I found the idea of commonplaces kind of interesting. Aristotle used two different kinds of topics for rhetoric. These included any arguments (common topics), or those that belonged to some field of argument (special topics). The common topics included topics of past, future and fact, greater or lesser and possibility. The first topic: conjecture (past, future, fact), are educated guesses that probably happened in the past or present and will take place in the future. I think this this concept is curious. Today, it seems that this information would never be enough to make a convincing argument. There usually needs to be a lot more physical evidence to be successful at persuading the opposing viewpoints. The second common topic is degree. Greater and lesser are relative to each other. This topic has a lot to do with values. Ancient rhetors agreed that goodness, justice, honor and expediency were common values. The topic can examine what values are 'greater or lesser' than others in each specific example. This concept makes me think about how different our values are to Americans today. Is honor and justice still one of the most valuable assets in society today? I think that times have changed a lot, the public now uses a different set of norms. And finally, the topic of possibility is used to see what is or isn't possible. This would be a good topic, however what is possible now may be more or less possible in the future. Possibilities are always changing.
Aristotle
I find the idea of artistic vs. nonartistic proofs very confusing. So, non artistic proofs don't need to be created, they are factual and from external sources; they use a system of logic, while the artistic proofs must create the argument and appeal to pathos, logos and ethos. I know that there are far less non artistic proofs, such as contracts and testimonies. But it seems as though almost everything needed to be a proof could be created. It seems as though it is a very subjective concept.
Aristotle
I find the idea of artistic vs. nonartistic proofs very confusing. So, non artistic proofs don't need to be created, they are factual and from external sources; they use a system of logic, while the artistic proofs must create the argument and appeal to pathos, logos and ethos. I know that there are far less non artistic proofs, such as contracts and testimonies. But it seems as though almost everything needed to be a proof could be created. It seems as though it is a very subjective concept.
No comments:
Post a Comment