Martin Heidegger’s memorial address, delivered in Germany in 1955, is both a call for action – not only to the people of Germany, but to the population of man across each continent – as well as a notion concerning the future of mankind. When described using elements of rhetoric, or styles rather, these very specific directions Heidegger chose to take his speech fall into two distinct but concomitant classifications: deliberative and epideictic. Concomitant in the sense that both arguments, throughout the address, are woven together masterfully and rely on one another to explain Heidegger’s assertions.
Rhetoric that is said to be deliberative attempts to persuade the audience to take action. The action that needs to be taken varies by example, however in the case of Martin Heidegger, he clearly advocates for mankind to retain their “essential nature”. Throughout the speech, it can be concluded that Heidegger has two main claims: that man’s autochtany (state of indigenity or belonging to a native region) is threatened by the emergence and superiority of technological advancements. He warns that man must distance himself from the bondage of technology as well as become open to the mystery of its existence. Heidegger calls this theory of his, “releasement toward things and openness to the mystery of belonging together” (Heidegger). The other claim he makes states that man must hold on to his “essential nature” – in that man is a meditative being; capable of thinking and questioning beyond what is obvious or reasonable. The evidence Heidegger uses to support these claims is riddled throughout his address as he details man’s ability to think both meditatively and calculatively. Because man has both these characteristics, it is a God-g...
... middle of paper ...
...ate a musician, not elaborate on a perhaps dark future – are one of the reasons historians and literarians have been analyzing this memorial address for the past 60 years. The rhetorical situation is very unique and Martin Heidegger was very brave to give this speech at such a time. As to whether or not this speech was effective is all in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I found this speech to be eye opening and extremely important even today 60 years since he delivered the original address. But for those people listening in Germany that day in 1955, I cannot say whether or not they would have found Heidegger’s approach repulsive or applauded his courage to stand up for something he believed was in the world’s best interests. What can be said, however, is 60 years later the words of this speech still impact mankind – and they likely will for generations to come.
Heinrichs had previously worked as a journalist before becoming a full time writer and advocate for rhetoric. He utilizes illustrative examples to convey rhetorical concepts. Furthermore, chapter four reveals the most valuable logos and pathos tactic. Lastly, this book’s use should be continued in this course.
In 1999, he was invited to speak at the Millennium Lectures, in front of the president, first lady, and other important governmental figures,. In his speech, “The Perils of Indifference”, he uses rhetorical devices to get emotional responses and to connect with the audience. He wants to create awareness of the dangers of indifference and show how there needs to be change. His speech eloquently calls out the government for their lack of response during the Holocaust, and warns against continued disregard for the struggles of others. He sees indifference as being the ally of the enemy, and without compassion there is no hope for the victims.
By explaining the sad, yet undeniably true facts about the concentration camp Treblinka, Wiesel spoke of how far the Nazis were willing to go in order to exterminate the Jewish people. During the year 1942, under the orders of “Operation: Reinhard”, Treblinka opened it doors to the thousands of Jewish masses being crammed inside, su...
In “The Perils of Indifference” Elie Wiesel uses several techniques to get his point across. Three of them in the speech are Ethos, Repetition, and Pathos. He uses a combination of the three elements throughout the paragraphs of his speech to attract the readers. The combination of these elements help draw the reader’s emotions and interest towards his subject. He focuses on word choice that would pertain to his audience’s level of vocabulary.
But it is just for our intellectual demi-monde that the Jew writes his so-called intellectual press. For them the Frankfurter Zeitung and the Berliner Tageblatt are made, for them their tone is tuned, and on them finally they exercise their influence. By avoiding most carefully all forms seeming outwardly rude, they nevertheless pour the poison from other vessels into the hearts of their readers. (Mein Kampf, Page 334-335.)
In that light, it is interesting to analyse what it is that made these artistic words such a difference. A difference that persuaded people to change their behavior. Thankfully, human history has created a term to define these great speeches. It is called rhetoric. In this essay we will try to determine whether rhetoric is an art, or merely a
The speech is unique in a way that cascades it into a genre classification considered as a hybrid deliberative genre. Wiesel produces this hybrid genre by bending or incorporating several different genres within the main speech while he attempts to persuade the audience. While the speech looks to the past, its main points focus on the future. Wiesel produces this hybrid genre by blending or fusing additional elements or traits from other genres such as forensic and epideictic. These factors coupled with a multitude of discourse elements woven within the speech such as an autobiography, historical narrative, along with the use of storytelling, tied within the confines of a jeremiad, which includes religious rhetoric, culminates into an extraordinary epideictic address. This paper will analyze these elements in order to draw a distinct correlation to the hybrid deliberative genre theory.
Rüdiger Safranski. Martin Heidegger: Between Good and Evil. Trans. Ewald Osers. Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard UP, 1998.
In Elie Wiesel’s speech “Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech”, Wiesel suggests that in times of crisis, people must stand together against injustices. Wiesel develops and supports his claim through his use of anecdotes, inclusive diction, rhetorical questions, and parallel structures. Wiesel’s purpose is to motivate the world to stand up against injustices in order to prevent the persecution of more innocent people. The audience Wiesel intended for his speech is anyone on Earth who is willing to make a difference, but mostly directed at adults who are able to go out and actually contribute to making a change. Wiesel succeeds in establishing a bond with the audience, as he comes off as very humble and trustworthy. Through his use of rhetorical
The film accurately depicted an exceptionally deserving moment throughout history because it subliminally mentions Hitler’s darkest desires and decimate reach extending from those three topics to history itself with a daunting clarity. Just as our machine exercise in class widened my knowledge of not only how to demonstrate a concept through movement and sound but understand the meaning of what it really means to uncover your identity, community and culture by seeing how other perceived it and lived within these
Historiography in the Twentieth Century: From Scientific Objectivity to the Postmodern Challenge, a book written by Georg G. Iggers, explores the transformation of modern trends throughout history using the influence of social science. Iggers combines his studies of German and American customs defined by social history to bring us in-depth highlights of pertinent information.
The debate regarding whether or not history could be objective has been discussed and interpreted by many historians. The ways we think about history has allowed for the divergence of various perspectives in the world we live in today. In sum, the question discussed in this paper pertains to the extent of which history can be objective. This question has left room for several interpretations in the field of historiography and challenged our experienced in the era of modernity. This paper’s argument went for the subjective side of the argument with evidence for my argumentation from John Gaddis, Friedrich Nietzsche, Postmodernity and Modernity, Living in Modernity, and Heidegger’s Hermeneutics.
Thomas Mann, the author of “Disorder and Early Sorrow,” grew up in the late 19th Century and early 20th Century into the newly created Germany. Loathing school, Mann fails to graduate and must teach himself after realizing his mistake. Diligently, Mann prepares for a career in journalism by studying history, economics, and literature at a university. As the Great War arrives, his career stops abruptly but gets rekindled by his political short story “Reflections of an Unpolitical Man,” which purely focuses on the problem of being of German nationality after the war (Mann 1). After this sole political point of view, Mann chooses to focus on the social aspects of life; thus, he travels to a multitude of European countries.
The appeal of Habermas to American philosophers long acculturated in the Enlightenment tradition is that of a voice speaking for reason and justice; he stands forth philosophically on behalf of "rehabilitating the Enlightenment" in the face of various current modes of thought engaged in its undermining. Habermas has been widely commended for his strong unequivocal stand as a German intellectual against the Nazi movement and the Holocaust it produced, and against any revisionist circumlocutions seeking to obscure those atrocities. Habermas is also commended for his repudiation of Martin Heidegger's complicity with Nazism and his retreat to linguistic mysticism.
Distinctive voices may have the potential to manipulate an individual’s perspective by stimulating new ideas. These ideas can influence the audience to question their own values and morals. Distinctive voices have the potential to be successful by informing, educating and persuading the audience to shape a new perspective. Distinctive voices may have the potential to unite the audience through morals and values. Influential voices may often challenge the internal dialogue of its audience and may change their perspectives. These distinctive voices are evident through the texts, “Address to the Plenary Session, Earth Summit” by Severn Cullis-Suzuki, “The True Liberation of Women” by Indira Gandhi and the “Remarks at the Brandenburg Gate” by Ronald