all, we associate poverty with the whole of Africa, obviously this is not the only plave in the world that poverty is seen, however it is the place which is most prevalent. The idea of choosing a girl was quite obvious, people tend to have greater sympathies with girls than men, it is meant to show us the most vulnerable cases or a serious situation.
Sometimes a speaker has to be pompous and pretentious in front of an audience to gain control. For Aristotle, this was the best way to commandere an audience. While being pompous does not directly insult a person or group, pompous people can come accross as insulting with their know-it-all attitudes and demanding demeanors. The overwhelming attempt to appear more intelligent that those to whom the speech is being delivered can either captivate or curdle an audience. Speeches may have been more like theatrical displays than factual statements. The speaker is trying to persuade the listener into believing that they are speaking the truth.
For Aristotle, he may have given speeches in public forums, but most of the attendees were male. In ancient Greece, women had no say in social, economic, or political matters. The content and context of the speeches were directed towards men only, because only men had say in the way infrastructures operated.
Post a Comment
<< Home