Any Hubbers willing to help me out with some brainstorming? You're standing before a potentially violent political conflict (insert your own imagination here)...you must get the message to people that they've got to lay down their weapons and be at peace. What do you do? Say?
All thoughts are welcome, humor would be appreciated (although this is serious research).
That's easy! You walk out there with a suit on. You know, real professional looking man. You remove your jacket and publicly display a bra. That might just be a good ice breaker and it would appeal to those of alternate lifestyles.
You need to make a great speech. Be Cicero. Use Aristotelian rhetorical strategies.
You have to perform a speech that does a few things in sequence:
1. You have to prove you understand their needs/desires/trouble 2. You have to establish ethos as someone worthy of listening to as you speak/perform your appeal. 3. You have to take your understanding of their needs/troubles and bring down the emotional level through empathy that ebbs toward calm so logic and reason can begin. 4. Create a syllogistic argument or enthymeme to illustrate a major problem resulting from conflict. 5. Restate the enthymeme as a metaphor (4 and 5 can be flip-flopped) 6. Appeal to new emotion based on reasonable/moral foundation you have made. 7. Restate benefit of new action with a call to action (laying down arms, one more set of talks... etc).
Not sure this helps, but that's what came to mind when I read your OP.
Sort of. I read it all the time. I have a few that I go back to religiously. I write for a marketing company and I have a handful of texts that I go back to repeatedly and he's my favorite by far. There's so much pop-advice out there, it's good to have something solid to hold on to. The Rhetoric of Aristotle is like a Bible that you can pop open to certain parts to really help focus a point.
It's nice to see you are still bitter and trying to pick a fight with me, though. Hanging on my every word, hoping for a shot. Poor, angry little troll.
You have CLEARLY not read Aristotle's rhetoric. To "manipulate" is to be a sophist, against which Plato fought vehemently and the skill-set thing Aristotle endorsed with moral caveat. The WHOLE point of Aristotelian rhetoric was the persuit of Plantonic ideals within the context of reality. Aristotle's whole point was to identify and isolate the numerous motivators behind human behavoir and to apply the performance structure of the sophists to the persuit of good.
If you think that is stupid, well, um... read more or something.
Actually, I didn't let the post...post, I realized there was more that I needed to explore, and now you've provided direction for me, and I appreciate it, and am glad my instincts, rather than my impulses, were correct.
No worries. I probably came down harder than I should have anyway. The beers are flowing pretty freely this evening.
I sort of worship at the altar of the ancient Greeks, so, forgive me for being zealous. But, well, they just got it so, so deeply. I kinda go crazy watching our society having these "debates" about things... war, religion, gay marriage, death penatly... u name it, and it's all been debated already. 2500 years ago, and, people get so angry and perplexed that injustice is, etc.
It's this animal we are. It's human-ness. The essence of the great democracy that spawned the rest was the ability, the DUTY to speak, to communicate. They wrote great treatise on the art. The sophists giving charlatan classes to teach exactly what you suggested, the skills of speech to use to push buttons and manipulate to win (Much like modern lawyers use..... WIN the case, truth and justice having nothing to do with it... etc.) But Aristotle's point was not to disprove Plato's idealistic "silliness" but to say that, you can use the sophist powers of amazing speech giving to make moral points. If your enemy has a sword and you have only a stick, it behooves you to get a sword to fight for good.
As you can see - it depend on who you are talking to.
SabOh believes in 'superior force' - to get him to put down his gun, you need to have a tank or bazooka.
The only time you will find me (ouside a shooting range or my home) with a gun is in defense of my neighborhood. To get me to relent, you would have to convince me there is no threat.
For any person willing to use a weapon, there is a different motivation - if you are dealing with a neanderthal, you can only reason with superior force. If they respond to an ethic, you have to appeal to that ethic.
You only prove the case for the RIGHT rhetoric. As you say, YOU could be dissuaded from violence if she could prove there was no threat.
The neanderthal has a different set of needs. Her rhetoric would have to be different from that she used on you. She would have to know what the neanderthals were afraid of losing. Food resources? Mating opportunities? Security for family? Power and influence in the region (a level up on the previous ones really).
Frankly, no offense, but these are exactly what motivates YOU, what you call a "threat." So, the only difference between convincing you that there is no threat and convincing neanderthals that there isn't one is in the choice of language and method of delivery, the style or the performance of the oratory. As Goldenpath suggested, there are ways of getting attention with any crowd. You just have to "speak their language" in a way that goes beyond understanding what their words/spelling means. The right "voice," the right "ethos," and a good, stylistic performance of them to get the enthymeme across.
Enthymeme: noun Logic A syllogism in which one of the premises or the conclusion is not stated explicitly.
'EnThuMeem' (pronunciation) -
The informal method of reasoning typical of rhetorical discourse. The enthymeme is sometimes defined as a "truncated syllogism" since either the major or minor premise found in that more formal method of reasoning is left implied. The enthymeme typically occurs as a conclusion coupled with a reason. When several enthymemes are linked together, this becomes sorites.
We cannot trust this man, for he has perjured himself in the past. In this enthymeme, the major premise of the complete syllogism is missing:
* Those who perjure themselves cannot be trusted. (Major premise - omitted) * This man has perjured himself in the past. (Minor premise - stated) * This man is not to be trusted. (Conclusion - stated)
2. A figure of speech which bases a conclusion on the truth of its contrary.
If to be foolish is evil, then it is virtuous to be wise. This also an example of chiasmus
hubbers / Harvey Stelman Because it's a story of how Chicago handles political strive,I will tell the story. The 1952 democrat convention was held in Chicago. Radical groups were protesting on Michigan boulevard. Mayor Daley ( the present mayor's father) called for calm and peaceful protests by the radicals.So the story goes,the protesters ignored the mayor's request. The Chicago police was dispatched and force was inflicted on the protesters.The local papers showed pictures of many of the beaten participants.
Chicago police are the best in the nation when it comes to peaceful demonstrations.I can't remember the last time the democrats held their convention in Chicago.
“Who Are You?” Often we heard people asked. They want you to tell them who you really are. This is really simple question, is it? Or is it not?Have you ever noticed how people can come up with different answer for...
While obedience to rules can't bring salvation, those who are saved ought to live lives worthy of that salvation. thus paul gives the colossians instruction concerning proper conduct . Colossians 3:5-8 . he states in...
I am curious about what the public thinks about militarized police. As a police chaplain I hear mainly one side of the discussion. I would like to hear some general perceptions of police officers and police...
I just posted the following answer to a discussion I'm having on one of my hubs. Here's what I said.What's your response?What can I say in response. Your observations are indeed accurate. My only reason for mentioning...