There is room for logos, pathos and ethos and all combinations of them.
The art is using the best tool for the purpose.
This doesn’t mean it will be successful and it has nothing to do with intent but in the judgement of the performance.
The best rhetoric will seem invisible. It won’t seem “like rhetoric” at all. It will simply be accepted as true or valid.
Well-formed logic fits within the realm of rhetoric as it is simply accepted-as-true or valid when it fits within the parameters of well-formed logic.
But, the rhetoric that is _noticeable_ in well-formed logic only shows itself upon questioning logical axioms themselves NOT for their validity from within logical axioms itself but from other angles.
Haven’t you ever read a series of proofs and went, “a-ha, I SEE what you did there? Clever!” At that point, you’re speaking on the level of its Rhetoric – the overall function of Logos (as well as Pathos and Ethos).
My point is not that ethos and pathos are equal to logos functionality. It is not. They each work differently.
A good example of using all three is an effective lawyer. An effective lawyer can pull from all three at will.
Ah: I just identified it!
The well-foundedness of logic is based upon the ethos – or character – or ethics – of a good practitioner.
Rhetoric(Ethos, Pathos, Logos)
I don’t think it’s ad-hoc. If I’m understanding Byzantine use of Rhetoric, it was systemic. I’d say our current usage is fragmented.
Oh, you analyzed what I said Thank you. I’m actually not good at knowing what I’m using as I’m using it. I just “talk” and try to convince.I don’t get a ‘read’ of ethos pathos logos when I look at my own writings. I can do it for others but not my own.
I think that’s why I want a systemic view of rhetoric.I read a lot of stuff, and I’ve seen many methods of persuation. Long, complicated logical arguments or math. Appeals to their authority, or how much I can trust them or their source materials. Appeals to comradery or, “you don’t want to be like that outgroup, do you?”.I never agreed with Aristotle’s view of Rhetoric, or rather, it never seemed “quite right”.It was when I learned that Byzantine schools taught Rhetoric as the highest and most difficult of all the arts that I knew there was hope to find a better way.I don’t know why it took so long to see that it can be mapped in a systemic fashion. Communication is persuasion and those in agreement are mutually persuaded, making it an invisible but ever present quantity.
Problem is, I don’t think I can apply it to myself.I lack an ability to imagine how someone else will ‘read’ what I’m writing.I can construct phrases in ways that I think are best to persuade them, but when I’m done writing, I’m certain that my words were perfect and will be illuminating.Sometimes they are and sometimes not.I think it’s called “mind blindness”. I have a form of it, or think I do.
Thank you Now I can see it. I couldn’t see it when I wrote it. Mind-blind.Now in my point of view, what I’m doing is attempting to convince you that a systemic view of rhetoric with logos-pathos-ethos as subsets within the “universe of rhetoric” is a worthy goal, for if it helps nobody else, it will help me. And if it can help me, perhaps it will help others.I don’t know how formal a system would be. Application is subjective but the framework is solid. It’s possible that it already exists and I’m just reformulating Language Arts 101.
Sample: This is an illustration from a functional analysis of semigroups or “rigged Hilbert space”. Above it is a mathematical proof (not shown) and this is the illustration.What is this illustration?It is a rhetorical device. It is designed to persuade through illustration of the correctness of the Proof. The Proof could stand alone as a Rhetorical vehicle utilizing Logos. But adding a visual aid strengthens the case they are making, which in this case, that “as long as you require Time > 0, generative things will EVENTUALLY fill up the space completely so that the 0.9, 0.999 0.9999 will finally = 1, to use an analogy.I’m convinced but that is also because I already view time as a necessary factor and find it silly to eliminate it.But to somebody skeptical, who for example believes that all of physics should be reversible in time, this illustration along with the other 109 pages of Proofs are necessary to help convince them that this is possibly true.
I barely understand it myself. Quantum physics is a hobby of mine and I can’t read the math and barely understand the language. But I *do* understand “persuasion language” and since all of these explanations come with persuasion language, the phrases “jump out” at me and it gives me a clue that “they might be handwaving something important here”.I try to spot the flaws in things.
My favorite “watch out for this word” word is: “Suppose”.If I see that word, my guard is up. How much can you build on a “suppose”?
It works! Simple and effective. Engages the imagination.I can get lost in my imagination so that’s why it’s my “watch word”. But when I use it, I’m aware of just what I’m doing
What if the Earth really was flat and they’ve been lying to us?
Numbers are so useful.
Suppose the Universe itself was made of numbers?
Assuming that we are but one of many Universes, as to do so makes certain quantum physics calculations far easier to resolve……could we be in a multiverse?
If so, what’s happening in a parallel Universe right now? You could be eating a basketball or lying on a cloud.
Oh, but I meant eating, as in consuming the rubber ball. I was being silly