Maybe Aristotle's Ghost Unconsciously Taught Us?

As I began reading Thank You For Arguing I noticed that many of the tips given are things that I already do or have done. Maybe it's just me. Maybe not. Or maybe Aristotle's ghost has reincarnated in my body and used some rhetoric skills throughout my life. Whatever it is, I know I've done these things unconsciously and now that I've realized that, I bet I can now use rhetoric successfully in the future if I learn and "listen" to everything Jay Heinrichs has to instruct. 

In chapter one, Heinrichs introduces us to the world of rhetoric. He mentions that in ancient Greece rhetoric was so important that it was considered the most critical skill of leadership. Along the chapter, he uses a lot of examples of famous people throughout history who used rhetoric (such as Aristotle, Daniel Webster, and John F. Kennedy). While I digested those two facts, I thought that maybe rhetoric is a very hard art and only very smart people (like the ones I just mentioned) are capable of mastering it. Quite intimidating. However, throughout the chapter he also gives some typical examples taken from his daily life, and that's when I became aware of the fact that I have used rhetoric multiple times in my life. It looked hard and complex, but when I think about the times I've unconsciously convinced someone or had an argument, it's not too bad. 

Chiasmus: (noun) A reversal in the order
of words in two otherwise parallel phrases.

The example that he starts the chapter with was when he blamed his son for the toothpaste that was gone, then his son used deliberative skills ("how are we going to keep this from happening again"), then he said he's right and accepted that his son won, and then he got what he wanted in the first place since his son brings him the new toothpaste. I have experienced similar occurrences. For example, two years ago my dad lent me his DSLR camera to take picture for different school events. He gave it to me at the beginning of the year and then at the end he asked me to give it to him since he was traveling to Moscow and needed the camera back. When I gave it back to him, he noticed that in the camera case there was something missing. The lid of the lens was not there. And so the first thing he did was blame me (forensic). Immediately, I was very surprised because 1) I didn't loose the lid, and I am very responsible especially with things that are not mine, and 2) I couldn't believe my own dad would think I am a messy or irresponsible person, when in reality I'm very organized, mature and reasonable. So I responded with "How can you say that? Do you really think I am such an irresponsible person?" (demonstrative). He then proceeded to say that he thought I was very irresponsible and that it was probably me, because to him it made no sense that it couldn't have been my fault. Finally, I began to control myself because this was going towards the direction of a huge fight, not argument. That's when I said, "Okay. Whatever. Now what? Are we going to upgrade the camera because of this?" (deliberative). This hasn't been the only argument I've had in which I've used rhetoric. I remember many years ago, I used to make up chiasmi with my aunt whenever we travelled to my family's farm. I don't really remember any of them right now, but I know that the ones we invented sounded very cool and were ingenious. 

Later on, in chapter two, Heinrichs talks about offense and how to attack during an argument. His main points are to set a personal goal and set goals for the audience. He also explains the difference between a fight and an argument, "An argument, done skillfully  gets people to do what you want. You fight to win; you argue to achieve agreement" (Page 17). Also, he throws in a bunch of examples to show us how it's done. One point he makes is, "To win a deliberative argument, don't try to outscore your opponent. Try instead to get your way" (Page 19). The moment I read this, I realized I've used this so much, especially when I was younger. I would always make my brother do things I wanted to through this method. After asking him to change the channel while we watched TV, he said the remote was far away from him (and obviously from me too). So I would agree and be like "Yeah, that's so true. But wouldn't it be fun to watch something like a soccer game rerun? Didn't Barça play last Tuesday?" My brother, being a huge Barça fan, ran to the remote and came back to the couch. He changed the channel to an older soccer match, and even though I'm not the biggest soccer fan, I was happy because I'd rather watch anything other than that boring WWI documentary on the History Channel. That's when I'm allowed to say, "I win."

So far, Thank You For Arguing has been very interesting. I wonder if the book will continue to be so instructive. It feels weird to read a book that teaches you about new things, since every text book that I have to use in school is usually used only sometimes; never do we have to read the whole thing. Obviously this book is far more interesting that a BIology textbook, but what I really mean is that I'm more used to reading narrations rather than expositions. I guess I'll get used to it, but what matters is that I can truly learn all of the techniques given in this book.