Smith and Hyde

Least importantly, I felt that Smith and Hyde's point could have been summed up using much less paper. The whole piece just seemed far too redundant. I often found myself questioning the relevance or the necessity of a lot of the people they referenced. However, altogether, I felt that they did a good job providing an applicable understanding of Aristotle's take on emotions.

I felt that they should have included in their conclusion, when debating potential discussion of their analysis's applicability to a modern crowd, the following point:

They discuss the fragmented media as a potential criticism from McGee and Martin. They quote McGee saying "One clear truth will not change: The publics business is now being done more often via direct mail, television spots, documentaries, mass entertainment, and 'quotable quotes' on the evening news than through the more traditional media (broadsides, pamphlets, books, and public speeches.)" They say "doesn't this phenomenon create grave difficulties for orators seeking to define and sustain audiences with public discourse?" The idea being that their point regarding the importance of emotion becomes less important when people most often receive things in a much hastier, fragmented fashion. They should have pointed out that the fragmented media creates very specific niches that allow people to reinforce, and surround themselves with, things that they are biased toward. While you may not have the opportunity to play with emotion the way Edward's did, due to time and delivery constraints, speakers have the same advantage as Edward's in that they can often know what their audience fancies. Emotion can play just as significant a role, although arguably not the EXACT same role, as it did in Edward's time. The fragmented delivery of media, I would argue, has helped to keep the importance of emotional appeals alive in this rapidly expanding world. The internet allows speakers to reach very specific, and easily categorized, groups of people who migrate towards the things they agree with, like, etc. This isn't necessarily good for the human race as a whole, as it allows people to further narrow the scope of the information they receive, but I do feel that it helps an orator target specific emotional appeals. When so many things are changing so rapidly, and people have access to such a variety of content, it can often be hard to read, or even know anything about, an audience. The world is far different, and more relevant to my point groups of people are far more expansive and diverse, than it/they were when Edward's was speaking to the masses. I would argue that as outlandish as Edward's methods may seem to a college classroom full of rhetoric students, given fragmented methods of media delivery Edward's could very likely find a group of people, in 2011, that would be affected by his sermons emotional appeals.

Check it out!

This is kind of how I feel about rhetoric...

Visual Analysis

I found this advertisement on the www.thecoolhunter.net. I am unable to find reliable information regarding the original context of the ad. I don’t really think it is of much relevance to the audience considering only a small fraction of human beings can afford the product. This seems to be, if anything, a bit of guerilla marketing. It appears to have circulated the internet, and has been associated with "ad-wars" between BMW and Audi. This was proposed as an "end of discussion" from Bentley to the bickering companies. However, there is not solid evidence that this is the case.

The argument the image is making is that Bentley has the status and the product to literally tell the competition to f*** off. Also owning a Bentley puts you in a position to tell everyone who doesn’t to f*** off as well. This works in multiple directions. It makes those who are not owners envious, and it makes potential owners smitten about entering into the ranks of Bentley owners. The man in the picture exudes a smug, confident sense of pride.

The ad makes fun of itself, as well as its competition, and manages to do it with class. Very few companies could pull something like this off; Bentley has a reputation for producing some of the most luxurious and expensive cars in the world. The image of the car and the brand is depicted blatantly by the cliche luxury environment created in the room. Considering the niche market the company serves (the extremely wealthy) the ad is speaking to the mentality of status symbols we typically keep to ourselves. Everything we buy is, in one way or another, a representation of the image associated with the brand.

“I drive a Bentley-- I am better than you.”

This is essentially the gist. A simple concept that is at the root of most advertisements, but can hardly ever be said out loud without seeming pretentious. The type of person likely to respond to this would be someone who was not easily offended, and someone who doesn’t mind laughing about their elite status. This appeals to literally the person it depicts. Bentley is saying : yes you are a rich, white, elitist male, and you have every right to give everyone else the finger. You, and your car, rule. This is not to say that being a white male is essential, it just appeals to a pseudo-ideal. The stereotype shown can be applied more to a mentality rather than literally a type of person.

The subject is surrounded by shiny leather and a dark ominous background, which leaves the rest of the room up to the viewers imagination. It is  hard to envision a place where a man in a nice suit comfortably rests on a fancy leather couch as being anything other than grand. This creates the exclusive nature of wealth itself and appeals to most peoples desire to be a member of the (fiscally speaking) elite. By keeping the contents of the image simple and vague, the viewer can feel more of the room itself. The sheen coming from the leather couch gives the audience a sense of the familiar, cold touch of leather. Requiring the audience to utilize their imaginations brings them closer to the situation, thus making them want it in actuality even more. The only source of light in the room comes from the right side, which accents a seat on the couch directly out of sight right next to the subject. This brings the audience even closer to the aforementioned exclusivity as to say "there is a spot right here for you, just go buy a Bentley."

An alternative interpretation of this advertisement might be that it is unnecessary and offensive. While this would largely depend on the context, it is not fair to speak solely in terms of the intended audience. This ad could make some people feel a strong sense of discomfort, anger, or even disgust. This could be the result of (1) the offensive hand gesture the subject is presenting, or (2) the blatant expression of wealth as a means of entitlement. It is unlikely that this would matter in terms of successful marketing for Bentley, but it is relevant in analyzing the pathos of the image. The rooms vague presentation could easily become a very evil representation of social hierarchy for those who this advertisement is not directed, or those who find obscene gestures and gross displays of wealth offensive.

Blogging...

I have never had a blog before and think that I am having a little bit of trouble adapting to the casual nature of it... Whenever I think about making these blog posts it seems more daunting than it probably should. I thought that just saying this on the blog might be good practice for me.

Aristotle Book II Ch. 12-26

From Book II Chapter 15:

"In the generations of men as in the fruits of the earth, there is a varying yield; now and then, where the stock is good, exception men are produced for a while, and then decadence sets in. A clever stock will degenerate towards the insane type of character, like the descendants of Alcibiades or of the elder Dionysius; a steady stock towards the fatuous and torpid type, like the descendants of Cimon, Pericles, and Socrates."

I feel that this claim showcases the micro-perspective that haunts Aristotle's rationalizations of character. This statement ignores the various factors on a macroscopic level which, in my opinion, have a much greater influence on what Aristotle calls the degeneration of a clever stock.

When I first read this passage I felt as though I could identify with it. I felt that I was the clever stock succumbing to decadence. However, after thinking about it I realized that Aristotle's logic is flawed. Decadence does not set it as a result of the "stock" becoming accustomed to a lifestyle. This decadence in actuality is a facade. His rationalization of good stock is far to vulnerable to the fluctuations in almost every general state of affairs to be a legitimate contribution to the decline of a group. More often than we like to admit, as it makes us feel of little importance, we are the result of a much bigger picture.

I think it would be interesting if Aristotle were to argue that these two things go hand in hand. But, yet again, I am left with Aristotle's classic broad interpretation of things.

Aristotle Book II Ch. 1-11

Whenever I found myself questioning Aristotle's logic in chapters 1-11, I simply read a paragraph ahead and found him debunking my argument. It seems that he speaks so generally, it is hard to find something I disagree with or have to deeply ponder. I feel that part of what made him such a great rhetorician was his ability to speak in broad terms, yet still, at least seemingly, make profound statements. Chapters 1-11, generally speaking, stated the obvious. He tells us what we already know, even if we have never actually sounded it out. He says "of those we have wronged, and of our enemies or rivals, it is not the passionate and outspoken whom we have to fear, but the quiet, dissembling, unscrupulous; since we never know when they are upon us, we can never be sure they are at a safe distance," he then goes on to say "all terrible things are more terrible if they give us no chance of retrieving a blunder...things are also worse which we cannot, or cannot easily, help. Speaking generally, anything causes us to feel fear that when it happens to, or threatens, others causes us to feel pity." He makes a bold claim about the mysterious threats being the most profound, and then goes on to speak extremely broadly about the idea of fear manifesting itself in anything we can relate to. When I read chapters 1-11 I found myself wondering if I was actually gaining any perspective. I know that, for the most part, what he is saying is true. However, I am unsure if what I am reading is actually all that profound. I also wonder if Aristotle considers his rationalizations of emotion to be finite and innate, or ,if given different circumstances, an emotion could be redefined. By this I mean are these descriptions something that we are conditioned to feel, are they something we are born to feel, or possibly a combination of both? I am not sure if I can clearly iterate the linkage I am trying to make here. I feel that he makes these general claims that I can relate to, but I don't feel that he gives me a better understanding of the nature of my emotions. Experience and perspective are so ingrained and so relative to an understanding of emotion that it is hard to rationalize emotion without giving some view of self. When reading texts which make claims about human beings it is important to decipher the authors opinion on human nature. I think it is clear that Aristotle believes that human beings are innately bad. This leads me to believe that his opinions on emotion are, at least largely,something he deems innate as well.