Teaching Freshmen to Reason—And Live—Through Aristotle's Modes of Persuasion
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
While the three Aristotelian modes of persuasion, pathos, ethos, and logos, are generally treated discretely in composition textbooks based on traditional rhetoric, in practice they are interdependent. This paper shows how interdependence among the modes becomes the basis for the second term of a first-year composition course. Students examine the modes of persuasion in texts related to the theme of Tyranny and Freedom from one of the volumes of the Lynchburg College Symposium Readings (LCSR) program, of which the course is a part. Overlaps among the modes of persuasion are explored in writing about the theme as applied to the self, family, friends, and national and international communities, to help students become aware of the powers of persuasion in their lives. Illustrations of first-year student work include a website by Jon Hart, who also created a video showing fallacies of reasoning in Hitler's speeches during the Holocaust, followed by graphic evidence from the concentration camps, and web portfolios of essays prepared by April Davis and Stephanie Eagle, linking modes of persuasion to the central course theme. I. Modes of Persuasion Defined In testing various parts of classical theory in teaching writing while a visiting preceptor at Harvard University in 1993 and at Lynchburg College since 1989, I have found that the classical rhetoric provides a structured framework for students, without locking them into an excessively vague (for example, limited to free-flow, expressive approach to writing) or rigid system (for example, limited to the five-paragraph essay). While some students will find reading the primary source difficult, Aristotle's Rhetoric is especially useful for teachers, as it provides theory from which assignments can be developed to explore the interplay between speaker/writer and audience, or between the self and the rest of the world, a consciousness that first-year students do not always bring to their classes. Aristotle defines the artistic or learned methods of persuasion thus, addressing a debate that still goes on among composition students: do we need this theory or can we just compose innately? Of the pisteis, some are atechnic [nonartistic], some entechnic [embodied in art, artistic]. I call atechnic those that are not provided by us [the potential speaker] but are preexisting: for example, witnesses, testimony of slaves taken under torture, contracts, and such like; and artistic whatever can be prepared by method and by us; thus, one must use the former and invent the latter. Of the pisteis provided through speech there are three species: for some are in the character [ethos] of the speaker, and some in disposing the listener in some way, and some in the argument [logos] itself, by showing or seeming to show something. [Rhet. 1.2.2] Following are Aristotle's definitions of the specific modes of persuasion: Teaching Freshmen To Reason—And Live—Through Aristotle's Modes Of Persuasion 2
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,018 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».