Why should we care about preserving the past or protecting our future?
In this article by Ignatius he once again opens with a question a method I have learned since losing half of this article the first go round does count as a rhetorical device as it is a method of persuasion and seduction as it asks the reader to explore the question for themselves and consider their answers or at the very least be quite curious as to what David’s is. I’ll have you know now I was one of the many who fell prey to this trick, when it was posed before me i felt the answer was obvious but here I was reading a carefully crafted argument and even my own lengthy notes on the article telling me something I already believed going into the article “When we feel a revulsion at the destruction of the past or a threat to the future, what we are really affirming is human survival”. However he did this with style and grace and current (for the time, only slightly less relevant now) real world examples. He made reference to the bombing of the Temple of Baal Shamin and the concern of other nations, the US specifically which is a good move on his part as he was reporting world news in an American paper so catering to the audience is simply the best choice of action. Losing a piece of history is very hard, and of course being the young country we are, empathy kicked into high gear and told us we should share their pain instead of, now i’m paraphrasing here “belonging to the cult of self interest that occasionally seems like an article of the Bill of Rights”. Not that there is anything wrong with self interest he clarifies, he goes through a long spiel of rhetorical questions to explain that taking care of yourself and your own is human nature and worrying about the future is apart of human nature as most people do consider great and great great grandchildren they may never meet one of their own. Clearly this article was meant to appeal to logos and pathos, I mean how could it not when it brings both the future of our country our planet and our children into the conversation. But is the really more important the topic itself? I think not, but the point of this entry was to explain why it does that and I believe Mr. Ignatius does this in order to create an emotional connection with the audience as he guides them along his trail of his logical but opinionated take on selfishness so that they not only side with him but become inclined to return to his particular style of writing with it’s casual word choice and topical conversation in a more formal setting than any random joe with an opinion column.
In this article by Ignatius he once again opens with a question a method I have learned since losing half of this article the first go round does count as a rhetorical device as it is a method of persuasion and seduction as it asks the reader to explore the question for themselves and consider their answers or at the very least be quite curious as to what David’s is. I’ll have you know now I was one of the many who fell prey to this trick, when it was posed before me i felt the answer was obvious but here I was reading a carefully crafted argument and even my own lengthy notes on the article telling me something I already believed going into the article “When we feel a revulsion at the destruction of the past or a threat to the future, what we are really affirming is human survival”. However he did this with style and grace and current (for the time, only slightly less relevant now) real world examples. He made reference to the bombing of the Temple of Baal Shamin and the concern of other nations, the US specifically which is a good move on his part as he was reporting world news in an American paper so catering to the audience is simply the best choice of action. Losing a piece of history is very hard, and of course being the young country we are, empathy kicked into high gear and told us we should share their pain instead of, now i’m paraphrasing here “belonging to the cult of self interest that occasionally seems like an article of the Bill of Rights”. Not that there is anything wrong with self interest he clarifies, he goes through a long spiel of rhetorical questions to explain that taking care of yourself and your own is human nature and worrying about the future is apart of human nature as most people do consider great and great great grandchildren they may never meet one of their own. Clearly this article was meant to appeal to logos and pathos, I mean how could it not when it brings both the future of our country our planet and our children into the conversation. But is the really more important the topic itself? I think not, but the point of this entry was to explain why it does that and I believe Mr. Ignatius does this in order to create an emotional connection with the audience as he guides them along his trail of his logical but opinionated take on selfishness so that they not only side with him but become inclined to return to his particular style of writing with it’s casual word choice and topical conversation in a more formal setting than any random joe with an opinion column.