In chapter 12 Aristotle connects his definition of youthful character types to his definition of confidence in chapter 1. He says that confidence is due to ignorance (there are other definitions, but this is the one I'm focusing on). In chapter 12 he says "Their hot tempers and hopeful dispositions (the youth) make them more courageous than older men are; the hot temper prevents fear, and the hopeful disposition creates confidence (book 2, part 12). Aristotle is saying that because of their hot tempers and moods full of pride, it makes them more courageous, which in turn prevents fear. This reads to me like they have a force-field of pride and will to conquer things that makes them not care what the danger of their quest is, thus forcing them to fulfill it. Can you connect this to a pathetic appeal by saying that in order to get the youths attention you have to have adventure or action in your story?
I also had some thoughts on the later chapters on proofs and examples. In chapter 23 Aristotle writes about the "fortiori," "It may be argued that if even the gods are not omniscient, certainly human beings are not. The principle here is that, if a quality does not in fact exist where it is more likely to exist, it clearly does not exist where it is less likely" (book 2, part 23). This somewhat makes sense in that if someone you look up to does something then you follow suit. Sort of like a teacher and a student, but where do we draw the line? This could only really work for youths because we develop our own sense of morals fast and we know when to put our foot out for something wrong. Aristotle continues to confuse me with his next few lines... "Again, the argument that a man who strikes his father also strikes his neighbors follows from the principle that, if the less likely thing is true, the more likely thing is also; for a man is less likely to strike his father than to strike his neighbors" (book 2, part 23). The last part makes sense, but I don't really get how he uses it. If someone is able to strike his father, then he must be able to strike his neighbors because striking your father is much more of a crime? I think striking anyone for no reason is equally evil.
I'm going a bit crazy trying to figure him out, so let me know what everyone thinks. Muchos gracias.
The line you included saying, "if a quality does not in fact exist where it is more likely to exist, it clearly does not exist where t is less likely" is a very good topic for a discussion. Although it seems, in a very general sense, to be a rational idea... it also seems a little closed minded.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, it's hard to think of specific examples. I suppose, his discussion got a little abstract at this point.
Hi Reed,
ReplyDelete@Paragraph 1: I think Aristotle is offering advice for how to appeal to the youth of his day. So since the youth have this "force-field of pride" you can convince them to do perilous things that the elderly wouldn't. IOW, when appealing to teenagers, remember that they think they're invincible.
@Paragraph 2: Here, Aristotle seems to be advocating an argument based on probabilities, which was a type of reasoning more popular in his day than ours. Our society (and legal system) doesn't give much weight to this kind of argument because it can easily lead to nonsensical conclusions:
Taking Aristotle's Example: People are less likely to injure their families than complete strangers...
leads to...
If a Stranger wouldn't kill Nicole Brown Simpson, then surely her Husband wouldn't either.
Anyhow, he's basing his reasoning on the assumption that less-likely things don't happen if more-likely things don't happen, which is often true (assuming the things are related), but a far cry from absolute proof.
You bring up an interesting point with the pathetic appeal to young men using action and adventure. If you look at this theory in modern times you will probably find it be true. Most young men are drawn to media that display these qualities. If you look at the obsession that some youth have with movies such as Fight Club or The Dark Night, it is evident that that fighting scenes and the adventurous plots is what is grabbing their attention. It may be cliché, but you will probably be less convincing to an audience of men if you take the approach used in “chick flicks”. So looking at this point from a rhetorician view, the message you are trying to convey may be identified more strongly with young men, if displayed in a way that uses action and adventure.
ReplyDeleteI think you bring up an interesting point in your first paragraph. Aristotle was definitely describing the character of young men to teach his students how to appeal to young men. Young men are full of confidence and feel no fear—given this, how could a rhetor shape his rhetoric (appealing to pathae) to persuade the young? Think of army recruitment during wartime. Signing up for the army during wartime is a bad idea, rationally speaking. Hence the army must target the young (since they feel no fear), and must appeal to the young’s sense of pride (Aristotle also says young men love honor and victory). Only then will they get soldiers to fight the war.
ReplyDeleteI'm with Gordon on his explanation of "a fortiori". In Aristotle's example, he's illustrating that people are generally more likely to hit a stranger than they would hit their father. Therefore, if you have proof that someone hit their father, it's reasonable to believe that they hit/would it a stranger.
ReplyDeleteAristotle also notes that this also works in "a case of parity" (Aristotle 102). So for example, if your friend is someone who pretty much eats anything and likes it but refuses to eat one particular item, you can reason that you probably won't like it. That is, if he doesn't like it, then I'm not going to like it.
I think for a modern discussion, using "over-confidence" would be a more helpful term than just confidence when saying that it is due to ignorance. Confidence can also be attributed to knowing all about something, or knowing that you can do something. Think about it on a small scale - a basketball player who can dunk on a goal, is confident that he can dunk on any goal, as long as they are both subject to the same regulations. Likewise a basketball player who cannot dunk on one goal would be confidant that he could not on another. Someone who is over-confident though might look at a basketball goal and think, or even know, that they can dunk, even though they do not have the backing of experience - or are ignorant of the effort or ability it takes. I think Aristotle's definition works better with attributing the young over-confidence.
ReplyDeleteAs far as your question goes at the end of the first paragraph, I think that the Aristotelian young find the explosions and racy episodes in a story appealing, but that might be more difficult to take into an argument. Take a discussion from Thucydides where the Athenians are debating what to do to punish a revolting colony. One rhetor whose name currently escapes me lobbied for a seemingly humane (by standards of antiquity) reprimand, while his conversational adversary, Cleon, advocated to make an example out of the colony and raze it to the ground, kill all the men and enslave the women and children. The more flashier of the two won the day. This could be an example of your pathetic appeal based on action and/or adventure.