DOC PREVIEW
MIT 21W 747 - Truth and Rhetorical Effectiveness

This preview shows page 1-2 out of 6 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 6 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 6 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 6 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

Kevin Liu 21W.747 Professor Aden Evens A1R Truth and Rhetorical Effectiveness A speaker has two fundamental objectives. The first is to get an intended message across to an audience. This transfer is facilitated by simplicity and clarity, which the speaker aims to achieve “through the structured use of symbols.”1 Speeches use the symbols of language and words. The second aim of the speaker after clarifying his message is to persuade the audience to accept it. It would seem that a speaker is more successful at accomplishing the two objectives when he has validity and truth on his side, but is his rhetoric just as effective without them? While the truths behind a message influence the effectiveness of a speaker, truths’ inherent, vague nature adds a dimension of uncertainty to its effect. Two specific types of truths, quantitative and moral, can have differing effects on rhetorical successes. Quantitative truths deal with those aspects of nature that can be calculated, and the tangible, physical properties of systems. On the other hand, moral truths are more abstract and subject to broad interpretation. In his The History and Theory of Rhetoric: An Introduction, James Herrick conveniently categorizes the symbols and strategies used in persuasive argument into four categories – argument, appeals, arrangement, and aesthetics.2 With each type of truth, these four simple, yetvery prevalent methods of persuasion offer different angles and dimensions from which to approach the truth’s influence on a speaker’s rhetoric. The seemingly uncomplicated nature of quantitative truths would suggest that its relationship with rhetorical success is the most straightforward of the ones aforementioned. A quantitative truth’s “measurable” aspect implies that some form of experimentation was done to obtain the results the truth claims. How certain chemicals react with each other is found through thorough laboratory work; the nature of our solar system has been extensively mapped by space probes. A chemistry professor can clarify her work to her students through visual means. She can take them to the lab, combust magnesium with oxygen, and show students the extremely bright light that results. In another case, an astronomer can easily prove the spherical shape of the Earth today. He only has to pull up satellite images and point to the curvature displayed. Yet, that last truth, which we take for granted nowadays, was not taken so lightly just a few hundred years ago. Before the Scientific Revolution of the 17th century, Aristotle showed through valid scientific methods that the Earth was at the center of the solar system. Parallax states that “relative positions of distant fixed objects shift for a moving observer.” Classical astronomers convinced themselves and others that because the stars did not shift positions in the sky, the Earth must have been at the center.3 A fact that we know today to be false had convinced all the brightest intellectuals of the time of its “truth” through scientific arguments. People are readily persuaded by qualitative truths. The sway of moral truths over a rhetor’s effects, however, can be less concrete. The concept of morality is debated in many circles and illustrations of what is or is not moral vary greatly. Moral truths, in its general form, can be understood to refer to those principles that are ethical and right; principles that are accepted by a society who seeks to treat all its citizens with - 2 -respect and fairness. A morality issue that has been repeatedly challenged in the past 100 years is human rights and justice. Has history given us advocates and opponents of this issue who were equally successful in spreading their message? The greatest war ever fought between nations produced two of the greatest orators, Winston Churchill and Adolf Hitler. Throughout World War II, Churchill advocated principles that are ethical and right; he endeavored to expand a society that sought to treat all its citizens with respect and fairness. By these standards, Hitler did the exact opposite. He schemed to spread wealth to only a very specific and minute portion of the German people, and pushed forward institutionalized genocide with secret police and concentration camps. However, both used their skills of rhetoric to rally populations behind them and advance their agendas. In one of history’s most moving and passionate speeches, Winston Churchill addressed the House of Commons to rally the British people in anticipation of the Battle of Britain, “We shall not flag nor fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France and on the seas and oceans; we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air. We shall defend our island whatever the cost may be; we shall fight on beaches, landing grounds, in fields, in streets and on the hills. We shall never surrender…”4 Aesthetically, he arranges this passage at the end of his speech giving the country’s status update to sum up his clear intention to never give up. Churchill displays his resolve and commitment with lines of repetition. In this particular speech, he argues for the strength of the British Fleet and her people. He appeals to their patriotism to brace them for the oncoming Nazi assault, and in the end, he is successful in every way. - 3 -In his lifetime, Adolf Hitler rose to power in Nazi Germany by appealing to the hatred and bitterness harbored by the suppressed Germans. His skillful rhetoric argued for and placed the blame for their defeat in World War I onto the Jewish population, first in Germany, then the world. In the following excerpt, his demonstrates his blatant manipulation of language to promote genocide, “For us, this is not a problem you can turn a blind eye to-one to be solved by small concessions. For us, it is a problem of whether our nation can ever recover its health, whether the Jewish spirit can ever really be eradicated. Don't be misled into thinking you can fight a disease without killing the carrier, without destroying the bacillus. Don't think you can fight racial tuberculosis without taking care to rid the nation of the carrier of that racial tuberculosis. This Jewish contamination will not subside, this poisoning of the nation will not end, until the carrier himself, the Jew, has been banished from our midst.”5 By comparing the Jews to bacteria infesting a human


View Full Document
Download Truth and Rhetorical Effectiveness
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Truth and Rhetorical Effectiveness and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Truth and Rhetorical Effectiveness 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?