WHAT IS A RHETORICAL TRIANGLE AND HOW TO USE IT A rhetorical triangle is made up of three persuasion strategies namely logos, pathos and ethos. These three persuasion appeals always work in tandem during arguments. The great Greek philosopher, Aristotle, in 4th century BCE wrote great treatises concerning rhetoric where he outlined the three major rhetoric appeals as mentioned above. Essentially, these strategies are what make up the rhetorical triangle. Although Aristotle himself did not use the triangular imagery which was adopted later, he effectively outlined the three persuasion modes and their uses in communication or during an argument.
Aristotle distinguished rhetoric as persuasion and black–and–white morality. Plato differentiates rhetoric as flattery and discovery truth. Aristotle's view of rhetoric is through an equation of dialectic plus rhetoric equals to persuasion. Aristotle is characterized as superfluous through the way of present rhetoric. For an instant, in page 178 "Rhetoric is the counterpart of dialect".Although rhetoric can be a subject
Aristotle and other great philosophers define rhetoric as a form of persuasion. Aristotle was the first to explain the rhetorical triangle and its divisions which are: the speaker, the audience, and the message (Aristotle 185). Aristotle also argued how rhetoric falls into these divisions (185). Although all of the parts of the rhetorical triangle are significant, the audience is the most important. If the speaker does not understand his audience, he will not be able to convey the message.
Plato (c.428 – 348 B.C.) is a well-known Greek philosopher and mathematician from the Socratic period that had an immense impact on modern democratic theory. Plato’s political implications contained the pathologies of the democratic public sphere. Through Plato’s encounters and views on politics, he provided foundational ideas and insights on deliberative theory. According to Chambers (2009) his belief was that the strongest objection to rhetoric is not that appeals to passion over reason, but that it is nomological rather than dialogical (p.324).
Each of these strategies were imperative to determining which of the two methods of persuasion being examined in this article were more effective. By looking at the separate branches of the ELM determines how involved a member is and how this affects the way people receive the persuasive messages. Central route processing allows people who are more invested in a subject to be more persuaded by informational messages such as the ones displayed in the article. Peripheral route processing however, causes people who are less invested in the message to be more persuaded by testimonials. The likert-scale seemed to be an effective way to measure this information because it allowed people to speak what they felt through a variety of provided options.
In philosophy, there are many interpretations as to what ethics are correct for that time frame. One such form of ethics was Nicomachean ethics, written by Aristotle. With his ethics, Aristotle goes to great lengths to explain, for the most part, why humanity does what it does in a reasonable and rational manner. He goes over what “good” is, and why people strive to get to that “good”. However, there are some problems that arise when trying to discuss Aristotle’s ethics.
Nicomachean Ethics and Function Argument In the first book of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle’s informs the reader what Eudaimonia, or living well, is. The purpose of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, is to discover the human good. For Aristotle, the way to figure out a human being’s good, we have to identify what the function of a human being is. Throughout Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle claims that human function is rational activity and reason. Aristotle’s quest to determine what Eudaimonia, which can be translated to happiness and success, is in the Nicomachean Ethics and leads him to the question of the function of human beings.
The contention that selfefficacy beliefs are a critical ingredient in human functioning is consistent with the view of many theorists and philosophers who have argued that the potent affective, evaluative, and episodic nature of beliefs make them a filter through which new phenomena are interpreted (e. g., Aristotle, James, Dewey, Kant, Maslow, Nisbett and Ross, Rokeach). People's self-efficacy beliefs should not be confused with their judgments of the consequences that their behavior will produce. Typically, of course, self-efficacy beliefs help determine the outcomes one expects. Confident individuals anticipate
Generally confidence can be defined as the state of feeling certain about the truth of something, while if it is defined in the ToK context knowing what you're good at, the value you provide, and acting in a way that conveys that to others confidence is the belief people has from a choice or proposition that are based on evidence that is correct, it is a form of certainty. However, a certainty doesn’t mean an increase in confidence. While doubt is the state of mind which lies between belief and disbelief that involves uncertainty. When people have doubt, they will question every knowledge that they have and just had. It arises a questioning and creates a revaluation regarding the knowledge that could result in a new knowledge and furthering the knowledge that was simple into a complex mind.