Ethos and Corey Robin's Lack of It How Intellectuals Create a Public, Corey Robin's long article, explains how public intellectuals must create their own audience rhetoric. public, rather than talking to the one who is already available. This means that rather than telling the audience what they want to hear, the rhetor must use their own words to shape the audience's beliefs. Robin does his best to achieve this, but he does so at the expense of his philosophy. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay A major problem with Robin's article is that he gives a lot of names to support his point, but gives no explanation as to why the names are relevant. This means that anyone who is not already familiar with these names should look them up in order to understand what Robin is trying to convey in his article. This greatly detracts from his philosophy because it makes the reader wonder if Robin really knows what he is trying to say, or if he needs to rely on the work of people like Max Weber and Noam Chomsky to explain himself. It's as if he uses all these names as symbols for his thoughts, but doesn't define these symbols. Another major problem is that Robin doesn't take his own advice to heart. His article starts from the idea of ​​writing to an audience that does not yet exist; Robin writes to a very specific audience of adept intellectuals. He quotes famous intellectuals, authors, and philosophers, but not everyone knows everyone he mentioned, which means he missed a lot of the people for his potential audience. This undermines his philosophy because you can't give credible advice if you do the exact opposite of what you advise. Another look at Robin's article shows that he has not established any form of identity. He's been too busy identifying other people to give us any information about why he has the authority to speak on his subject. Doing some research, I discovered that Robin is a political theorist, journalist, and professor of political science at the City University of New York. Despite his doctorate from Yale, he established no credibility in his article, virtually erasing any trace of ethos he had left. This also means that despite Robin's attempt at strategic essentialism, he has no social power to write this article. Robin also seems to rely not only on credible people he can name, but also on logos and stagecraft. In terms of implementation, it's fine. Except that he has failed to establish any background on his subject, which means that he does not have the credibility to talk about it. When it comes to logos, Robin relies heavily on other people's backgrounds rather than his own. Keep in mind: this is just a sample. Get a personalized article now from our expert writers. Get a Custom Essay Overall, Robin's article is eloquently written, he just sacrificed his ethos along the way. Rather than using his Yale education to explain his thought process, he names others with similar thoughts and lets their work explain it. It's also not good for his philosophy that he never established that he went to Yale, which would be part of his identity. Without establishing this identity, he gives no reason to find him credible in any way..