Ask Figaro
Got a question about rhetoric, figures, Figaro, Figaro's book,the nature of the universe, or just want to lavish praise?
Write in the form at the bottom of this page.
Into what rhetorical category does the phrase "what I wouldn't give for such-and-such" fall?
Dear Snarl,
It's a classic OPTATIO, the expression of desire. Bill Clinton used the figure in his usual craven fashion during an interview with New York Magazine: "I think if there were a president in my party again, no matter who it was, and I was asked to do anything, I would do it. Anything!"
The optatio usually comes in the form of a HYPERBOLE; the optatio price for a horse, for example, is a kingdom.
In addition, your example qualifies as an ANASTROPHE,the poetic word-order switch, a.k.a. the Yodaism. Instead of, "I can't think of enough stuff to give for such and such," you say, "What I wouldn't give..."
Personally, for such a great figure, Figaro would give a fig. Which is a lot.
Fig.
Dear Snarl,
It's a classic OPTATIO, the expression of desire. Bill Clinton used the figure in his usual craven fashion during an interview with New York Magazine: "I think if there were a president in my party again, no matter who it was, and I was asked to do anything, I would do it. Anything!"
The optatio usually comes in the form of a HYPERBOLE; the optatio price for a horse, for example, is a kingdom.
In addition, your example qualifies as an ANASTROPHE,the poetic word-order switch, a.k.a. the Yodaism. Instead of, "I can't think of enough stuff to give for such and such," you say, "What I wouldn't give..."
Personally, for such a great figure, Figaro would give a fig. Which is a lot.
Fig.
November 6, 2007 |
Dear Jay,
I just finished your book and loved it. The book's conclusion regarding the country's need to embrace meaningful argument was especially powerful. While I'm glad to hear that academia is starting to again embrace rhetoric, where does that leave the rest of us? Your book made a return to the use of rhetoric seem both urgent and fun, and I'd rather not wait until the next time a presentation comes along to try out your methods. What do you suggest? Thanks, and thanks for a great read.
Matt
Dear Matt,
Well, I'm starting on a second rhetoric book... But the rest of us won't have long to wait before rhetorical principles permeate the Web and popular press. Within a couple of years I imagine you'll see other rhetoric books come along--the financial success of "Thank You for Arguing" will guarantee that. And I'm not the only speaker out there.
As for trying out the methods, why, that's a daily thing for Figaro. Think of them for every rude attendant or confrontational employee. And critique what you see on TV--preferably in front of kids. This stuff grows on you.
In the meantime, thanks for the kind words. They keep Figaro going.
Yrs,
Fig.
I just finished your book and loved it. The book's conclusion regarding the country's need to embrace meaningful argument was especially powerful. While I'm glad to hear that academia is starting to again embrace rhetoric, where does that leave the rest of us? Your book made a return to the use of rhetoric seem both urgent and fun, and I'd rather not wait until the next time a presentation comes along to try out your methods. What do you suggest? Thanks, and thanks for a great read.
Matt
Dear Matt,
Well, I'm starting on a second rhetoric book... But the rest of us won't have long to wait before rhetorical principles permeate the Web and popular press. Within a couple of years I imagine you'll see other rhetoric books come along--the financial success of "Thank You for Arguing" will guarantee that. And I'm not the only speaker out there.
As for trying out the methods, why, that's a daily thing for Figaro. Think of them for every rude attendant or confrontational employee. And critique what you see on TV--preferably in front of kids. This stuff grows on you.
In the meantime, thanks for the kind words. They keep Figaro going.
Yrs,
Fig.
October 29, 2007 |
Matthew Litt
Matthew Litt
Dear Figaro,
What do you call it when you change a word or two within a phrase or cliche, as in the country song, "I've got friends in low places" or the natural food brand, "Garden of Eatin'?" Are these metalepses since they evoke priorly established semantic clusters?
Spencer
Dear Spencer,
Semantic clusters lie over there in the linguistics pile, even the most priorly established of them. Now and then they tumble over and get crunched underfoot, but they're lovable all the same. That being said, it's the proper term for that country western song.
Garden of Eatin', on the other and, is a PARANOMASIA, the near-pun.
Fig.
What do you call it when you change a word or two within a phrase or cliche, as in the country song, "I've got friends in low places" or the natural food brand, "Garden of Eatin'?" Are these metalepses since they evoke priorly established semantic clusters?
Spencer
Dear Spencer,
Semantic clusters lie over there in the linguistics pile, even the most priorly established of them. Now and then they tumble over and get crunched underfoot, but they're lovable all the same. That being said, it's the proper term for that country western song.
Garden of Eatin', on the other and, is a PARANOMASIA, the near-pun.
Fig.
October 29, 2007 |
Spencer
Spencer
Dear Figaro,
What is this rhetorical device taht won Sen. McCain a standing ovation at he last Republican debate?
Source:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071024/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_ad
"A few days ago, Senator Clinton tried to spend $1 million on the Woodstock concert museum," McCain says in the ad, drawn from Sunday's debate on Fox News.
"Now my friends, I wasn't there. I'm sure it was a cultural and pharmaceutical event," he says as images of the crowd and dancing concertgoers are shown. Republican presidential rival Rudy Giuliani, his head thrown back, is shown laughing at the joke during the debate.
Then, the images shift to footage of McCain as a POW in Vietnam.
"I was tied up at the time," he says amid grainy black-and-white shots of a younger McCain strapped to a bed. A Navy pilot, McCain was shot down in 1967 and spent 5 1/2 years in a North Vietnamese prison.
During the debate, McCain's line earned him a standing ovation.
Mugo
Dear Mugo,
It's a whole mess of rhetorical devices, starting with AD HOMINEM, the attack on the opponent's ethos, or character. It's also an effective use of PATHOS--the rhetorical art of manipulating the audience's emotions (both patriotism and humor). He's using a MARTYRIA, which stuffs the ethos with noble experiences from the past. It's an ANTITHESIS, comparing one ethos with another. And it's an ironic form of CONCESSIO, using the opponent's own stand against him--or her.
It's nice to see McCain loosen up a bit, even if his loosening up includes heavily scripted lines like this one. As for the Woodstock Museum, Figaro thinks that the government has spent money on worse things lately. But he's probably biased. Back when the concert was actually going on, a friend offered to give him a ride to Woodstock. Figaro turned it down. He figured it would be too crowded.
Fig.
What is this rhetorical device taht won Sen. McCain a standing ovation at he last Republican debate?
Source:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071024/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_ad
"A few days ago, Senator Clinton tried to spend $1 million on the Woodstock concert museum," McCain says in the ad, drawn from Sunday's debate on Fox News.
"Now my friends, I wasn't there. I'm sure it was a cultural and pharmaceutical event," he says as images of the crowd and dancing concertgoers are shown. Republican presidential rival Rudy Giuliani, his head thrown back, is shown laughing at the joke during the debate.
Then, the images shift to footage of McCain as a POW in Vietnam.
"I was tied up at the time," he says amid grainy black-and-white shots of a younger McCain strapped to a bed. A Navy pilot, McCain was shot down in 1967 and spent 5 1/2 years in a North Vietnamese prison.
During the debate, McCain's line earned him a standing ovation.
Mugo
Dear Mugo,
It's a whole mess of rhetorical devices, starting with AD HOMINEM, the attack on the opponent's ethos, or character. It's also an effective use of PATHOS--the rhetorical art of manipulating the audience's emotions (both patriotism and humor). He's using a MARTYRIA, which stuffs the ethos with noble experiences from the past. It's an ANTITHESIS, comparing one ethos with another. And it's an ironic form of CONCESSIO, using the opponent's own stand against him--or her.
It's nice to see McCain loosen up a bit, even if his loosening up includes heavily scripted lines like this one. As for the Woodstock Museum, Figaro thinks that the government has spent money on worse things lately. But he's probably biased. Back when the concert was actually going on, a friend offered to give him a ride to Woodstock. Figaro turned it down. He figured it would be too crowded.
Fig.
October 24, 2007 |
Mugo
Mugo
This isn't a question, but this guy says almost the exact same thing that's in your book, and I think it's called decorum.
http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2005/05/learn-to-say-aint.html
Avi
Dear Avi,
That's a fun blog, if a little long-winded. He quotes a friend asking why the Democrats keep nominating Frazier Crane. You'd think the party of "the people" would run people who talked like, well, people.
You're right in thinking this is all about DECORUM--not the teacup-and-lace variety, but the rhetorical kind. Through your words, gestures, and appearance, you make the audience believe you're one of them. George W. Bush, a millionaire Yale graduate who vacations at the family compound in Maine, sounds much more like a good ol' American than midwesterners like Hillary and Barack. The Dems' main problem: they're not decorous enough.
Fig.
http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2005/05/learn-to-say-aint.html
Avi
Dear Avi,
That's a fun blog, if a little long-winded. He quotes a friend asking why the Democrats keep nominating Frazier Crane. You'd think the party of "the people" would run people who talked like, well, people.
You're right in thinking this is all about DECORUM--not the teacup-and-lace variety, but the rhetorical kind. Through your words, gestures, and appearance, you make the audience believe you're one of them. George W. Bush, a millionaire Yale graduate who vacations at the family compound in Maine, sounds much more like a good ol' American than midwesterners like Hillary and Barack. The Dems' main problem: they're not decorous enough.
Fig.
October 23, 2007 |
Avi
Avi
Hey Figaro,
In a seminar the other day, I disputed the meaning of metonymy with this guy. He defined it as proximity (replacing a term with another that's nearby). I thought it was more about walls between adjacent categories (reducing England and France to "London" and "Paris" implies that they're wholly distinct). His response, in front of the professor, was that I must have asperger's syndrome since I pay too much attention to detail. What an asshole. But I'm still sort of confused about metonymy and suspect he might be right about the definition.
NM
Dear NM,
In calling your fellow student an "asshole," you actually coined a metonymy, associating something simple with its obnoxious, complex whole. (In diagnosing you with Asperger's, he exhibited what in rhetoric is called "being an asshole.")
But both of you are right, sort of. What the asshole calls "proximity," linguists term "contiguity," a synonym for "related." Linguists like to say that a baby's first metonymy is the nipple, which represents breast, milk, and satisfaction of hunger. The baby eventually discovers that a finger is not a nipple and therefore belongs in the Not Milk category; by age 12, he learns that "giving the finger" is a metonymy distinct from the proffer of milk.
But Figaro is no scholar; he seeks usable figures that perform everyday rhetorical chores. So to us, the simple definition is the best one: a metonymy is a part that represents the whole.
That's "whole" with a "W."
Fig.
In a seminar the other day, I disputed the meaning of metonymy with this guy. He defined it as proximity (replacing a term with another that's nearby). I thought it was more about walls between adjacent categories (reducing England and France to "London" and "Paris" implies that they're wholly distinct). His response, in front of the professor, was that I must have asperger's syndrome since I pay too much attention to detail. What an asshole. But I'm still sort of confused about metonymy and suspect he might be right about the definition.
NM
Dear NM,
In calling your fellow student an "asshole," you actually coined a metonymy, associating something simple with its obnoxious, complex whole. (In diagnosing you with Asperger's, he exhibited what in rhetoric is called "being an asshole.")
But both of you are right, sort of. What the asshole calls "proximity," linguists term "contiguity," a synonym for "related." Linguists like to say that a baby's first metonymy is the nipple, which represents breast, milk, and satisfaction of hunger. The baby eventually discovers that a finger is not a nipple and therefore belongs in the Not Milk category; by age 12, he learns that "giving the finger" is a metonymy distinct from the proffer of milk.
But Figaro is no scholar; he seeks usable figures that perform everyday rhetorical chores. So to us, the simple definition is the best one: a metonymy is a part that represents the whole.
That's "whole" with a "W."
Fig.
October 13, 2007 |
NM
NM
Dear Fig,
Amidst my diligent study of rhetoric, I came across a snag I couldn't quite figure out. I've been racking my brain to try to understand a few of the fallacies, particularly Affirming the Consequent and Denying the Antecedent, but coming up confused. Your book makes it clear to spot, but my confusion lies in the proof and in the correct identification.
In Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student, and there are two particular examples that are central to my query. The example given to spot the fallacy of affirming the consequent, is merely an if/then hypothetical. Am I supposed to make a syllogism solely out of the hypothetical to find the fallacy, or do I have to be given a conclusion or consequent that will validate or invalidate the hypothetical? Any light you could shed on this quandary would be much appreciated.
-Confused by Corbett
Dear Confused,
(I hope you don't mind that I edited your question; when we're talking fallacies, we need to keep things as simple as possible.) Corbett suffers a bit from antiseptic examples, such as:
"If he makes concessions to the Russian ambassador, the prestige of the United States will decline." Where's the fallacy in that? It's not there. You must read on:
"The prestige of the United States has declined." No fallacy there, either. Keep reading:
"He must have made concessions to the Russian ambassador." Aha! So there's the fallacy. The proof (our declining prestige) doesn't lead to the conclusion (he made concessions). Why? because you're falsely assuming that the consequence necessarily led from the action. Hence the fallacy's pretentious name, "affirming the consequent."
Still confused? I don't blame you. For one thing, you would never speak those 3 lines (which, by the way, constitute a syllogism) in real life. Instead, you'd use an ENTHYMEME: "Our prestige has declined, so the ambassador must have made concessions to the Russian ambassador."
The rhetorically correct reply is, HUH? While your average half-wit may not know the name for the fallacy, he would probably intuit the illogic. The moral of the story is this: always try to convert an argument to a simple enthymeme: proof, therefore conclusion.
Fig.
Amidst my diligent study of rhetoric, I came across a snag I couldn't quite figure out. I've been racking my brain to try to understand a few of the fallacies, particularly Affirming the Consequent and Denying the Antecedent, but coming up confused. Your book makes it clear to spot, but my confusion lies in the proof and in the correct identification.
In Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student, and there are two particular examples that are central to my query. The example given to spot the fallacy of affirming the consequent, is merely an if/then hypothetical. Am I supposed to make a syllogism solely out of the hypothetical to find the fallacy, or do I have to be given a conclusion or consequent that will validate or invalidate the hypothetical? Any light you could shed on this quandary would be much appreciated.
-Confused by Corbett
Dear Confused,
(I hope you don't mind that I edited your question; when we're talking fallacies, we need to keep things as simple as possible.) Corbett suffers a bit from antiseptic examples, such as:
"If he makes concessions to the Russian ambassador, the prestige of the United States will decline." Where's the fallacy in that? It's not there. You must read on:
"The prestige of the United States has declined." No fallacy there, either. Keep reading:
"He must have made concessions to the Russian ambassador." Aha! So there's the fallacy. The proof (our declining prestige) doesn't lead to the conclusion (he made concessions). Why? because you're falsely assuming that the consequence necessarily led from the action. Hence the fallacy's pretentious name, "affirming the consequent."
Still confused? I don't blame you. For one thing, you would never speak those 3 lines (which, by the way, constitute a syllogism) in real life. Instead, you'd use an ENTHYMEME: "Our prestige has declined, so the ambassador must have made concessions to the Russian ambassador."
The rhetorically correct reply is, HUH? While your average half-wit may not know the name for the fallacy, he would probably intuit the illogic. The moral of the story is this: always try to convert an argument to a simple enthymeme: proof, therefore conclusion.
Fig.
October 10, 2007 |
Nick
Nick
Dear Figaro,
I just finished reading your book for my English class and I now have to fill out a list of rhetorical terms. I have been able to answer most of them, but some of them are really out there. Could you possibly suggest a website that I could go to to find the definitions for these terms?
Thanks,
Alexia
Dear Alexia,
Well, there's mine, for one thing: http://www.figarospeech.com/terms/. Also try the excellent Silva Rhetoricae: http://rhetoric.byu.edu/.
Fig.
I just finished reading your book for my English class and I now have to fill out a list of rhetorical terms. I have been able to answer most of them, but some of them are really out there. Could you possibly suggest a website that I could go to to find the definitions for these terms?
Thanks,
Alexia
Dear Alexia,
Well, there's mine, for one thing: http://www.figarospeech.com/terms/. Also try the excellent Silva Rhetoricae: http://rhetoric.byu.edu/.
Fig.
October 9, 2007 |
Alexia
Alexia
Fig,
While browsing Amazon.com for some other rhetoric books, I saw a couple other titles that caught my eye and made me laugh...
"How to Win Any Argument" and "How to Win Every Argument."
Basic logic should dictate that you cannot win any/every argument that you engage in. For example, it would be impossible to convince my employer to re-open the smoking lounge they closed three years ago at work so we smokers don't have to go outside to smoke anymore, even though the "fitness room" they turned it into isn't used by >>anyone<< anymore, except for the occasional person to nap on the yoga mats. For some reasons when people are working a 12-hour shift, they don't have a strong desire to exercise on their breaks. Weird, huh?
Anyways, back to the point, what figure is being used in these other book titles? (My copy of "Thank You For Arguing" is still packed in a box from moving and I haven't gotten around to digging the book out to look this up myself.)
YITBOS
Dear Yit,
So you haven't read "How to Win an Argument in Three Seconds" yet? It's a perennial winner on Amazon--the diet book of rhetoric. As for what figure these silly books use, it's mere HYPERBOLE, the figure of exaggeration. The "Three-Second" book actually follows Aristotle somewhat. The philosopher said that to get someone to take action, make the goal as desirable as possible and as easy to achieve as possible.
If you want a short list of good rhetoric books, go to http://www.figarospeech.com/rhetoric-books-on-amazon/.
As for smoking in the fitness room, how about offering to smoke only while running 8-minute miles or faster on the treadmill? Since the only non-smoker there is asleep, he probably won't mind the second-hand fumes, and you'll get a neat ying-yang thing going with your lungs. If you can't run an 8-minute mile, it's probably because you're exposed to so much harmful fresh air. Try staying inside and sniffing printer ink cartridges.
Fig.
While browsing Amazon.com for some other rhetoric books, I saw a couple other titles that caught my eye and made me laugh...
"How to Win Any Argument" and "How to Win Every Argument."
Basic logic should dictate that you cannot win any/every argument that you engage in. For example, it would be impossible to convince my employer to re-open the smoking lounge they closed three years ago at work so we smokers don't have to go outside to smoke anymore, even though the "fitness room" they turned it into isn't used by >>anyone<< anymore, except for the occasional person to nap on the yoga mats. For some reasons when people are working a 12-hour shift, they don't have a strong desire to exercise on their breaks. Weird, huh?
Anyways, back to the point, what figure is being used in these other book titles? (My copy of "Thank You For Arguing" is still packed in a box from moving and I haven't gotten around to digging the book out to look this up myself.)
YITBOS
Dear Yit,
So you haven't read "How to Win an Argument in Three Seconds" yet? It's a perennial winner on Amazon--the diet book of rhetoric. As for what figure these silly books use, it's mere HYPERBOLE, the figure of exaggeration. The "Three-Second" book actually follows Aristotle somewhat. The philosopher said that to get someone to take action, make the goal as desirable as possible and as easy to achieve as possible.
If you want a short list of good rhetoric books, go to http://www.figarospeech.com/rhetoric-books-on-amazon/.
As for smoking in the fitness room, how about offering to smoke only while running 8-minute miles or faster on the treadmill? Since the only non-smoker there is asleep, he probably won't mind the second-hand fumes, and you'll get a neat ying-yang thing going with your lungs. If you can't run an 8-minute mile, it's probably because you're exposed to so much harmful fresh air. Try staying inside and sniffing printer ink cartridges.
Fig.
October 9, 2007 |
YITBOS
YITBOS
Dear Figaro
When an argument with my wife on how best to kill mildew / trim the garden / fix the plumbing breaks down into a fight (my way vs not my way), my wife always invokes the name of some specialist, as in 'well, if you can't do it, I'll just call (insert name of local specialist).
Is this a 'deus ex machina' figure? What's the best way to respond? ('Go right ahead' just sounds so silly, sullen and unmanly).
Thanks
Douglas
Dear Douglas,
That reminds me of an exchange my wife and I had a few years ago, when I took over housecleaning responsibilities.
Dorothy: Don't you think it's about time to vacuum?
Me: No, the cat index is too low.
Dorothy: The cat index?
Me: When you can see more dirt than hair on the cat, I vacuum.
Dorothy: That's disgusting!
Me: Call it what you like. I call it "efficient."
It was, too. She fired me from the job. (Our daughter, home from college, now does it.)
While your wife's argument isn't a figure, exactly, you could call it a Straw Man fallacy: the threatened specialist is a straw man that redefines the issue from the task at hand to your incompetence. It SOUNDS like deliberative argument, because it switches to the future, but it's actually a strictly demonstrative one--the language of Right and Wrong. Your lawn-trimming method is Wrong. Therefore, you're incapable of doing it properly. I suggest insisting on deliberative argument, which speaks to your mutual advantage.
YOU: You don't like my methods? Fine. But let's talk about results. If my standards are too low for you, we have three choices: I can raise my standards, we can spend a ton of money, or you can do it yourself.
WIFE: I choose "A."
YOU: I choose "C." Let's compromise with "B." But since you're the one who's unhappy with my technique, you should come up with the money.
WIFE: We have a joint bank account.
YOU: Fine. I'm a reasonable man. I'll help you pay for it.
Sure, you'll end up with the same outcome as the one your wife proposed. But you'll look a lot more manly.
Fig.
When an argument with my wife on how best to kill mildew / trim the garden / fix the plumbing breaks down into a fight (my way vs not my way), my wife always invokes the name of some specialist, as in 'well, if you can't do it, I'll just call (insert name of local specialist).
Is this a 'deus ex machina' figure? What's the best way to respond? ('Go right ahead' just sounds so silly, sullen and unmanly).
Thanks
Douglas
Dear Douglas,
That reminds me of an exchange my wife and I had a few years ago, when I took over housecleaning responsibilities.
Dorothy: Don't you think it's about time to vacuum?
Me: No, the cat index is too low.
Dorothy: The cat index?
Me: When you can see more dirt than hair on the cat, I vacuum.
Dorothy: That's disgusting!
Me: Call it what you like. I call it "efficient."
It was, too. She fired me from the job. (Our daughter, home from college, now does it.)
While your wife's argument isn't a figure, exactly, you could call it a Straw Man fallacy: the threatened specialist is a straw man that redefines the issue from the task at hand to your incompetence. It SOUNDS like deliberative argument, because it switches to the future, but it's actually a strictly demonstrative one--the language of Right and Wrong. Your lawn-trimming method is Wrong. Therefore, you're incapable of doing it properly. I suggest insisting on deliberative argument, which speaks to your mutual advantage.
YOU: You don't like my methods? Fine. But let's talk about results. If my standards are too low for you, we have three choices: I can raise my standards, we can spend a ton of money, or you can do it yourself.
WIFE: I choose "A."
YOU: I choose "C." Let's compromise with "B." But since you're the one who's unhappy with my technique, you should come up with the money.
WIFE: We have a joint bank account.
YOU: Fine. I'm a reasonable man. I'll help you pay for it.
Sure, you'll end up with the same outcome as the one your wife proposed. But you'll look a lot more manly.
Fig.
October 7, 2007 |
Douglas
Douglas
Hi,
There is a bumper sticker that reads, "Annoy a Liberal, Get a job, work hard, be happy." What kind of argument is that? A fallacy? Thanks,
Diahn
Dear Diahn,
When I say tomato, do you say tomahto? I ask because, like your annoying quotation, my question is an ISOCOLON (Greek for "equal member"), a figure that repeats phrases or clauses of similar length.
Figaro thinks the capital L in "Liberal" is a nice touch. But he doesn't understand how an industrious, happy worker would annoy a liberal. If the worker is happy because he joined a union, wouldn't that annoy a conservative? How about "Annoy a Liberal, inherit money and say you earned it?" No, that wouldn't quite work either. "Annoy a Liberal, Shoot a burglar" might be closer to the mark.
A bit too long but best of all might be, "Annoy a Liberal, make a bumper sticker that begins with 'Annoy a Liberal.'"
Any other suggestions?
Fig.
There is a bumper sticker that reads, "Annoy a Liberal, Get a job, work hard, be happy." What kind of argument is that? A fallacy? Thanks,
Diahn
Dear Diahn,
When I say tomato, do you say tomahto? I ask because, like your annoying quotation, my question is an ISOCOLON (Greek for "equal member"), a figure that repeats phrases or clauses of similar length.
Figaro thinks the capital L in "Liberal" is a nice touch. But he doesn't understand how an industrious, happy worker would annoy a liberal. If the worker is happy because he joined a union, wouldn't that annoy a conservative? How about "Annoy a Liberal, inherit money and say you earned it?" No, that wouldn't quite work either. "Annoy a Liberal, Shoot a burglar" might be closer to the mark.
A bit too long but best of all might be, "Annoy a Liberal, make a bumper sticker that begins with 'Annoy a Liberal.'"
Any other suggestions?
Fig.
October 5, 2007 |
Diahn Swartz
Diahn Swartz
Hi Fig,
I love your site and have learned much from it, and I am starting to read your excellent book. Rhetoric (which I have always admired without fully understanding it) always seemed "out of reach", the province of speech writers with Harvard degrees. (though I found out differently from your Harvard article)
Anyway, I have a couple questions for you:
(1) Do you have a list of favorite movies that depict rhetoric (good or bad) in action? I'm sure "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" will be on the list, but what about others, such as "Mother Night" or "Conspiracy" (about the Wannsee Conference where the Holocaust was planned) at the other extreme? Being able to see/hear the techniques in action would be a great teaching aid for all of us avid students.
(2) And on that note, have you considered doing a podcast? You were pretty entertaining (and educational) when shilling on thankyouforarguing.com. You could demonstrate techniques, hold mock (or real!) debates, etc. It would be interesting to hear the same techniques used by our pundit-commentary-not-news media culture that often works to our disadvantage.
The benefit is a more educated citizenry capable of thinking for itself, something ol' John Q. would be very proud of. :)
-dave
Dear Dave,
As Jay says in his book, his favorite movie oration of all time is Eminem's gem in his biopic "8 Mile," in which he outmaneuvers his hip hop opponent with the use of decorum and a wonderful backfire--anticipating the opponent's points and deflating them in advance. (See the chapter, "Eminem's Rules of Decorum.")
You give me the notion of doing a Top 10 list of movie orations. Suggestions from other Figarists?
Figaro has considered doing a podcast, but he's traveling a lot these days, which complicates things. Once people stop inviting him to speak, he'll begin to speak--over an MP3 player near you.
Fig.
I love your site and have learned much from it, and I am starting to read your excellent book. Rhetoric (which I have always admired without fully understanding it) always seemed "out of reach", the province of speech writers with Harvard degrees. (though I found out differently from your Harvard article)
Anyway, I have a couple questions for you:
(1) Do you have a list of favorite movies that depict rhetoric (good or bad) in action? I'm sure "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" will be on the list, but what about others, such as "Mother Night" or "Conspiracy" (about the Wannsee Conference where the Holocaust was planned) at the other extreme? Being able to see/hear the techniques in action would be a great teaching aid for all of us avid students.
(2) And on that note, have you considered doing a podcast? You were pretty entertaining (and educational) when shilling on thankyouforarguing.com. You could demonstrate techniques, hold mock (or real!) debates, etc. It would be interesting to hear the same techniques used by our pundit-commentary-not-news media culture that often works to our disadvantage.
The benefit is a more educated citizenry capable of thinking for itself, something ol' John Q. would be very proud of. :)
-dave
Dear Dave,
As Jay says in his book, his favorite movie oration of all time is Eminem's gem in his biopic "8 Mile," in which he outmaneuvers his hip hop opponent with the use of decorum and a wonderful backfire--anticipating the opponent's points and deflating them in advance. (See the chapter, "Eminem's Rules of Decorum.")
You give me the notion of doing a Top 10 list of movie orations. Suggestions from other Figarists?
Figaro has considered doing a podcast, but he's traveling a lot these days, which complicates things. Once people stop inviting him to speak, he'll begin to speak--over an MP3 player near you.
Fig.
October 3, 2007 |
Dave
Dave
Dear Figaro,
Mae West once said: "It's not the men in my life, but the life in my men." What figure of speech is this?
Mae
Dear Mae,
You have on your lovely hands a CHIASMUS, the criss-cross figure, in which the second clause reverses the first ones. Veteran Figarists know it's Fig's favorite figure. Now: why don't you come up and see us sometime?
Fig.
Mae West once said: "It's not the men in my life, but the life in my men." What figure of speech is this?
Mae
Dear Mae,
You have on your lovely hands a CHIASMUS, the criss-cross figure, in which the second clause reverses the first ones. Veteran Figarists know it's Fig's favorite figure. Now: why don't you come up and see us sometime?
Fig.
October 3, 2007 |
Mae
Mae
Hey Fig,
What do you make of the fact that the younger generation (college age students) are so steeped in rhetorical messages, from MTV to Myspace, and yet so often fail to advocate for much of anything? Is this a shortcoming on the part of the academy to teach classical rhetoric (public sphere advocacy), or is their rhetoric subtler, more personal, and perhaps the academy needs to adapt (maybe term papers should be "Which is Better: The Simpsons or Family Guy")?
DB
Dear DB,
The Simpsons.
Oh, wait. That wasn't your question. Young Americans seem to belong to a particularly ironic generation. As I say in my book, a kid who uses "like" every other word is practicing a form of irony, distancing himself from his own statement. ("Are you, like, freaking or something?")
Of course, generalizing is always dangerous when we're talking about rhetoric. College campuses regularly exceed their quota of idealistic whelps who are perfectly willing to point out the essential evilness of everything you do. But here's the interesting part: most of what they deem political, previous generations would consider purely personal.
This country has merged the two lives in a way that would have astonished, say, Thomas Jefferson, who earnestly opposed slavery while practicing it. The issue, Jefferson thought, wasn't Jefferson. It was America. That's no longer true. A senator who plays footsie in an airport bathroom stall, for example, is no longer qualified to represent the anti-gay movement, even though self-deluded homosexuals often make the very best homophobes.
So what should the academy do about it? For one thing, it should work harder in rhetoric courses to stress the differences between deliberative argument and demonstrative (I call it "tribal") rhetoric. Deliberative argument deals with choices and stresses mutual advantage. Demonstrative argument is all about good and bad, who's good and who's bad. When we use tribal rhetoric in politics, the personal becomes political. Americans are skilled at tribal rhetoric, and clueless about deliberative argument. My book just happens to talk a lot about these kinds of rhetoric.
As for those term papers on the Simpsons and Family Guy, I'd suggest an oral debate instead. Let a student playing Peter Griffin argue family values with one playing Homer Simpson. The ancient rhetoricians loved this exercise, which they called ETHOPOEIA. May the best cartoon win.
Yrs,
Fig.
What do you make of the fact that the younger generation (college age students) are so steeped in rhetorical messages, from MTV to Myspace, and yet so often fail to advocate for much of anything? Is this a shortcoming on the part of the academy to teach classical rhetoric (public sphere advocacy), or is their rhetoric subtler, more personal, and perhaps the academy needs to adapt (maybe term papers should be "Which is Better: The Simpsons or Family Guy")?
DB
Dear DB,
The Simpsons.
Oh, wait. That wasn't your question. Young Americans seem to belong to a particularly ironic generation. As I say in my book, a kid who uses "like" every other word is practicing a form of irony, distancing himself from his own statement. ("Are you, like, freaking or something?")
Of course, generalizing is always dangerous when we're talking about rhetoric. College campuses regularly exceed their quota of idealistic whelps who are perfectly willing to point out the essential evilness of everything you do. But here's the interesting part: most of what they deem political, previous generations would consider purely personal.
This country has merged the two lives in a way that would have astonished, say, Thomas Jefferson, who earnestly opposed slavery while practicing it. The issue, Jefferson thought, wasn't Jefferson. It was America. That's no longer true. A senator who plays footsie in an airport bathroom stall, for example, is no longer qualified to represent the anti-gay movement, even though self-deluded homosexuals often make the very best homophobes.
So what should the academy do about it? For one thing, it should work harder in rhetoric courses to stress the differences between deliberative argument and demonstrative (I call it "tribal") rhetoric. Deliberative argument deals with choices and stresses mutual advantage. Demonstrative argument is all about good and bad, who's good and who's bad. When we use tribal rhetoric in politics, the personal becomes political. Americans are skilled at tribal rhetoric, and clueless about deliberative argument. My book just happens to talk a lot about these kinds of rhetoric.
As for those term papers on the Simpsons and Family Guy, I'd suggest an oral debate instead. Let a student playing Peter Griffin argue family values with one playing Homer Simpson. The ancient rhetoricians loved this exercise, which they called ETHOPOEIA. May the best cartoon win.
Yrs,
Fig.
October 3, 2007 |
DB
DB
Dear Figaro,
As a Pre-Law/Philosophy student in college, I have always been loved the art of rhetoric (even before I knew it was “rhetoric” and just thought of it as arguing) and enjoy discussions of issues with varying opinions; *especially* if the only way you can be right or wrong is if you can argue more convincingly than the other (Hence the study of Philosophy and Law). When I saw the title of your book I was sold—even before I read the covers—and loved your book, finishing it within two days.
I am also interested in psychology, learning how people think and why they behave the way they do. My question is if there is any way to deal with individuals who show cognitive biases?
Normally as soon as I start to see these in a person during a discussion and we have different opinions I drop the conversation because it normally leads to both sides getting frustrated; they get frustrated because—for some special reason—they are and always will be “right,” and myself because they do not listen to reason, provide (logical) counter arguments to support their opinion or disprove mine, or just ignore any point made and rephrase their opinion.
If a person ignores any appeal to logos, ethos, or pathos, is the discussion/argument generally a lost cause or is there another way to appeal to them? Is there a special name for this type of person (other than basically illogical or stubborn)? Does Aristotle or any other Greek, Roman, or other philosopher/rhetorician that talks about this type of person?
YITBOS
Dear Yit,
Your love of argument isn't shared by your culture, alas, and so your most persuasive appeal is what Figaro calls "agreeability"--subtly making your point without appearing to disagree. Take another look at the first few chapters of "Thank You for Arguing," and you'll find specific techniques for persuading people without appearing to.
But also think about your goals. Why are you arguing in the first place? Is it to learn something? To sew your wisdom upon the barren ground of ignorance? Or merely to maintain your argument chops? Whatever the goal, choose your victims wisely. You are already wise to bug out of any argument that veers into the inarguable.
If there are bystanders to your argument, some of them may be persuadable. Your opponent does not have to be your audience; a stubborn opponent can win sympathy from a crowd.
The ancients had a variety of terms for rhetorical boneheads. "Idiot" is Figaro's personal favorite: a person who refuses or is unable to take an active role in the human argumentative marketplace. Such a person, Aristotle said, "must be either a beast or a god." Figaro believes in stepping gingerly around both.
Yrs,
Fig.
As a Pre-Law/Philosophy student in college, I have always been loved the art of rhetoric (even before I knew it was “rhetoric” and just thought of it as arguing) and enjoy discussions of issues with varying opinions; *especially* if the only way you can be right or wrong is if you can argue more convincingly than the other (Hence the study of Philosophy and Law). When I saw the title of your book I was sold—even before I read the covers—and loved your book, finishing it within two days.
I am also interested in psychology, learning how people think and why they behave the way they do. My question is if there is any way to deal with individuals who show cognitive biases?
Normally as soon as I start to see these in a person during a discussion and we have different opinions I drop the conversation because it normally leads to both sides getting frustrated; they get frustrated because—for some special reason—they are and always will be “right,” and myself because they do not listen to reason, provide (logical) counter arguments to support their opinion or disprove mine, or just ignore any point made and rephrase their opinion.
If a person ignores any appeal to logos, ethos, or pathos, is the discussion/argument generally a lost cause or is there another way to appeal to them? Is there a special name for this type of person (other than basically illogical or stubborn)? Does Aristotle or any other Greek, Roman, or other philosopher/rhetorician that talks about this type of person?
YITBOS
Dear Yit,
Your love of argument isn't shared by your culture, alas, and so your most persuasive appeal is what Figaro calls "agreeability"--subtly making your point without appearing to disagree. Take another look at the first few chapters of "Thank You for Arguing," and you'll find specific techniques for persuading people without appearing to.
But also think about your goals. Why are you arguing in the first place? Is it to learn something? To sew your wisdom upon the barren ground of ignorance? Or merely to maintain your argument chops? Whatever the goal, choose your victims wisely. You are already wise to bug out of any argument that veers into the inarguable.
If there are bystanders to your argument, some of them may be persuadable. Your opponent does not have to be your audience; a stubborn opponent can win sympathy from a crowd.
The ancients had a variety of terms for rhetorical boneheads. "Idiot" is Figaro's personal favorite: a person who refuses or is unable to take an active role in the human argumentative marketplace. Such a person, Aristotle said, "must be either a beast or a god." Figaro believes in stepping gingerly around both.
Yrs,
Fig.
September 27, 2007 |
YITBOS
YITBOS
Dear Figaro,
Finished the book. Loved the peroration. On p. 256 in the marginalia (if they had been in red--oh what a classical dream!) you mention the mnemonic for a trial and expressed confusion regarding the ram's testicles. It would be a way of remembering that there were witnesses to the act. One etymological link between testis/testes and witnesses can be found here:
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1046/j.1464-410X.2002.02783.x
Rhetorica
Dear Rhetorica,
Would you love us more if we told you we were practicing the art of APORIA--merely pretending ignorance even though we were already intimate with those rams' testicles?
We think not.
Figaro
Finished the book. Loved the peroration. On p. 256 in the marginalia (if they had been in red--oh what a classical dream!) you mention the mnemonic for a trial and expressed confusion regarding the ram's testicles. It would be a way of remembering that there were witnesses to the act. One etymological link between testis/testes and witnesses can be found here:
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1046/j.1464-410X.2002.02783.x
Rhetorica
Dear Rhetorica,
Would you love us more if we told you we were practicing the art of APORIA--merely pretending ignorance even though we were already intimate with those rams' testicles?
We think not.
Figaro
September 27, 2007 |
rhetorica
rhetorica
Dear Figaro,
Some people explicitly try to deny their intention before carrying it out, like "Not to hurt your feeling, but you suck!" What's the best way to respond to this "Not to...but" phraseology?
Forky
Dear Pronged One,
"Uh, how do I say this without being offensive?" mused Moe, the bartender in the Simpsons. "Marge, there ain't enough booze in this place to make you look good." The figure is an APOPHASIS, the deny-it-then-say-it figure. One response Figaro favors whenever there's an audience of onlookers is quiet irony: "I see that your sensitivity matches your intelligence."
Fig.
Some people explicitly try to deny their intention before carrying it out, like "Not to hurt your feeling, but you suck!" What's the best way to respond to this "Not to...but" phraseology?
Forky
Dear Pronged One,
"Uh, how do I say this without being offensive?" mused Moe, the bartender in the Simpsons. "Marge, there ain't enough booze in this place to make you look good." The figure is an APOPHASIS, the deny-it-then-say-it figure. One response Figaro favors whenever there's an audience of onlookers is quiet irony: "I see that your sensitivity matches your intelligence."
Fig.
September 27, 2007 |
Mister Forky
Mister Forky
Dear Figaro,
Scott Adams (dilbertblog.typepad.com) claimed some people have ripperitis (I think it is is a meme or snowclone...?) when they don't understand logic and argument...this seems related to what you talk about. What do you think about ripperitis?
Avi
Dear Avi,
It's an eponymic snowclone--a person's name with a cliched ending (-itis). Not one of Adams's better efforts, I'm afraid.
Adams claims that most people form their political opinions along these lines: “If you think Jack the Ripper was a doctor in his day job, and you think doctors are positive role models, you must support Jack Ripper and celebrate the killing of women. Die, you woman-hater!” The fallacy already has a name: generalization. Not all doctors are positive role models. I mean, look how many play golf.
But the problem we face in politics isn't generalization--that was going on in the Garden of Eden, when Eve rolled her eyes heavenward and sighed, "Men!"
What's happening now is an epidemic of values talk, or what Aristotle calls "demonstrative rhetoric." Values talk defines what's good and bad, and WHO's good and bad. It strengthens your base, as they say in politics, while labeling those who disagree as evil. ("Woman hater!")
Aristotle says the language we should be using in politics is deliberative argument, which focuses on the future, deals with choices, and has as its main topic the "advantageous"--what's to the advantage of your audience. ("How is calling me a woman hater going to get me to support women's rights?")
Deliberative argument is what a civilized society uses to solve problems together. Values talk is what less civilized people use to form tribes.
So let's not call the phenomenon "ripperitis." Call it the Tribal Syndrome. That sounds even scarier.
Fig.
Scott Adams (dilbertblog.typepad.com) claimed some people have ripperitis (I think it is is a meme or snowclone...?) when they don't understand logic and argument...this seems related to what you talk about. What do you think about ripperitis?
Avi
Dear Avi,
It's an eponymic snowclone--a person's name with a cliched ending (-itis). Not one of Adams's better efforts, I'm afraid.
Adams claims that most people form their political opinions along these lines: “If you think Jack the Ripper was a doctor in his day job, and you think doctors are positive role models, you must support Jack Ripper and celebrate the killing of women. Die, you woman-hater!” The fallacy already has a name: generalization. Not all doctors are positive role models. I mean, look how many play golf.
But the problem we face in politics isn't generalization--that was going on in the Garden of Eden, when Eve rolled her eyes heavenward and sighed, "Men!"
What's happening now is an epidemic of values talk, or what Aristotle calls "demonstrative rhetoric." Values talk defines what's good and bad, and WHO's good and bad. It strengthens your base, as they say in politics, while labeling those who disagree as evil. ("Woman hater!")
Aristotle says the language we should be using in politics is deliberative argument, which focuses on the future, deals with choices, and has as its main topic the "advantageous"--what's to the advantage of your audience. ("How is calling me a woman hater going to get me to support women's rights?")
Deliberative argument is what a civilized society uses to solve problems together. Values talk is what less civilized people use to form tribes.
So let's not call the phenomenon "ripperitis." Call it the Tribal Syndrome. That sounds even scarier.
Fig.
September 24, 2007 |
Avi
Avi
Figaro-
Bought the book on Friday. Wow. The breadth of sources cited (Peacham! In the original font!), examples used, simply awesome. I really wish I had this as a resource when I was professing. Thank you for writing!
Rhetorica
Why, thank you, Rhetorica. Great tattoo on MySpace, by the way. They say that scars are proof that you have a past; your tattoo is proof that you're not a flattering figment of Figaro's fantasies. (Couldn't resist that last "F.")
Fig.
Bought the book on Friday. Wow. The breadth of sources cited (Peacham! In the original font!), examples used, simply awesome. I really wish I had this as a resource when I was professing. Thank you for writing!
Rhetorica
Why, thank you, Rhetorica. Great tattoo on MySpace, by the way. They say that scars are proof that you have a past; your tattoo is proof that you're not a flattering figment of Figaro's fantasies. (Couldn't resist that last "F.")
Fig.
September 24, 2007 |
rhetorica
rhetorica
"Finally, the hills are without eyes
They are tired of painting
a dead man's face red with his own blood"
Thank you!
Dear D.D.,
Apparently, Mr. Halopainen (the stress is on the "painen") employed a kind of poetry software called LyricShop and slid the bar all the way toward Pretentious.
The song commits the BATHETIC FALLACY, attributing inappropriate emotions to an inanimate object. Figaro's advice to those tired hills: quit painting.
Fig.