Kennedy's Komparisons

A first good point of Kennedy's piece is his connection of animals and rhetorical knowledge compared to Damasio's piece on monkeys and the troubles that come with their lack of emotion. 

Kennedy says "Whether or not animals have a sense of self, many clearly can recognize other individuals of their own species and some animals can apparently recognize what individuals belong to what family groups" (Kennedy 7).  This can verify my point that emotions play the role of being an individual.  I think emotion equals personality, and each animal species/the human species has their own code of personality, although many branches exist in each.  When you deprive or "cut away" an animals emotion they fail to recognize and be recognized by the members of their species.  This is so effective for persuasion because humans, as a whole, connect with each other on an emotional level, and when you take that away we don't have the same main branch as each other so their is no way we can be persuaded.


I also thought his section on rhetoric comparing with communication could be useful to becoming a successful rhetor.  Kennedy says "Rhetoric is apparently present in communication, though communication can be within the personality of one individual, as when one tries to "talk" the self into some action or belief about
which one has conflicting sentiments" (Kennedy 2).  So do you all think he's saying that communication is effective, except it can be harmful by persuading ourselves?  Or why you agree or disagree with what kennedy says about communication and rhetoric.  I know he goes on to talk about different ways communication cannot be compared to rhetoric, but I'm curious to hear what everyone thinks.

Smith and Hyde: three points.

I wanted to follow and finish the three main points made in class since we were only to go over one of them.

The first was the continuum of emotions and how there's always a middle ground that the person being persuaded is pulled to either side of.  The example shown in the reading was fear and confidence and this was the one we talked about in class a lot, which I think we covered pretty well. 

The second main point that I analyzed was that every emotion has a limited time frame and a sense of proximity to tell how long and how much of an effect this emotion holds over you.  This strategy helps the rhetor determine who he/she needs to persuade the most efficiently and who will be easier to persuade.  In SmithHyde reading, they talk about how the longer you let an emotion sit, the greater a chance it has to go away and they return back to a neutral emotional state.  I think the best example for this is when we were all rebellious high-schoolers to our parents.  When we'd get mad at them for something dumb they would tell us to go to sleep and we'd feel better in the morning.  Everytime I woke up I was never mad anymore.  I think this works for all emotions; they all spark an intense feeling, but never an ever-lasting feeling.

On the topic of proximity and emotions, HydeSmith uses the analogy of Alcibiades and Callicles.  "Proximity in time and space allows the identification to take place" (HydeSmith 453).  This is true and they go on to show it through their analogy: "Alcibiades observation of Callicles threatening circumstances forces Alcibiades to share them as being close to his own existence" (HydeSmith 453).  They say that as a result, what is brought close to Alcibiades now "gains a dimension of immediacy."  "Thus, Alcibiades pity is incited by his fear of certain circumstances that he experiences by identifying with one another.  Emotion modifies the lived time and space of our everyday being-with-others" (SmithHyde 452).  It's this last line that seems most important to me; I think it's sort of defining the second main point of how emotions have limits and can be modified to due proximity.

Let me know what your alls thoughts are on in this point.

Visual Analysis (Revised)

The image I have chosen comes from a DeBeers diamond ad.  It popped up on Google images for me (http://www.msmagazine.com/winter2009/images/Diamond.jpg), but can be originally be found at debeers.com.  Although many of us would choose a diamond ad to be strictly for women, this ad is for women, and men who want to sort of 1-up their relationship.  I assume they are hammering out as many of these ads as possible for the upcoming Valentine’s holiday, thus why it is directed toward men.  All men want for Valentine’s Day is a couple shirts or jeans or something along those lines.  Valentine’s Day for women is all about the glitz and glam, and needs a lot more thought, i.e. money, put into it.  I think the audience are married, upper class couples, who have solid foundations and jobs.  Even though this ad is for men I found it advertised in adult women’s and men’s magazines such as “Vogue, Ms. Magazine, O, GQ, Esquire, and Men’s Journal.”  I think the reason for De Beers advertising in women’s magazines is the hope that they will show their husband the ad, finding it humorous and seductive at the same time.  It will be in men’s magazines because during Valentine’s Day what better gift is there then to buy your lover a diamond.

                The DeBeers ad has a solid black background with one picture (diamonds) and one sentence of words.  The words are sprawled out in different sizes of huge bright white font that reads in all caps: “HEY, WHAT DO YOU KNOW, SHE THINKS YOU’RE FUNNY AGAIN.”  Clearly DeBeers wants us to buy this or any set of beautiful diamonds that they have, knowing it will make our significant others that much happier with themselves and with us.

            The color of the ad is very important; De Beers uses the two black and white colors for a reason, it looks elegant and adds an emotional appeal to the ad.  White and black scream out sleekness, class, and a sense of sexiness as well.  All the top car ads: BMW, Mercedes, etc., show shadow-like black cars that make you feel awesome.  This color contrast gives off a “Ying-Yang/Male-Female,” type of energy that makes buying a diamond feel right.   

 The first time I looked at this image it provoked an emotion of anger out of me because it says “Hey, what do you know, she thinks you’re funny again.”  My reaction to it was “why the heck do I need to get my significant other a diamond for her to like me.”  For the audience though, I think they are trying to boost your confidence and kindness, bring out a sense of humor, make the reader feel shameful (for not having bought his wife this gift) for Valentine’s Day by displaying the perfect gift for your wife.  The last emotion it brings is a sense of desire; what woman doesn’t want a diamond that is “forever,” a stone that will bring your relationship to the best possible stage.  It brings out humor because all men know (whether they like it or not) that they will do pretty much anything for their wife, and this is something that will make her happy.  The cheesy humor is good for making a man feel safe knowing the he has given the best possible Valentine’s gift.  The solid black background almost reminds me of a darkening cave, representing your days counting down to get the perfect gift.  The bright words and diamonds are the light at the end of the tunnel, our talisman to success, and of course the punch-line, “A diamond is forever,” shows that with this diamond your relationship will improve, and continue to improve forever the day your wife has this prized gem. 

                I first want to connect how I felt about this article with what Aristotle has said; my emotion in this case being anger.  At first it doesn’t seem like his definition of anger: “an impulse, accompanied by pain, to a conspicuous revenge for a conspicuous slight directed without justification towards concerns oneself or towards what concerns one’s friends” (Book 2, Part 2).  I definitely felt the impulse, anger towards why a wife needs diamonds in order to be happy, but the pain is a bit more difficult.  If my pain can be defined as buying love through materialistic things, then that would define it accurately, but I also had the pain of wishing women didn’t care about these sorts of things. 

                In terms of connecting Aristotle to how the ad wants the audience to feel, I think his chapters on confidence and kindness are suiting.  Aristotle says confidence is having “good sense, good moral character, and goodwill” (Book 2, Part 1).  For me, enough is said right here because even though that ad is trying to say that a woman needs diamonds, it is also asking the question of whether or not you want to be the “perfect” husband.  In this case the perfect husband should use his good sense, moral character, and goodwill to purchase the diamonds.  In terms of kindness, Aristotle says “kindness is great if shown to one who is in great need, or who needs what is important and hard to get” (Book 2, Part 7).  Now I don’t think anyone is ever in a great need of diamonds, but I do get the second part when he says it is “important and hard to get.”  These diamonds are important because of the occasion, Valentine’s Day, and they are hard to get because well frankly, they are ridiculously expensive, which usually takes a chunk out of any man’s wallet

                DeBeers wants men to want to be loved by their wives more, and what other way then to purchase them a huge, flawless diamond?  Who would’ve known that through a diamonds power, your woman will see you as funnier?  DeBeers apparently, and through this ad they have shown that you cannot let your wife go without their beautiful selection on Valentine’s Day.  I mean really, what kind of person would you be?  DeBeers uses a carefully laid out strategy of making the audience feel like they must buy these diamonds or it will surely be the end to them!  Either way, the ad is effective in producing the sense of need and want for what will end in an ecstatic wife and a happily married couple.

New Blog. Hooray! (Over Walker's and Nussbaum)

I'm going to be jumping around between the two readings for this blog post, but first I'll start with Walker's when he talks about the inseparable emotions of the body.  He says that Aristotle's emotions of the soul are "anger, gentleness, fear, pity, courage, joy, and loving and hating."  He says anger, along with all these other emotions, "belong to the body and are inseparable from it."  Reason being because whenever you feel them you have "bodily effects."  I'm not really sure why it means they are inseparable from the body just because you have bodily effects from them.  Don't you have bodily effects from every emotion?  Being anxious produces sweatiness, rosy cheeks, clammy palms.  Maybe he is just circling only those emotions at this time, but I figured you can and can't be separable from any emotion because when an emotion arises it's not like you are going to be calm for every one of them.  Calm is basically an emotion in itself.

As I further read, he talks about anger and how with the feeling of wanting to get revenge on someone making you angry, blood boils around your heart.  This is definitely true, but, like I said, how can you not have an effect coupled with any emotional feeling?  It wouldn't be an emotion if you didn't react in some way.  I guess what I'm curious about is what am I supposed to get out of this, or is this even important at all?

Moving away from this on to something I liked about this piece was his translation of what happens when you are persuaded.  "Kenneth Burke once pointed out that persuasion is cognate with faith.  To say that someone is persuaded is to say that he/she believes/trusts the assurances presented to him or her."  He says that "a person who is truly in a state of no-effect will not be persuaded."  What struck me as odd in this part was that he added the emotion of anger in to something that brings out effect, but if you are angry with the person who is speaking you will shut yourself off with no chance of being persuaded.  Do you all think this is true or what he was trying to say?

Virtual Analysis of Debeers Diamond Ad!

The image I have chosen comes from a DeBeers diamond ad.  It popped up on Google images for me (http://www.msmagazine.com/winter2009/images/Diamond.jpg), but can be originally be found at debeers.com.  Although many of us would choose a diamond ad to be strictly for women, this one is for men who want to sort of 1-up their relationship.  I assume they are hammering out as many of these ads as possible for the upcoming Valentine’s holiday, thus why it is directed toward men.  All men want for Valentine’s Day is a couple shirts or jeans or something along those lines.  Valentine’s Day for women is all about the glitz and glam, and needs a lot more thought, i.e. money, put into it.  I’d say the audience age group would have to be men between the age of 30 and 60 because that’s about the age you get settled in and can afford something like this and by 60 you will have probably grown out of that diamond buying stage.  I couldn’t find any magazine links that this article is in, but I’d say it appears in GQ, Sports Illustrated, or Men’s Health.

                The DeBeers ad has a solid black background with one picture (diamonds) and one sentence of words.  The words are sprawled out in different sizes of huge bright white font that reads in all caps: “HEY, WHAT DO YOU KNOW, SHE THINKS YOU’RE FUNNY AGAIN.”  Clearly DeBeers wants us to buy this or any set of beautiful diamonds that they have, knowing it will make our significant others that much happier with themselves and with us.

                The first time I looked at this image it provoked an emotion of anger out of me because it says “Hey, what do you know, she thinks you’re funny again.”  My reaction to it was “why the hell do I need to get my significant other a diamond for her to like me.”  For the audience though, I think they are trying to boost your confidence and kindness on Valentine’s Day by displaying the perfect gift for your wife.  It brings out humor because all men know (whether they like it or not) that they will do pretty much anything for their wife, and this is something that will make her happy.  The cheesy humor is good for making a man feel safe knowing the he has given the best possible Valentine’s gift.  The solid black background almost reminds me of a darkening cave, representing your days counting down to get the perfect gift.  The bright words and diamonds are the light at the end of the tunnel, our talisman to success!

                I first want to connect how I felt about this article with what Aristotle has said.  My emotion in this case being anger.  At first it doesn’t seem like his definition of anger: “an impulse, accompanied by pain, to a conspicuous revenge for a conspicuous slight directed without justification towards concerns oneself or towards what concerns one’s friends” (Book 2, Part 2).  I definitely felt the impulse, anger towards why a wife needs diamonds in order to be happy, but the pain is a bit more difficult.  If my pain can be defined as buying love through materialistic things, then that would define it accurately, but I also had the pain of wishing women didn’t care about these sorts of things.  The part where this comparison goes awry is when Aristotle says “If this is a proper definition of anger, it must always be felt towards some particular individual.  It must always be attended by a certain pleasure-that which arises from the expectation of revenge” (Book 2, Part 2).  I don’t feel any anger towards a person, but more towards what this ad is using to display what it takes to reunite love.  I’m not sure who I would take revenge on; the women who don’t find me funny until I present diamonds?  DeBeers for making me feel like I must buy diamonds?  Myself for actually wanting to buy diamonds now?  Whoever is to blame I do not know, but I actually feel angrier writing this as I follow along with Aristotle.  I guess he is the true master of persuasion.

                In terms of connecting Aristotle to how the ad wants the audience to feel, I think his chapters on confidence and kindness are suiting.  Aristotle says confidence is having “good sense, good moral character, and goodwill” (Book 2, Part 1).  For me, enough is said right here because even though that ad is trying to say that a woman needs diamonds, it is also asking the question of whether or not you want to be the “perfect” husband.  In this case the perfect husband should use his good sense, moral character, and goodwill to purchase the diamonds.  In terms of kindness, Aristotle says “kindness is great if shown to one who is in great need, or who needs what is important and hard to get” (Book 2, Part 7).  Now I don’t think anyone is ever in a great need of diamonds, but I do get the second part when he says it is “important and hard to get.”  These diamonds are important because of the occasion, Valentine’s Day, and they are hard to get because well frankly, they are ridiculously expensive, which usually takes a chunk out of any man’s wallet.

                DeBeers wants men to want to be loved by their wives more, and what other way then to purchase them a huge, flawless diamond?  Who would’ve known that through a diamonds power, your woman will see you as funnier?  DeBeers apparently, and through this ad they have shown that you cannot let your wife go without their beautiful selection on Valentine’s Day.  I mean really, what kind of person would you be?  DeBeers uses a carefully laid out strategy of making the audience feel like they must buy these diamonds or it will surely be the end to them!  Either way, the ad is effective in producing the sense of need and want for what will end in an ecstatic wife.

Thoughts on Aristotle book 2 parts 12-26

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.