Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 8 votes

Rhetorical Devices Used in Literary Logic

common fears

174 replies to this topic

#151 status - Q's & A's

status - Q's & A's
  • Guests

Posted 04 March 2018 - 05:08 PM

551d38c705f94c4a413ea77ab75a9a9d--balloo

 

:chuckle: 

 

 


  • 0



#152 Rufus Tullius

Rufus Tullius

    Premium Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 196 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 05 March 2018 - 07:11 PM

Chaining syllogisms together can lead an audience wherever the writer wants them to go. But, what about when the first premise of a syllogism is only implied or outright suppressed? Sort of like a quasi-trust: only two elements can speak a time? That is an Enthymeme. Suppressing the first premise in a syllogism doesn't necessarily weaken the claim. It only works if it's something everyone can agree on.

An enthymeme is hard hitting and in your face because it asks the question "Can we at least agree on this...". Knowing your audience helps to identify whether or not to use an enthymeme. If you can get your audience to agree right off the bat then a narrator can string along the audience to agree on just about anything. By using effective jargon, tricky alliteration and fancy witticisms; this sends the audience soaring with cadences of rhetorical sounds waving directly to the brain. If an 'actor' can start with an effective enthymeme, and use logic in a correct manner, the audience can be led to a conclusion through the force of logic alone. Even if the conclusion is ridiculous.

Finding effective enthymemes in smaller groups is much easier to do than larger ones. Simply because not all the larger movements of thought can agree on any premise whatsoever.

Remember Rodney King? "...can't we all just get along?"

Not everyone wants to 'get along'...

With any major political theme it's virtually impossible to find a common enthymeme to start a coalescence towards agreement. Suppressing premises are the name of the political, scientific, and even the religious games being foisted on the public. This has always been done since the days when rhetoric was first thought up. Using the basic syllogism and constructing our thinking process' to find answers is a foundational point that people should never forget.

The hardest part to finding an all inclusive enthymeme: Figuring out where the shared assumptions are, even from a hostile audience, is the key to opening doors to civil conversations that result in agreeable conclusions.

An enthymeme is only a starting point. All arguments start with them but watch the longer chain of logic that follows. Watching the argument as a whole will help you figure out where things don't fit. But, it's a two edged sword to say the least. Devious fuckery is always afoot:

"if it doesn't fit, you must acquit"

oj.jpg

:chuckle:

If you want to know more about how an effective speaker can get through to a hostile audience check out the speech MLK gave in Birmingham. He brought them all into his sway simply because there was "injustice in Birmingham".

 

What is the suppressed first premise...

 

???

 

:dovepeace:              

               :Egg-icon:


 

 

Here's a related fallacy for enthymemes

 

Petitio Principii - begging the question. This one is everywhere in the media. Begging the question doesn't mean asking a new question. It really means that a speaker or writer is asking the audience to acknowledge your main point. It's a subtle device that uses adjectives and adverbs to do the logical dirty work in the sentence. This fallacy is related to the enthymeme. It assumes you share the same claim the speaker is making even when you don't.

Example: All people are against wasteful spending. Right? What question is really being begged here? Ask yourself what kind of spending is wasteful. Not all spending is wasteful. You're never told what spending cuts will be made. Just the enthymeme "all people are against wasteful spending."

Notice how the adverb or adjective is doing all the work: 'Wasteful" spending. The real question should be what kind of wasteful spending is important. Looking for the adjectives and adverbs gives you the knowledge to catch these little tricks in the rhetoric. Then all you need do is say Petitio Principii; your argument is invalid.


  • 1

#153 status - Orange Flavored Cherries

status - Orange Flavored Cherries
  • Guests

Posted 05 March 2018 - 08:05 PM

551d38c705f94c4a413ea77ab75a9a9d--balloo

 

:chuckle:

 

:Laughing-rolf:

 

Lovin' the secret sauce...

 

517EO5wh-XL._SX361_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

 

 

 

825b0fc70ed1d9a11016ec2c0713bd01.png

 

:smiley-laughing024:


  • 0

#154 Rufus Tullius

Rufus Tullius

    Premium Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 196 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 07 March 2018 - 12:58 PM

 

The art of argumentation can be used against those who don't appreciate it's forms and structure as an art for distraction.
 
Skillful argumentation is an antidote to productive communication.  It offers a way to eliminate bickering, anger, fear, and all the trash that prevents decent control of oneself. It's both an informal and formal method of debate leading to agreement by examining claims and justification by focusing on the interaction of argument, Itself!.
 
I'd like to think humanity has upgraded itself since Homer, Aristotle, and the countless others who began the art of conversation. Setting conditions of claims and evidence and shifting it all around with inference and warrants. The whole point of reasonable argument is to look for resolution.  This only works, of course, with reasonable people. Closed minds and using physical force can obviously kill any argument, anytime!

 

 

 

:Grin8:

 

Five star thread OP!

 

:hangingfromastar:   :hangingfromastar:   :hangingfromastar:   :hangingfromastar:   :hangingfromastar:

 

 

Ethos, Pathos, and Logos

 
Rhetorical appeals and their uses:
 
Ethos refers to how trust worthy a person is. Ethos is used to appeal to a moral philosophy or reliable integrity. It attempts to signify credibility within the speaker.  It is effective as a strategy because it automatically inserts belief in the speakers credibility because of a higher educational or moral being. A doctor is good example. People hold a doctors power of reasoning in high regard. Same with a judge because a certain trust is automatically implied. It can used to challenge the reliability or moral stance in an argument. 
 
Pathos is another powerful device. They appeal to emotions. It's always loaded with vivid illustrations that trigger emotional buttons. The speaker wants the listener or reader to be persuaded by the emotional value this type of argument can generate. Packed with sympathy and empathy they dim the analytical processing of rational thought. The more people react to this type of rhetoric the more they become least likely to ask the big question(s). Like WHY? In many instances they're used in calls to action within a group or society.
 
Logos denotes an appeal to logic and reasoning. Logos is tricky because it relies on theories and abstract language. They include definitions, factual data, and statistics. Including learned comments by authoritative sources and Ethos driven opinions. Logos tries to give the best sources and reasoning. Appeals are taken as matter of facts and are useful in persuading others to believe a conclusion. 
 

 

 

ethos--pathos--logos.png

 

I'm going to change the order here because I think it presents these terms in a correct form to better understand how construction on good arguments can hold water.

More on Logos:

Logos means an utterance or a 'word'. All arguments are constructed of the words themselves and how they fit together. It focus' on the abstract and rational part  of reasoning. Logos doesn't rely on emotions, moral values, and feelings to construct an argument. It is based on the If/Then statements in the syllogistic blue print.

Examples: This product is good. Therefore you should buy it. This person is good as a candidate for office. Therefore you should vote for him.

More on Ethos:

Appealing to the character of the speaker or writer. It also includes general ethical and moral systems. Ethos includes references to principles in behavior that cannot be proven by syllogisms alone. It relies on a shared or assumed moral or ethical system. But, logic needs to be in place because a listener or reader needs to follow a cause and the effect it creates. The human component has to be included or else you run the risk of getting anyone to care about the subject being deliberated. This is where Pathos comes into play...

More on Pathos:

This is the last note in this triad of reasoning. Pathos is always included in an argument. It can be a major or minor component in its delivery. Even when you're just looking for the facts alone there is at least enough pathos inside it to ask the listener to pay attention because it is important.

Pathos is like adding yeast to the sterile flour of logic. It helps it to grow and rise by putting a human face on difficult issues of discussion. Including bits of gossip in your dialog is useful because people are always interested in what others are doing and are more likely to pay attention to the ethics involved.

Points to consider:

All arguments include logos, ethos, and pathos. The hard part is adding them in the right proportions. The trick is to choose an effective balance. Lawyers like to say "when the facts support your case, argue facts. When the law supports it, then argue law. And when neither the facts nor the law work, pound on the table to support your point with pathos.

When analyzing rhetoric, people should be wary of pathos because it often has the effect of short circuiting reason. But, ignoring it completely is very dangerous because in larger bureaucratic groups and impersonal corporate structures it's easy to forget about individual human rights and suffering...

 

:Flying:


  • 1

#155 status - Venkman

status - Venkman
  • Guests

Posted 07 March 2018 - 07:39 PM

Don't forget to cross your eyes...

 

 

hamilton_01.jpg

 

 

and dot your tea...

 

 

il_570xN.1342988247_il79.jpg

 

 

:Banana_Dance:

 

 


  • 0

#156 status - Guest

status - Guest
  • Guests

Posted 07 March 2018 - 09:18 PM

3c24e784c50e0aea35c1801cd0ffc36b.jpg

 

:chuckle:


  • 0

#157 status - Nathan

status - Nathan
  • Guests

Posted 07 March 2018 - 09:58 PM

 

The Prussian (German) Educational System
 
The educational system was divided into three groups. The elite of Prussian society were seen as comprising .5% of the society. Approximately 5.5% of the remaining children were sent to what was called realschulen, where they were partially taught to think. The remaining 94% went to volkschulen, where they were to learn “harmony, obdience, freedom from stressful thinking and how to follow orders.” An important part of this new system was to break the link between reading and the young child, because a child who reads too well becomes knowledgable and independent from the system of instruction and is capable of finding out anything. In order to have an efficient policy-making class and a sub-class beneath it, you’ve got to remove the power of most people to make anything out of available information.
 
This was the plan. To keep most of the children in the general population from reading for the first six or seven years of their lives.
 
Now, the Prussian system of reading was originally a system whereby whole sentences (and thus whole integrated concepts) were memorized, rather than whole words. In this three-tier system, they figured out a way to achieve the desired results. In the lowest category of the system, the volkschuelen, the method was to divide whole ideas (which simultaneously integrate whole disciplines – math, science, language, art, etc.) into subjects which hardly existed prior to that time. The subjects were further divided into units requiring periods of time during the day. With appropriate variation, no one would really know what was happening in the world. It was inherently one of the most brilliant methods of knowledge suppression that had ever existed. They also replaced the alphabet system of teaching with the teaching of sounds. Hooked on phonics? Children could read without understanding what they were reading, or all the implications.
 
In 1814, the first American, Edward Everett, goes to Prussian to get a PhD. He eventually becomes governor of Massachusetts. During the next 30 years or so, a whole line of American dignitaries came to Germany to earn degrees (a German invention). Horace Mann, instrumental in the development of educational systems in America, was among them. Those who earned degrees in Germany came back to the United States and staffed all of the major universities. In 1850, Massachusetts and New York utilize the system, as well as promote the concept that “the state is the father of children.” Horace Mann’s sister, Elizabeth Peabody (Peabody Foundation) saw to it that after the Civil War, the Prussian system (taught in the Northern states) was integrated into the conquered South between 1865 and 1918. Most of the “compulsory schooling” laws designed to implement the system were passed by 1900. By 1900, all the PhD’s in the United States were trained in Prussia. This project also meant that one-room schoolhouses had to go, for it fostered independence. They were eventually wiped out.
 
One of the reasons that the self-appointed elite brought back the Prussian system to the United States was to ensure a non-thinking work force to staff the growing industrial revolution. In 1776, for example, about 85% of the citizens were reasonably educated and had independent livelihoods – they didn’t need to work for anyone. By 1840, the ratio was still about 70%. The attitude of “learn and then strike out on your own” had to be broken. The Prussian system was an ideal way to do it.
 
One of the prime importers of the German “educational” system into the United States was William T. Harris, from Saint Louis. He brought the German system in and set the purpose of the schools to alienate children from parental influence and that of religion. He preached this openly, and began creating “school staffing” programs that were immediately picked up by the new “teacher colleges”, many of which were underwritten by the Rockefeller family, the Carnegies, the Whitney’s and the Peabody family. The University of Chicago was underwritten by the Rockefellers.
 
The bottom line is that we had a literate country in the United States before the importation of the German educational system, designed to “dumb down” the mass population. It was more literate that it is today. The textbooks of the time make so much allusion to history, philosophy, mathematics, science and politics that they are hard to follow today because of the way people are “taught to think.”
 
Now, part of this whole paradigm seems to originate from an idea presented in The New Atlantis, by Francis Bacon (1627). The work described a “world research university” that scans the planet for babies and talent. The state then becomes invincible because it owned the university. It becomes impossible to revolt against the State because the State knows everything. A reflection of this principle can be seen today with the suppression of radical and practical technologies in order to preserve State control of life and prevent evolution and independence. The New Atlantis was widely read by German mystics in the 19th century. By 1840 in Prussia, there were a lot of “world research universities”, in concept, all over the country. All of them drawing in talent and developiong it for the purposes of State power and stability.
 
 
 

 

 

This is the long overdue study of the Frankfurt School and Cultural Marxist philosophy which now controls Western intellectualism, politics, and culture. It was by design; it was created by an internationalist intelligentsia to eradicate Western values, social systems, and European racial groups in a pre-emptive attempt to spark global, communist (think liberal) revolution. Andrew Breitbart's historical notes are taken into the narrative.
 
 

https://youtu.be/C7lhWp7G9rA


  • 0

#158 Rufus Tullius

Rufus Tullius

    Premium Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 196 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 08 March 2018 - 04:10 PM

What is a figure of speech?
 
Schemes and Tropes
 
These are classifications with explanations of the effects that writers and speakers use to work out solutions to difficult rhetorical problems. They are collections of successful resolutions that others have already found. BTW, it's OK to steal them, too.
 
:happy:
 
The techniques in Figures of speech are like a recipe in cooking a fancy feast for the mind and heart. Using these accumulated recipes from the past helps you in your own originality. Ask yourself what is standard or unusual in the speech. The unusual things are what we are looking for here.
 
There are two types of figures in speech: Schemes and Tropes. Basically, schemes are words used in nonstandard patterns of word order. A Tropes focus is a word or short phrase that is used in the same way. Like a pun or a metaphor. The problem with these figures lie in the danger of falling into arguments over trivial matters. More often than not it just keeps revolving round and round and we miss the point on how these speech figures can help rhetoric be more convincing. When used effectively they help make speech and writing more memorable in the mind of the reader or listener.
 
Figures of speech use words to go beyond their literal meaning. They enhance an idea or definition and make connections that can draw on images to explain another. Analogy, Irony, Metaphor, simile, and personification are all figures in speech. So are overstatements like hyperboles and understatements which deliberately restrain the  emphasis on meaning. Watch for mixed metaphors as they combine two or more images that don't blend well when mixed together.

 

Analogies are fun. They're little ideas comparing one thing to another using a familiar thing. Metaphors and similes are used to build an analogy.

 
"The structure of the universal mind is like the galaxies, stars, and planets expanding ever outward toward infinity."
 
The universal mind is compared to the constellations using "like". This is a simile. A metaphor relates it to the expanding infinity without using words like "like" or "as".
 
Graphic analogies are useful too!
 
05pmoWs.gif

 

 

 

 

Irony is a literary technique & rhetoric device that has been used for many years in speech, art and everyday life. Although irony has been used for a long time, there hasn't been an exact definition of irony. There have been hundreds of definitions suggested over the years, however, a general consensus is that:
 
Irony is a figure of speech which is a contradiction or incongruity between what is expected and what actually occurs.
 
Most of the definitions of irony are something along these lines, though there is often disagreement about the specific meaning of this term.
 
 
:Grin8:

 

 

More on IRONY here: 

 

http://forum.chicken...eading/?p=13322

 

 

How can I make a thread of this nature without including metaphors?
 
Metaphors are one of the most common types of speech. They add a sort of definition and color because they describe a comparison between two things that are most often apart except for a common characteristic that can link the two together. A noun or a verb can be described as something different. 
 
An example comparing a chef to a writer. Learning to write can be visualized with cooking skills. One must learn to bake, roast, chop, and cut. Including all the little things that go with it through practice and experience. They're great for sharpening the imagination and to give further understanding in communicating ideas 
 
Metaphors are different from similes in that they don't use terms like "like" or "as" to compare two things. Metaphors make hidden comparisons. Portraying one thing as being something else but not that something else. There is an implied implicit meaning.
 
 
 
:chuckle:

 

 

 

 

Sometimes personification gets confused with a pathetic fallacy. This is a kind of personification that provides emotional life into natural inanimate objects. For example, they reflect the nature of moods and desires into the features of the wind.
 
2f6ce4876c278f0854bd963dbc178066.jpg

 

 

Whatever is easy to remember is usually rhetorically effective. Take an Anaphora as an example: it is the repetition of a word or phrase at the beginning of each successive sentence. This scheme actually helps the listener remember what is said or read because of its repetitive value. 
 
A good example would be in MLK's "I have a dream" speech: 'Let freedom ring...'
 
Another scheme is the opposite of an anaphora is the Epistrophe. These are the repetition of words at the end of a sentence or clause. 
 
Lincoln used it effectively in his Gettysburg address speech: 
 
". . . that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."
 
Notice the repetition of 'the people' at the end. He is asking all of us 'Who are "we"? 

 

 

Here's some more devices that offer rhythm and melodic meter to text and speech:
 
Epizeuxis or diacope
 
These are words or phrases that are repeated in a rapid succession within the same sentence to emphasize a point or idea. 
 
The purpose of epizeuxis is to create greater emotion to the listener or reader. Jabbing the air with emphasis, it motivates and inspires a memorable focus on thoughts and ideas through deep sentiment. 
 
giphy.gif
 
Because of its repetive nature it also inspires memorization of ideas on a sub-conscious level. These devices are used as artistic effects in lyrics, prose and poetry. How many songs have you heard that use these techniques? Have you ever considered the ideas presented in the lyrics of your favorite songs? 
 
There are two other terms that use the same technique. 
 
One is an Epistrophe
 
These are repetitive words or phrases at the end of sentences that call attention to a point of interest. 
 
The opposite of this effect brings us to the second term. 
 
Anaphora - basically the same definition as Epistrophe except they come at the beginning of sentences. 
 
anaphora.jpg
 

 

Now on to tropes: varying the definitions that words really have. There are too many tropes to really go into because some are obscure or they have become so consistent in our everyday language that we use them without even realizing it. So, with that in mind I'll just list some of the important ones I've already mentioned in previous posts.
 
The oxymoran: These work because language allows for contradictions when the real world does not.

 

 

Descriptive combinations of words and phrases with opposing ideas are called Oxymoron's. They create polarity in descriptions. They are built by adding adjectives before a noun to give it a contrast in meaning. 
 
Good examples are:
 
Tragically comical.
Seriously funny.
Only choice.
Original Copies.
Happily Married.
Clean Dirt.
 
Always remember, an oxymoron is combination of two contradictory words. This differentiates it from a paradox. Paradox's contain one or more sentences and they always imply some kind of truth within. Paradox's describe things contrary to expectations.
 
With these devices hidden meanings can be conveyed in a simple manner. They create imagery within sentence structure leaving the reader to discern for themselves any implied intrigue. 

 

The Euphemism: Using 'politically correct' language to dumb down the brutal truth.

 

Suggested reading:
 
Politics and the English Language by George Orwell
 

 

 

A Euphemism is an expression that conveys a polite term for something unpleasant. They lose their literal meaning and become a tactful way to describe an objectionable term. It's a good way to test the bounds of political correctness. They can be indirect to describe something direct. Mispronouncing objectionable words can create the same type of effect. In reality, they can be as bad as the real objectionable term.

 
732euphemisms_hagy.jpg

 

 

Hyperbole is a figure of speech involving an exxagerated idea to accentuate a real situation. It's an amusing device used to create contrast between a normal description and one with an overstatement. 
 
anigif_enhanced-29742-1411142780-1.gif
 
Not only can hyperboles be found in our oral statements and in literature but they're also important in media ad campaigns. Visual hyperboles have become commonplace on the TV screen. They're amplified graphically to encourage people to buy products. The research in this area has been sparse.
  
c5bd8b11f61c87a3610447e2bd930027.jpg  

 

 

..and the antidote...Litotes

 

 

Meiosis is defined as using little understatements to minimize the reputation of somebody. Especially when used in giving the impression that something is weak or tawdry in importance. It's a method of speech to give information that diminishes one emotional response in order to insert another in its place. Its effect produces sarcasm and sardony with its descriptions of mannerisms and tone. It's the opposite of hyperbole because it's the kind of irony that deliberately makes the object of ridicule appear foolish and misleading. 
 
Meiosis is closely related to Litotes. These are figures of speech using an understatement in which "an affirmative is expressed by negating its opposite" using double negatives or opposing statements. Such as "this is no mean feat". Litotes use understatement to high light importance rather than minimize it. It attracts attention to an idea by ignoring it. Avoiding to name the object straightforward by using discretion. Talking about something negatively can sometimes be the best way to make it appear positive. 
 

 

This is by no means a complete listing of all the figures of speech available. I'll be posting more within this category in the future. Hope to see you then, too...
 
:Flying:

  • 1

#159 Feathers

Feathers

    Premium Member

  • Moderators
  • 715 posts
  • LocationFloating in the Breeze

Posted 08 March 2018 - 05:38 PM

3c24e784c50e0aea35c1801cd0ffc36b.jpg

 

:chuckle:

 

:Laughing-rolf:

 

f547717ba1a2509b22d2ae0ec84080f6--cat-pr

 

 

:High5:


  • 0
Posted Image

#160 status - General Order

status - General Order
  • Guests

Posted 23 March 2018 - 01:10 PM

I'm going to change the order here because I think it presents these terms in a correct form to better understand how construction on good arguments can hold water.

More on Logos:

Logos means an utterance or a 'word'. All arguments are constructed of the words themselves and how they fit together. It focus' on the abstract and rational part  of reasoning. Logos doesn't rely on emotions, moral values, and feelings to construct an argument. It is based on the If/Then statements in the syllogistic blue print.

Examples: This product is good. Therefore you should buy it. This person is good as a candidate for office. Therefore you should vote for him.

More on Ethos:

Appealing to the character of the speaker or writer. It also includes general ethical and moral systems. Ethos includes references to principles in behavior that cannot be proven by syllogisms alone. It relies on a shared or assumed moral or ethical system. But, logic needs to be in place because a listener or reader needs to follow a cause and the effect it creates. The human component has to be included or else you run the risk of getting anyone to care about the subject being deliberated. This is where Pathos comes into play...

More on Pathos:

This is the last note in this triad of reasoning. Pathos is always included in an argument. It can be a major or minor component in its delivery. Even when you're just looking for the facts alone there is at least enough pathos inside it to ask the listener to pay attention because it is important.

Pathos is like adding yeast to the sterile flour of logic. It helps it to grow and rise by putting a human face on difficult issues of discussion. Including bits of gossip in your dialog is useful because people are always interested in what others are doing and are more likely to pay attention to the ethics involved.

Points to consider:

All arguments include logos, ethos, and pathos. The hard part is adding them in the right proportions. The trick is to choose an effective balance. Lawyers like to say "when the facts support your case, argue facts. When the law supports it, then argue law. And when neither the facts nor the law work, pound on the table to support your point with pathos.

When analyzing rhetoric, people should be wary of pathos because it often has the effect of short circuiting reason. But, ignoring it completely is very dangerous because in larger bureaucratic groups and impersonal corporate structures it's easy to forget about individual human rights and suffering...

 

:Flying:

 

3323948cc68d6f98a29e1df7915a90af--logic-


  • 0



Reply to this topic



  



Similar Topics Collapse


Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: common fears

IPB Skin By Virteq