Stossel’s
bluntly inspirational column “Ideas Mate, and We’re Better for It” compels the
reader to think more optimistically about making a difference for the better,
which can be done just by having thought-provoking communication between
individuals. The strategy of Stossel’s argument changes throughout the piece.
The author shifts from figurative language, to ethos, to pathos and logos.
Stossel’s
column begins with several uses of figurative language. He starts off with a
joke about an “idea [walking] into a bar”, meeting another idea, and having a “new
idea” become “born” from the two. Not only is this an allusion to the popular “bar
joke”, it’s also a use of personification, allowing an idea to have human
like qualities such as walking and being born. By kicking off his argument with
a joke, the reader is much more open to reading on. Also towards the beginning
he goes on to write about how “ideas” can “mate” or have “sex”. This part of
the writing is also crafted with personification. When he uses it this time
though, he applies it more bluntly to catch the reader’s attention.
The
author then shifts to proving his argument, although very subtly, through
ethos. Stossel writes that no matter how “stupid” a group of people may be, if
they “communicate” they can “achieve a lot more”. The author shows the reader
the key to making a difference, instead of just leaving them guessing. This
builds to his ethos by demonstrating that he cares enough to thoroughly explain
the way to accomplish the betterment of the world. He then leads on to the
mentioning of a “great economist” who “stood virtually alone” with his idea
that the “mixing of ideas” was a good thing. This warns the reader that even if
he combines his ideas with someone else, it might not always be accepted right
away. This also implies that there are not any worthless ideas.
Stossel
then ends his column on a note of pathos and logos. The author provides a quote
from the great economist; the economist writes about how when he was a kid the
older generation was made of “pessimists” and rambled on about how the “future”
was “bleak”. This is Ridley’s, the great economist’s, personal story of growing
up with pessimists. Through his attitude towards this subject, the reader
gathers that being pessimistic did not solve on problem. The author then pulls
into Gates’ view that “worrying” can “drive a solution”, but argues that “optimistic
people” such as “Steve Jobs” and “Archimedes in ancient Greece” were people who
achieved solutions. Stossel changes his perspective to past historical events
and people to argue his point. With the addition of these facts, Stossel
successfully refutes his counter-argument.
The
author packs his column with various rhetorical devices such as ethos, pathos,
logos, and figurative language to convey his viewpoint and in turn fulfill his
overall purpose. Showing that he means business about his argument of optimism
over pessimism, his writing is sharp and to the point. Letting his audience
know that making the world a better place is as easy as sharing ideas inspires
the reader to follow his message.
