What is the author arguing?
Dwight D Eisenhower is arguing to keep peace between all the nations when he isn't president anymore, this was his farewell speech. He doesn't want the military complex to take over and cause the countries to be "unbalanced", he wants the peace to remain when he is gone.
How does the author appeal to logos (logic), pathos (emotional quality), and ethos (the writer's perceived character) with their argument?
He appeals logos because he said, "good judgement seeks balance and progress lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration." This is used as logos in his argument because logically he is using balance as a comparison to the countries, without it all the countries would be imbalanced and the peace wouldn't have a reason to stay.
He appeals pathos because he stated, " As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war." This is explaining that emotionally who has either experienced being in a war, or having someone they love in a war hurts to see someone fight but fighting causes them to lose their lives.
And he uses ethos because he is just really perceiving his thoughts as a president, and explaining how he doesn't want the peace to be forgotten.
What is the historical significant/relevant of this document?
The significance of this document is that he is just stating how he wants his country to stay in peace, and this is sigificant because this speech goes deep into thoughts to explain how he feels. He doesn't want the peace to be destroyed by a wrong president so he's letting his country know what he wants when he is no longer president.
Do you find the authors argument convincing? Why or why not?
I do find his argument convincing because he is giving several examples of why he has to give this speech to his country. He sounded like he is really dedicated to his country, and trying to prevent it from failing into a war that they can't get out of. This speech is very convincing because it really shows that he loved his country and will when he isn't president any longer.
Some of the things I gathered from his speech was that he seemed to remind his countrymen to never forget war times, never let the strength of his nation become a flaw of ego, avoid the impulse to "live for today,"and he wants people to hold their morals. During his presidency Eisenhower saw many changes and willed his country well. He also wanted the people to not be caught of guard during war, and wanted stronger military reserves. I didn't feel that he was arguing any points just reminding us that there is still much to be done, and help others in times of need. Both nationally and abroad.
ReplyDeleteYou summed it up well! I agree with you about how he shows that he really does love his country. He seems so dedicated to the well-being of the country. He wants the country to keep growing once he's gone. He discusses the realistic topics. Such as crisis happening. And how there will always be crisis whether with us or other countries or big or small. He basically puts in his input on what he believes will keep the country strong. Such as having a strong military. I was a little confused when he began talking about the military. What I got from it was that you should keep the military strong because there will always be disagreements and disasters to rise, so having a military to help is much needed. My favorite part of the whole thing was when he said "we must avoid the impulse to live for today". He explains how we have to keep things up to par for our future grandchildren. He just explains how we aren't the last people left on the world. We shouldn't let the whole everything fall apart and have the future leaders have to build everything back up.
ReplyDeleteI agree with a lot of what you said and how you summed up the text. To me I feel as if he had much pride and such high standards for the achievements and future success for his country. In my understanding he does a very good job of giving good advice of how to continue to keep the country moving on a good track. At the same time, I like how you addressed the fact that he talks about realistic problems and crisis that are able to happen at any time. I agree with you in the fact that his argument was very convincing because he explains our actions will affect the next generation, and so on. Good Text Analysis.
ReplyDelete