The second half of the Aristotle reading was very
interesting. It was especially interesting to me because, in my previous
rhetoric class we did not read this far into Aristotle. He starts the reading
out by describing the importance of oratory. He talked about this in the first
half but, seems to go into more detail in the first few pages of the second
half. I really like the line when he says; “it is not enough to know what we ought
to say; we must also say it as we ought.” This is so true you can be super
intelligent but if you don’t know how to deliver your intelligence it is
irrelevant because, no one will listen to it.
Aristotle seems to focus more on the structure of language
in the second half. He discusses the use of nouns and verbs and seems to put a
lot of emphasis on how language is structured. He begins to break words down
and talk about language on a more technical level.
Aristotle puts a huge emphasis on metaphors in this section
of the reading. Aristotle states that there are four types of metaphors but,
the proportional kind is the most important. He then goes on to include a
metaphor by Pericles. “The vanishing from their country of the young men who
had fallen in the war ‘as if the spring were taken out of the year.’ I
personally think this is a beautiful metaphor it compares death to an absence
of spring. Do you think this metaphor has a deeper meaning than its surface level
meaning?
I think metaphor use is very common in society, we just
don’t stop to think that what we are hearing or saying is a metaphor. For
instance, a lot of great movies have a lot of great metaphor in them. I think
one of the most famous ones we all know about it Forrest Gump. Forrest’s famous
metaphor is; “Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you’re
gonna get.” Metaphors are all around us if we just pay more attention.
Aristotle brings in this entire concept regarding poetry,
something I am not previously familiar with. I get slightly confused with this
concept because, I have a hard time connecting poetry to rhetoric. I have a
hard time with this because, in my previous rhetoric class we stopped when we
got to poetry and we never talked about it beyond that. How do you guys see
poetry working as a rhetorical strategy?
When discussing poetry it can be challenging to argue how it fits into a rhetorical strategy or even if it can be associated with rhetorical strategies. When authors create a poem, I believe there is some sort of intention. That is the reason why they write the words that they do in the order they are written in. Likewise, intention is also shown if a poet decides to focus on a certain topic like love or death. When a poet writes with intention, which is presumably every time he/she writes a poem, then poetry can fit in as a rhetorical strategy because there is a specific purpose for the poem, to induce hate, to instill fear, to object reminiscence. Because an author writes with specific intentions, poetry can be argued to fit in as a rhetorical strategy. On the other hand, poetry can also be argued to not be a rhetorical strategy because of the interpretation of the reader. When reading a poem, the reader is not going to read a poem or interpret it through the intended purpose of the writer; the reader is going to interpret the work through his or her own ideology. It is for this reason that I believe poetry does not fit as a rhetorical strategy.
ReplyDeleteSo in terms of your question of how poetry and rhetoric can work together:
ReplyDeleteAs you mentioned, Aristotle goes quite a bit about metaphors. I can definitely understand being confused about how they can be used in rhetoric, I certainly was at first. But, while I agree with the conclusion we came up in class that poetry isn't inherently rhetorical in itself, it can be used as a tool for rhetoric, particularly as a tool for pathos, an appeal of the emotions. While pure logos and ethos can inspire faith and some understanding, metaphor and other poetic phrases can evoke emotional or visceral reactions that can sway the listener in ways that pure logic alone couldn't. For example, the reading we looked at on Tuesday from Dr. King had some absolutely wonderful metaphors in the small bit of his writing we read. In particular, the one that moved me the most was a metaphor used to explain the disappointment African-Americans felt when promises to dismantle segregated schools fell through. He gave us the facts, but rather than try to plainly state the disappointment that followed, his words were "One must understand the pendulum swing between the elation that arose when the edict was handed down and the despair that followed the failure to bring it to life" (5). Through the simple image of a pendulum, he was able to evoke an emotional reaction to understand the joy followed by swift heartbreak. This image produced a bigger reaction for me than what he spoke of earlier about the historical facts of the laws, promises, and how they fell through.
A big reason why metaphor is an effective rhetorical tool, is because it often uses sensory imagery -- things that evoke concepts of things we can see, hear, smell, touch, etc. This is crucial to what Aristotle writes about in chapter 11 about metaphor and "making the hearer see things" (190). Being able to evoke very specific mental imagery through metaphor allows the listener to feel and understand the speaker's argument in ways that pure logic might not accomplish.
So to answer your question, I see poetry working with rhetoric as purely a tool for pathos, designed to evoke imagery and emotion that pure facts alone could not draw out. While logic and credibility will help the listener understand and believe the main points, pathos, which can be presented via metaphor and poetic language, can help the listener feel as the speaker does (or as the speaker wants the listener to feel).