In a time when public discourse often feels like combat, the line between civility and incivility has grown thin. Yet, true rhetorical skill lies in knowing when to wield each.
Ah, but isn't the key question, who am I trying to persuade? Some in the undecided middle may be persuaded by vitriol. But won't it strengthen the resolve of those on the opposite side?
I too thought that knowing the audience was missing from "we must discover (1) what the state of mind of angry people is, (2) who the people are with whom they usually get angry, and (3) on what grounds they get angry with them." Maybe Aristotle thought that knowing the "state of mind of angry people" implied knowing who they are?
On vitriol, I can be frightened by it but not persuaded.
Thank you for this analysis, Dr. Smith. And thank you FAIR For All for posting it.
Ah, but isn't the key question, who am I trying to persuade? Some in the undecided middle may be persuaded by vitriol. But won't it strengthen the resolve of those on the opposite side?
I too thought that knowing the audience was missing from "we must discover (1) what the state of mind of angry people is, (2) who the people are with whom they usually get angry, and (3) on what grounds they get angry with them." Maybe Aristotle thought that knowing the "state of mind of angry people" implied knowing who they are?
On vitriol, I can be frightened by it but not persuaded.