When Aristotle argues that ethos "should result from the speech, not from a previous opinion that the speaker is a certain kind of person" (1.2.42), I feel he is proposing a worthwhile idea as it would eliminate much bias, though to some degree, I feel it is rather unrealistic. In a perfect world, people would be able to forget their previous judgements and assumptions, but we all know that is rather difficult to do. For both public figures and those not in the spotlight alike, once they have gained a reputation, it is difficult to change it in others’ eyes. It especially difficult to change a negative view because many tend to focus on what went wrong versus what went right. This fact is disheartening because we are human and make mistakes, so if we do something wrong, that may be out of character, many will not view it that way. They will just assume it is a characteristic of us, even if we have been nothing but the opposite otherwise. It also does not help that people do not like uncertainty and will make up false assumptions in order to make themselves feel more certain and secure in whom they are dealing with. Not to mention, people are often rather stubborn and are not quick to give up or forget any judgements that they have made, even if they are false.
When I first meet someone, I try to judge ethos based on current speech, but am sometimes guilty of judging based on past reputation. I prefer to give most the benefit the doubt and often make a conscious effort not to be judgmental, even if I had a poor impression earlier. I feel the way in which to arrive at a proper ethos is to be aware of the judgements that you tend to make or have already made. Also, you should do your best to make an attempt at providing the orator with a clean slate while speaking. I have noticed though, that the closer and more knowledgeable I am of a person, the more I make judgements based on their reputation. For example, one of my friends often says things that come out wrong and to an outsider may seem hurtful. Since I am aware she often does this, I know that her intentions are not bad, that she is not trying to hurt me, and my positive impression of her does not change.
As much as people would like to discount someone’s reputation, it is difficult to decipher to what degree. People are human and often make mistakes, should we hold it against them forever? I mean, people do have the potential to learn from their mistakes and change into a better self. Although, they also have the potential to keep making the same mistakes and change for the worse. Seeing the glass half full, I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt, but should probably be careful as to not be made a fool. For example, Paris Hilton is a person that many refuse to take seriously. I myself sometimes struggle to do so too. Her past is not perfect, but what if in the future, she grows up and changes for the better. If she attempts to do anything meaningful, who is going to take her seriously? What if she tries to rally for an important cause or attempts to give an influential speech? People who listen to her speech may feel that it was unintelligent and fake, due to their former judgements on her past actions. Also, there is the potential that many would not even bother to listen to the speech based on their present views of her. But what if they same speech was given by someone who was credible and well liked by the public? The speech may be interpreted completely differently. For example, when Obama gives a speech, it is generally well received and judged as credible due to his reputation as a good orator. I feel that is rather unfair to Paris because she does have the potential to be an influential human being, everyone does, but many will not be able to discount her reputation, so she will be put on the back burner in the grand scheme of credible public figures. I also feel that we must use some sort of judgement when it comes to giving the benefit of the doubt. I feel like we should be slightly hesitant, especially when it comes to those who are repeat offenders. For example, when determining a proper ethos for Ed Gein, many would and should struggle to forget his reputation, even if he had told us that he had changed and would like to be freed, he still had killed on multiple occasions, which is kind of a big deal.
What are you thoughts and feelings on the subject? I hope my ideas sparked some thoughts. Until next time…
~Courtney
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The last point that you made is an important one that deserves to be further explored. While I agree that we should not tune someone out because of their reputation, I believe that it is important to consider their reputation. It may not be wise to discount reputation completely. Language can be very persuasive. We constantly need to be on the lookout for fallacies in writing and in speech and they may be hard to pick out. Part of a person’s reputation may be whether or not they are known for including pathetic, ethical or logical fallacies in their writing and speaking. When we know this, it becomes easier to keep a watchful eye out for them.
ReplyDeleteWhen listening to a speech or reading a persuasive piece we also need to ask ourselves whether or not the person is trustworthy. We need to ask ourselves whether the person is knowledgeable and whether or not they are a reputable source. One tool we have to answer these questions is the person’s reputation. However, let me stress that this is just ONE of our tools to judge the credibility of a speaker or author. It is a balancing act. We need to take reputation into account, but we need to give the speaker or author a fair chance to get their argument across. Of course, another available tool for researching a person’s credibility is to do some research of our own into the topic. This way we can set our judgments aside, let ethos emerge from the situation, and then do our own research to confirm what we have heard.
-Jaclyn E
I like the point that was made about not judging someone when you first meet them. I was guilty of this in element school but have learned from my mistake. Starting in fourth grade the city I lived in had what is called the "Challenge" class which is for 20-30 students who do very well in school. Based on this many of my friends and myself did like this class because we thought that they would snobby and look down on the rest of us. However as time when on and I actually had a chance to talk to the kids in the class, I started to like them. I had been guilty of judging people I didn't even know just because they were supposed to be smarter than everyone else. I felt kind of bad after i became friends with many of the people in the class because I started with the idea that they would look down on everyone else. I didn't even think about just listening to what any of them had to say or learn what they were like because it was just easier to stereotype them. I am still friends with some of the people from the "Challenge" class and I am roommates with one of them. This is a personal experience that supports what Aristotle said.
ReplyDeleteI also like what Courtney said about repeat offenders. While many people would like to be able to forgive someone who has been through the justice system, it is still hard to not judge them on their past. There is a possibility that one may say they have been rehabilitated and given up their past ways, but this could just end up being a cover for the person to get what they want. This fact makes it hard to form an opinion on someone based on what they say and ignore their past. This makes it almost impossible to follow what Aristotle said because his statement does not consider special cases such as this.
I like what was said about people are human and will make mistakes and that everyone has the potential to learn from these mistakes. I feel like this could be part of what was behind Aristotle saying this. Everyone has at some point in their life made a mistake that made people think of them poorly. This act should not be what makes up your opinion about this person, because they could most likely do the same to you. This is why it is important to form an opinion on most people based on what they say and do in the present, and not in the past.
-Jake
First off I need to ask something in regards to your statement about meeting someone. You said that you end up judging people on past reputation. What do you mean by this? You base your judgment off of similar people you have met like them, friends in common, or just your feelings when you meet them?
ReplyDeleteI have this thing; I know my judgments of people will, for the most part, change after time for better or worse. It is so hard to maintain that first impression with people you meet, because you usually discover so much more about them that is completely opposite of what you first thought. And it is interesting to look at and compare the difference of a person’s ethos you are just meeting with that of someone, for instance, in the public eye whose reputation and character is pretty well known. I also think that everyone is inherently judgmental, and whether or not you choose to admit, people judge others constantly based on so many things, that reputation is just one of many things people judge others on. If it is not someone from the public (and academic) sphere, I don’t think a person’s reputation matters as much when you are first meeting them.
But when it comes to someone giving a speech, I feel that reputation comes into play. As was discussed, the difference between someone with a credible reputation and someone who most people know little about is a determinant of how a speech will be viewed. If I were to go to a conference and listen to two people give a speech on the same topic, let’s say abortion rights, and one was Barack Obama and the other was Carolyn “Biddy” Martin, the Chancellor of the UW. Barack Obama has the opportunity to affect the country in terms of policy, ideology, and the power he has. Carolyn Martin on the other hand is not in a position to create policy on abortion rights or impose her ideology on her audience, which just so happens to be the student body. We obviously know that Obama’s more credible for handling something like this and speaking out about it, rather than the Chancellor of a University. When I am listening to someone speak on an issue, it helps persuade me to their perspective knowing that they do have a positive reputation.
Overall, I think that the judgments of people’s ethos are a big issue in today’s society, and it really hinders how a person is viewed in the public sphere.
Laura