Think of a speaker you admire. Does his or her power to persuade come from ethos, pathos, or logos? Think about your own ability to persuade others. What personal qualities do you have that make you persuasive? Does Aristotle’s classification scheme work for them, or do they fit into another category?
A speaker I admire very much is Hilary Clinton who uses her power to persuade through ethos and pathos. Of the two persuasive rhetoric’s; ethos gives her credibility, but pathos, is, in my opinion her strongest persuasion.
Hilary uses ethos by having the self assuredness to be a woman and run for president of the United States and by her experience as First Lady of the United States. Pathos is used by the way Hilary arouses emotions when speaking about issues that pale Americans and about issues we typically choose to ignore. When she talked about taxing oil companies and taking away their tax credits she aroused emotions in many Americans.
I believe that by the simple fact that Hilary Clinton is a female and ran for the Democratic Nominee for President of the United States is enough to stir up emotions for many individuals (especially women) who feel that we should have men and women run our country. This could be an example of both ethos and pathos. She shows she has the experience and arouses emotions.
When thinking about my own ability to persuade others, the personal qualities that I have that makes me persuasive are confidence, passion, reasoning, credibility about my topic, and awareness of my nonverbal messages and the importance of audience analysis.
Yes, I do believe that Aristotle’s classification scheme works for them. I do use ethos, pathos, and logos.
Have a fun week!
Cherry:)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Hillary is a very emotional speaker. Do you think she uses emotion in an ethical way?
I was having a conversation over the weekend about people who speak well, Clinton, Obama, other politicians etc... and posed the question of ethics. Do you think that a person should have a balance of ethos, pathos and logos in order to be an ethical speaker? Or is using one of those tactics enough? Just something to think about. :)
With politicians, it is my opinion; behind every message is an alterior motive. They will use whatever they can to their advantage. Emotion being one of them.
So, is it ethical the way Hilary uses emotion in her speeches? I would have to say, that it depends on the credibility of what she is saying. Some issues require the stirring of emotions to get Americans interested and involved.
However, I do not think that Hilary always uses emotions in an ethical way.
Cherry:)
Interesting blog Cherry.
I liked what you said about Hilary evokes emotion by simply being a woman. For some reason I never really thought of this aspect. Obviously being the first female to legitimately run and campaign is emotional but I never thought of it in a tactical aspect. Do you feel Hilary was supported by the female community more so because she was a woman or because of her political views or her experience? One of my female teachers was in love with Hilary and admitted she thought Hilary could do no wrong. Do you think that many females followed Hilary due to their emotional attachment/bond that had solely because she was a woman?
Post a Comment