• Why Roman Numerals Are The Super Bowl’s Signature

    Sure, the Super Bowl is one of the biggest sporting events in the world (World Cup fans, feel free to weigh in here), and an unofficial national holiday in the United States.

    On February 13, 2022, the Cincinnati Bengals and Los Angeles Rams will face off at the California home field of the Rams, SoFi Stadium, in Super Bowl LVI (56). While sports fans are waiting to see if the Bengals will clinch their first Super Bowl title, the word (and number) lovers of us (you know, those of us watching the Superb Owl) are wondering about the Roman numerals themselves. Do you know how the Super Bowl got its name? Or why it uses Roman numerals?

    How did the Super Bowl get its name?

    In the 1960s, American pro football was divided into two leagues, the established NFL and the newly-formed AFL (American Football League). Eventually, the two would merge into one league comprised of two conferences, and shortly after the announcement of said merger, a new competitive event was announced pitting the best of both conferences against each other.

    The first best-of-the-best game between the Packers and Chiefs in January 1967 ended up carrying the rather straightforward name of AFL-NFL Championship Game. Catchy? Not very. The subsequent three games used the equally bland World Championship Game.

    So, when did the term Super Bowl finally come into the picture?

    The standard mythology holds that Kansas City Chiefs owner Lamar Hunt coined the term Super Bowl as a phonetic riff on his daughter’s toy Super Ball. But, numerous newspapers were commonly using the term Super Bowl as early as 1967—years before the first officially named Super Bowl game took place. Why let that get in the way of a good origin myth, right?

    What does the bowl in Super Bowl mean?
    Glad you asked. In the early 1900s, bowl began to be used to describe bowl-like stadiums. The first of these stadiums was built for Yale in 1914 and the Rose Bowl in Pasadena was soon to follow. Soon enough, football games held in similarly designed stadiums were called bowl games.

    What number Super Bowl is this year?

    This year’s 2022 Super Bowl is number 56. That means it would be represented in Roman numerals as LVI. Do you know why?

    Roman numerals are an ancient numeric system where numbers are represented by the symbols I, V, X, L, C, D, and M. I represents the number 1, V represents 5, X is 10, L is 50, C is 100, D is 500, and M is 1,000. Different arrangements of these seven symbols represent different numbers.

    To create numbers, you arrange the symbols in descending order from left to right. So the number 56 would be represented as 50 + 5 + 1 or LVI.

    Why do the Super Bowl games have Roman numerals?

    Lamar Hunt is also credited for introducing Roman numerals to keep track of the championship title bowls. Super Bowl V was the first such bowl to be numbered using this system. An excerpt from the NFL media guide explains further:

    The Roman numerals were adopted to clarify any confusion that may occur because the NFL Championship Game—the Super Bowl—is played in the year following a chronologically recorded season. Numerals I through IV were added later for the first four Super Bowls.

    Controversially, the only Super Bowl game to not use Roman numerals was Super Bowl 50. The Roman numeral for 50 is L, and, because NFL ad designers felt that the Super Bowl L title was too unattractive and unmarketable, they opted to use the number 50 instead.

    Many football fans were very miffed by this. Chris Chase of USA Today summed up the “controversy” nicely: “Foregoing the use of Super Bowl L drew some early criticism that the league was dumbing things down for America, as if clinging to an archaic counting system that was obviously created without any foresight means we’re a nation of dunces. That’s nonsense. Roman numerals are like cursive: meaningless in the real world and not as pretty to look at as people think.”

    That said: we’re now back to the Roman numeral system for the foreseeable future, so everything is in its right place. Go team!

    Copyright 2024, XAKKHRA, All Rights Reserved.
    Why Roman Numerals Are The Super Bowl’s Signature Sure, the Super Bowl is one of the biggest sporting events in the world (World Cup fans, feel free to weigh in here), and an unofficial national holiday in the United States. On February 13, 2022, the Cincinnati Bengals and Los Angeles Rams will face off at the California home field of the Rams, SoFi Stadium, in Super Bowl LVI (56). While sports fans are waiting to see if the Bengals will clinch their first Super Bowl title, the word (and number) lovers of us (you know, those of us watching the Superb Owl) are wondering about the Roman numerals themselves. Do you know how the Super Bowl got its name? Or why it uses Roman numerals? How did the Super Bowl get its name? In the 1960s, American pro football was divided into two leagues, the established NFL and the newly-formed AFL (American Football League). Eventually, the two would merge into one league comprised of two conferences, and shortly after the announcement of said merger, a new competitive event was announced pitting the best of both conferences against each other. The first best-of-the-best game between the Packers and Chiefs in January 1967 ended up carrying the rather straightforward name of AFL-NFL Championship Game. Catchy? Not very. The subsequent three games used the equally bland World Championship Game. So, when did the term Super Bowl finally come into the picture? The standard mythology holds that Kansas City Chiefs owner Lamar Hunt coined the term Super Bowl as a phonetic riff on his daughter’s toy Super Ball. But, numerous newspapers were commonly using the term Super Bowl as early as 1967—years before the first officially named Super Bowl game took place. Why let that get in the way of a good origin myth, right? What does the bowl in Super Bowl mean? Glad you asked. In the early 1900s, bowl began to be used to describe bowl-like stadiums. The first of these stadiums was built for Yale in 1914 and the Rose Bowl in Pasadena was soon to follow. Soon enough, football games held in similarly designed stadiums were called bowl games. What number Super Bowl is this year? This year’s 2022 Super Bowl is number 56. That means it would be represented in Roman numerals as LVI. Do you know why? Roman numerals are an ancient numeric system where numbers are represented by the symbols I, V, X, L, C, D, and M. I represents the number 1, V represents 5, X is 10, L is 50, C is 100, D is 500, and M is 1,000. Different arrangements of these seven symbols represent different numbers. To create numbers, you arrange the symbols in descending order from left to right. So the number 56 would be represented as 50 + 5 + 1 or LVI. Why do the Super Bowl games have Roman numerals? Lamar Hunt is also credited for introducing Roman numerals to keep track of the championship title bowls. Super Bowl V was the first such bowl to be numbered using this system. An excerpt from the NFL media guide explains further: The Roman numerals were adopted to clarify any confusion that may occur because the NFL Championship Game—the Super Bowl—is played in the year following a chronologically recorded season. Numerals I through IV were added later for the first four Super Bowls. Controversially, the only Super Bowl game to not use Roman numerals was Super Bowl 50. The Roman numeral for 50 is L, and, because NFL ad designers felt that the Super Bowl L title was too unattractive and unmarketable, they opted to use the number 50 instead. Many football fans were very miffed by this. Chris Chase of USA Today summed up the “controversy” nicely: “Foregoing the use of Super Bowl L drew some early criticism that the league was dumbing things down for America, as if clinging to an archaic counting system that was obviously created without any foresight means we’re a nation of dunces. That’s nonsense. Roman numerals are like cursive: meaningless in the real world and not as pretty to look at as people think.” That said: we’re now back to the Roman numeral system for the foreseeable future, so everything is in its right place. Go team! Copyright 2024, XAKKHRA, All Rights Reserved.
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 992 Views 0 Reviews
  • Greek Words For Love That Will Make Your Heart Soar

    What is love? People have had a hard time answering that question for a lot longer than you might think. In Ancient Greece, love was a concept pondered over by some of history’s most famous philosophers, including Plato and Aristotle. Greek philosophers attempted to explain love rationally and often categorized the different kinds of love people could feel. Because we love them so much, we brought together some Greek words—and a Latin one, for good measure—for the different kinds of love you might find out there.


    eros
    Original Greek: ᾔρως (érōs)

    Eros is physical love or sexual desire. Eros is the type of love that involves passion, lust, and/or romance.

    Examples of eros would be the love felt between, well, lovers. Eros is the sensual love between people who are sexually attracted to each other. In the Bible, eros was synonymous with “marital love” because husbands and wives were supposed to be the only people having sex. Eros was also the name of a love god in Greek mythology—better known by his Roman name, Cupid—and was the guy responsible for shooting magic arrows at people to make them fall in love.

    The word eros is still used in psychology today to refer to sexual desire or the libido. The words erotic and erogenous, which both have to do with sexual desire or arousal, are derived from eros.


    philia
    Original Greek: ϕιλÎŊα (philía)

    Philia is affectionate love. Philia is the type of love that involves friendship.

    Philia is the kind of love that strong friends feel toward each other. However, it doesn’t stop there. The Greek philosopher Plato thought that philia was an even greater love than eros and that the strongest loving relationships were ones where philia led to eros: a “friends become lovers” situation. Our concept of platonic love—love that isn’t based on physical attraction—comes from this Platonic philosophy.

    The word philia is related to the word philosophy through the combining form philo-. Philia itself is the source of the combining forms -philia, -phile, and -phily, all three of which are used to indicate a figurative love or affinity for something.


    agape
    Original Greek: ᾀγÎŽπη (agápē)

    Agape is often defined as unconditional, sacrificial love. Agape is the kind of love that is felt by a person willing to do anything for another, including sacrificing themselves, without expecting anything in return. Philosophically, agape has also been defined as the selfless love that a person feels for strangers and humanity as a whole. Agape is the love that allows heroic people to sacrifice themselves to save strangers they have never met.

    Did you know ... ?
    Agape is a major term in the Christian Bible, which is why it is often defined as “Christian love.” In the New Testament, agape is the word used to describe the love that God has for humanity and the love humanity has for God. Agape was also the love that Jesus Christ felt for humanity, which explains why he was willing to sacrifice himself.


    storge
    Original Greek: στοργÎŪ (storgé)

    Storge is familial love. Storge is the natural love that family members have for one another.

    Of all of the types of love, storge might be the easiest to understand. It is the type of love that parents feel toward their children and vice versa. Storge also describes the love that siblings feel towards each other, and the love felt by even more distant kin relationships, such as a grandparent for a grandchild or an uncle toward a niece.


    mania
    Original Greek: μανÎŊα (manía)

    Mania is obsessive love. Mania is the kind of “love” that a stalker feels toward their victim.

    As a type of love, mania is not good, and the Greeks knew this as well as we do. Mania is excessive love that reaches the point of obsession or madness. Mania describes what a jilted lover feels when they are extremely jealous of a rival or the unhealthy obsession that can result from mental illness.

    The Greek mania is the source of the English word mania and similar words like maniac and manic. It is also the source of the combining form -mania, which is often used in words that refer to obsessive behavior such as pyromania and egomania.


    ludus
    Original Latin: Bucking the trend, the word ludus comes from Latin rather than Greek. In Latin, lÅŦdus means “game” or “play,” which fits with the type of love it refers to. One possible Greek equivalent is the word ερωτοτροπÎŊα, meaning “courtship.”

    Ludus is playful, noncommittal love. Ludus covers things like flirting, seduction, and casual sex.

    Ludus means “play” or “game” in Latin, and that pretty much explains what ludus is: love as a game. When it comes to ludus, a person is not looking for a committed relationship. People who are after ludus are just looking to have fun or view sex as a prize to be won. A “friends with benefits” situation would be an example of a relationship built on ludus: neither partner is interested in commitment. Of course, ludus may eventually result in eros—and hopefully not mania—if feelings of passion or romance emerge during the relationship.

    The Latin lÅŦdus is related to the playful words ludic and ludicrous.


    pragma
    Original Greek: πρÎŽγμα (prágma)

    Pragma is practical love. Pragma is love based on duty, obligation, or logic.

    Pragma is the unsexy love that you might find in the political, arranged marriages throughout history. This businesslike love is seen in relationships where practicality takes precedence over sex and romance. For example, two people may be in a relationship because of financial reasons or because they have more to lose by breaking up than staying together.

    Pragma may even involve a person tolerating or ignoring their partner’s infidelity, as was common in politically motivated royal marriages in much of world history. Pragma may not sound all that great to many, but it is possible for pragma to coexist alongside other types of love, such as ludus or even eros.

    As you might have guessed, pragma is related to pragmatic, a word that is all about practicality.


    philautia
    Original Greek: ϕιλαυτÎŊα (philautía)

    Philautia is self-love. No, not that kind. Philautia refers to how a person views themselves and how they feel about their own body and mind.

    The modern equivalent of philautia would be something like self-esteem (good) or hubris (bad). People with high self-esteem, pride in themselves, or a positive body image practice a healthy version of philautia. Of course, philautia has a dark side, too. Egomaniacal narcissists who think they are better than everybody else are also an example of philautia, but not in a healthy way. The duality of philautia just goes to show that love, even self-love, can often get pretty complicated.

    Copyright 2024, XAKKHRA, All Rights Reserved.
    Greek Words For Love That Will Make Your Heart Soar What is love? People have had a hard time answering that question for a lot longer than you might think. In Ancient Greece, love was a concept pondered over by some of history’s most famous philosophers, including Plato and Aristotle. Greek philosophers attempted to explain love rationally and often categorized the different kinds of love people could feel. Because we love them so much, we brought together some Greek words—and a Latin one, for good measure—for the different kinds of love you might find out there. eros Original Greek: ᾔρως (érōs) Eros is physical love or sexual desire. Eros is the type of love that involves passion, lust, and/or romance. Examples of eros would be the love felt between, well, lovers. Eros is the sensual love between people who are sexually attracted to each other. In the Bible, eros was synonymous with “marital love” because husbands and wives were supposed to be the only people having sex. Eros was also the name of a love god in Greek mythology—better known by his Roman name, Cupid—and was the guy responsible for shooting magic arrows at people to make them fall in love. The word eros is still used in psychology today to refer to sexual desire or the libido. The words erotic and erogenous, which both have to do with sexual desire or arousal, are derived from eros. philia Original Greek: ϕιλÎŊα (philía) Philia is affectionate love. Philia is the type of love that involves friendship. Philia is the kind of love that strong friends feel toward each other. However, it doesn’t stop there. The Greek philosopher Plato thought that philia was an even greater love than eros and that the strongest loving relationships were ones where philia led to eros: a “friends become lovers” situation. Our concept of platonic love—love that isn’t based on physical attraction—comes from this Platonic philosophy. The word philia is related to the word philosophy through the combining form philo-. Philia itself is the source of the combining forms -philia, -phile, and -phily, all three of which are used to indicate a figurative love or affinity for something. agape Original Greek: ᾀγÎŽπη (agápē) Agape is often defined as unconditional, sacrificial love. Agape is the kind of love that is felt by a person willing to do anything for another, including sacrificing themselves, without expecting anything in return. Philosophically, agape has also been defined as the selfless love that a person feels for strangers and humanity as a whole. Agape is the love that allows heroic people to sacrifice themselves to save strangers they have never met. Did you know ... ? Agape is a major term in the Christian Bible, which is why it is often defined as “Christian love.” In the New Testament, agape is the word used to describe the love that God has for humanity and the love humanity has for God. Agape was also the love that Jesus Christ felt for humanity, which explains why he was willing to sacrifice himself. storge Original Greek: στοργÎŪ (storgé) Storge is familial love. Storge is the natural love that family members have for one another. Of all of the types of love, storge might be the easiest to understand. It is the type of love that parents feel toward their children and vice versa. Storge also describes the love that siblings feel towards each other, and the love felt by even more distant kin relationships, such as a grandparent for a grandchild or an uncle toward a niece. mania Original Greek: μανÎŊα (manía) Mania is obsessive love. Mania is the kind of “love” that a stalker feels toward their victim. As a type of love, mania is not good, and the Greeks knew this as well as we do. Mania is excessive love that reaches the point of obsession or madness. Mania describes what a jilted lover feels when they are extremely jealous of a rival or the unhealthy obsession that can result from mental illness. The Greek mania is the source of the English word mania and similar words like maniac and manic. It is also the source of the combining form -mania, which is often used in words that refer to obsessive behavior such as pyromania and egomania. ludus Original Latin: Bucking the trend, the word ludus comes from Latin rather than Greek. In Latin, lÅŦdus means “game” or “play,” which fits with the type of love it refers to. One possible Greek equivalent is the word ερωτοτροπÎŊα, meaning “courtship.” Ludus is playful, noncommittal love. Ludus covers things like flirting, seduction, and casual sex. Ludus means “play” or “game” in Latin, and that pretty much explains what ludus is: love as a game. When it comes to ludus, a person is not looking for a committed relationship. People who are after ludus are just looking to have fun or view sex as a prize to be won. A “friends with benefits” situation would be an example of a relationship built on ludus: neither partner is interested in commitment. Of course, ludus may eventually result in eros—and hopefully not mania—if feelings of passion or romance emerge during the relationship. The Latin lÅŦdus is related to the playful words ludic and ludicrous. pragma Original Greek: πρÎŽγμα (prágma) Pragma is practical love. Pragma is love based on duty, obligation, or logic. Pragma is the unsexy love that you might find in the political, arranged marriages throughout history. This businesslike love is seen in relationships where practicality takes precedence over sex and romance. For example, two people may be in a relationship because of financial reasons or because they have more to lose by breaking up than staying together. Pragma may even involve a person tolerating or ignoring their partner’s infidelity, as was common in politically motivated royal marriages in much of world history. Pragma may not sound all that great to many, but it is possible for pragma to coexist alongside other types of love, such as ludus or even eros. As you might have guessed, pragma is related to pragmatic, a word that is all about practicality. philautia Original Greek: ϕιλαυτÎŊα (philautía) Philautia is self-love. No, not that kind. Philautia refers to how a person views themselves and how they feel about their own body and mind. The modern equivalent of philautia would be something like self-esteem (good) or hubris (bad). People with high self-esteem, pride in themselves, or a positive body image practice a healthy version of philautia. Of course, philautia has a dark side, too. Egomaniacal narcissists who think they are better than everybody else are also an example of philautia, but not in a healthy way. The duality of philautia just goes to show that love, even self-love, can often get pretty complicated. Copyright 2024, XAKKHRA, All Rights Reserved.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 1145 Views 0 Reviews
  • “āļ—āļģāļ—āļļāļ āđ† āļ§āļąāļ™āđƒāļŦāđ‰āđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļ›āļĢāļ°āđ‚āļĒāļŠāļ™āđŒ“

    āļ§āļąāļ™āļ™āļĩāđ‰āđ€āļˆāļ­āļ„āļĢāļđāļĢāļļāđˆāļ™āđƒāļŦāļĄāđˆ āđ„āļŸāđāļĢāļ‡ āļĄāļĩāđāļ™āļ§āļ„āļīāļ”āđƒāļŦāļĄāđˆ āļ‚āļĒāļąāļ™ āļ—āļļāđˆāļĄāđ€āļ— āļ—āļģāļ—āļļāļāļ­āļĒāđˆāļēāļ‡āđ€āļžāļ·āđˆāļ­āđ€āļ”āđ‡āļāļ™āļąāļāđ€āļĢāļĩāļĒāļ™āļ”āđ‰āļ§āļĒāļŦāļąāļ§āđƒā

    āđ€āļĢāļēāļĄāļĩāđ‚āļ­āļāļēāļŠāđ„āļ”āđ‰āļ”āļđāļāļēāļĢāļŠāļ­āļ™āļ‚āļ­āļ‡āļ™āđ‰āļ­āļ‡ āļ™āđˆāļēāļ”āļĩāđƒāļˆāļ—āļĩāđˆāļĄāļĩāļ„āļĢāļđāļĢāļļāđˆāļ™āđƒāļŦāļĄāđˆ āļŠāļ­āļ™āđāļšāļšāļ™āļĩāđ‰ āļ­āļļāļ›āļāļĢāļ“āđŒāļāļēāļĢāļŠāļ­āļ™ āļŠāļ·āđˆāļ­āļāļēāļĢāļŠāļ­āļ™āļ—āļļāļāļ­āļĒāđˆāļēāļ‡āļ—āļĩāđˆāļ­āļĒāļđāđˆāļ•āļĢāļ‡āļŦāļ™āđ‰āļē āļāđ‡āļĄāļēāļˆāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļ„āļ§āļąāļāļāļĢāļ°āđ€āļ›āđ‹āļēāļ‚āļ­āļ‡āļ™āđ‰āļ­āļ‡āđ€āļ­āļ‡āļ—āļąāđ‰āļ‡āļ™āļąāđ‰āļ™ āļŠāđˆāļēāļ‡āļ™āđˆāļēāļ āļđāļĄāļīāđƒāļˆāļˆāļĢāļīāļ‡āđ†

    āļ™āđ‰āļ­āļ‡āļŠāļ­āļ™āđ€āļŠāļĢāđ‡āļˆ āđ€āļĢāļēāļšāļ­āļāļ™āđ‰āļ­āļ‡āđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļāļēāļĢāļŠāļ­āļ™āļ•āļąāļ§āļ§āđˆāļē…”āļžāļĩāđˆāļ āļđāļĄāļīāđƒāļˆāđƒāļ™āļ•āļąāļ§āđ€āļ˜āļ­āļ™āļ°“ āļ™āđ‰āļ­āļ‡āļ–āļēāļĄāļāļĨāļąāļšāļ§āđˆāļē ”āļžāļĩāđˆāđ„āļ”āđ‰āļ™āļ­āļ™āļŦāļĢāļ·āļ­āđ€āļ›āļĨāđˆāļē āļžāļĩāđˆāļˆāļąāļ”āļāļēāļĢāđ€āļ§āļĨāļēāļ•āļąāļ§āđ€āļ­āļ‡āļĒāļąāļ‡āđ„ā

    āđ€āļžāļĢāļēāļ°āļāđˆāļ­āļ™āļ—āļĩāđˆāļˆāļ°āļĄāļēāļ–āļķāļ‡āļāļēāļĢāļŠāļ­āļ™āļˆāļĢāļīāļ‡ āļ™āđ‰āļ­āļ‡āđ‚āļ—āļĢāļĄāļē āđ„āļĨāļ™āđŒāļĄāļē āļ›āļĢāļķāļāļĐāļēāļ•āđˆāļēāļ‡āđ† āļ™āļēāļ™āļē āļĒāļīāđˆāļ‡āđ„āļ›āļāļ§āđˆāļēāļ™āļąāđ‰āļ™āļŠāđˆāļ‡āđāļœāļ™āļĄāļēāđƒāļŦāđ‰āļ”āļđāļ•āļ­āļ™āļ•āļĩāļŦāđ‰āļē āļŠāļĩāđˆāļŠāļīāļšāļŦāđ‰āļē āļ‚āļ­āļ‡āļ§āļąāļ™āļ—āļĩāđˆāļˆāļ°āļŠāļ­āļ™ āđ€āļ‚āđ‰āļēāđƒāļˆāļ§āđˆāļēāļ„āļ‡āđ€āļāļĢāļ‡āđƒāļˆāđāļŦāļĨāļ° āđāļ•āđˆāđ€āļĢāļēāļāđ‡āļāļĨāđˆāļēāļ§āļāļĨāļąāļšāđ„āļ›āļ§āđˆāļē āļĒāļīāļ™āļ”āļĩāļ—āļļāļāļ„āļĢāļąāđ‰āļ‡

    āđ€āļĢāļēāļšāļ­āļāļ™āđ‰āļ­āļ‡āļ§āđˆāļē āđ€āļĢāļēāļˆāļąāļ”āļāļēāļĢāđ€āļ§āļĨāļēāļ•āļąāļ§āđ€āļ­āļ‡āļĒāļąāļ‡āđ„āļ‡ āđ€āļĢāļēāļ—āļģāļĒāļąāļ‡āđ„āļ‡ āļ‚āļ“āļ°āļ—āļĩāđˆāđ€āļĨāđˆāļēāļāđ‡āļŠāļąāļ‡āđ€āļāļ•āļˆāļēāļāđāļ§āļ§āļ•āļē āđāļĨāļ°āļ™āđ‰āļģāđ€āļŠāļĩāļĒāļ‡ āļ™āđ‰āļ­āļ‡āļ„āļ‡āļˆāļ°āđāļ›āļĨāļāđƒāļˆāđ„āļĄāđˆāļ™āđ‰āļ­āļĒ āđ€āļžāļĢāļēāļ°āđ€āļĢāļēāđ„āļĄāđˆāđ€āļ„āļĒāļ­āļ”āļ™āļ­āļ™āđ€āļžāļĢāļēāļ°āļ‡āļēāļ™āļšāđˆāļ­āļĒāđ† āđ€āļ§āļĨāļēāļ—āļģāļ‡āļēāļ™āļ„āļ·āļ­āļ—āļģāđ€āļ•āđ‡āļĄāļ—āļĩāđˆ āđ€āļ§āļĨāļēāļžāļąāļāļāđ‡āļˆāļ°āļžāļąāļāđ€āļ•āđ‡āļĄāļ—āļĩāđˆāđ€āļŠāđˆāļ™āļāļąāļ™

    āđ€āļĢāļēāļˆāļšāļ›āļĢāļ°āđ‚āļĒāļ„āļŠāļ™āļ—āļ™āļēāļāļąāļšāļ™āđ‰āļ­āļ‡āļ§āđˆāļē “āļ­āļēāļˆāļēāļĢāļĒāđŒāļžāļĩāđˆ āļšāļ­āļāļāļąāļšāļžāļĩāđˆāđ€āļŠāļĄāļ­āļ§āđˆāļē āđƒāļŦāđ‰āļ—āļģāļ—āļļāļ āđ† āļ§āļąāļ™āđƒāļŦāđ‰āđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļ›āļĢāļ°āđ‚āļĒāļŠāļ™āđŒ āđ€āļĢāļēāļāđ‡āļˆāļ°āļĄāļĩāđāļĢāļ‡ āļĄāļĩāļžāļĨāļąāļ‡āļ—āļģāļŠāļīāđˆāļ‡āļ™āļąāđ‰āļ™āļ•āđˆāļ­āđ„āļ›”

    āļĢāļđāđ‰āļŠāļķāļāļ āļđāļĄāļīāđƒāļˆāļĄāļēāļ āļ—āļĩāđˆāđ„āļ”āđ‰āļžāļđāļ”āļ›āļĢāļ°āđ‚āļĒāļ„āļ™āļĩāđ‰āļāļąāļšāļ™āđ‰āļ­āļ‡ āļĄāļąāļ™āđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āđ€āļŦāļĄāļ·āļ­āļ™āļāļēāļĢāļ–āđˆāļēāļĒāļ—āļ­āļ”āļžāļĨāļąāļ‡āļ‡āļēāļ™āļšāļ§āļāđƒāļŦāđ‰āļāļąāļšāļ„āļ™āļ­āļ·āđˆāļ™āļ•āđˆāļ­āđ„āļ›

    āļ­āļĒāļēāļāđ€āļ‚āļĩāļĒāļ™āđ„āļ§āđ‰ āđ€āļœāļ·āđˆāļ­āļ§āđˆāļēāđƒāļ„āļĢāļœāđˆāļēāļ™āļĄāļēāļˆāļ°āđāļ§āļ°āđ€āļ­āļēāđ„āļ›āđƒāļŠāđ‰āļšāđ‰āļēāļ‡

    āļ™āļąāļšāđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļ§āļąāļ™āļ—āļĩāđˆāļ”āļĩāļ­āļĩāļāļ§āļąāļ™
    “āļ—āļģāļ—āļļāļ āđ† āļ§āļąāļ™āđƒāļŦāđ‰āđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļ›āļĢāļ°āđ‚āļĒāļŠāļ™āđŒ“ āļ§āļąāļ™āļ™āļĩāđ‰āđ€āļˆāļ­āļ„āļĢāļđāļĢāļļāđˆāļ™āđƒāļŦāļĄāđˆ āđ„āļŸāđāļĢāļ‡ āļĄāļĩāđāļ™āļ§āļ„āļīāļ”āđƒāļŦāļĄāđˆ āļ‚āļĒāļąāļ™ āļ—āļļāđˆāļĄāđ€āļ— āļ—āļģāļ—āļļāļāļ­āļĒāđˆāļēāļ‡āđ€āļžāļ·āđˆāļ­āđ€āļ”āđ‡āļāļ™āļąāļāđ€āļĢāļĩāļĒāļ™āļ”āđ‰āļ§āļĒāļŦāļąāļ§āđƒā āđ€āļĢāļēāļĄāļĩāđ‚āļ­āļāļēāļŠāđ„āļ”āđ‰āļ”āļđāļāļēāļĢāļŠāļ­āļ™āļ‚āļ­āļ‡āļ™āđ‰āļ­āļ‡ āļ™āđˆāļēāļ”āļĩāđƒāļˆāļ—āļĩāđˆāļĄāļĩāļ„āļĢāļđāļĢāļļāđˆāļ™āđƒāļŦāļĄāđˆ āļŠāļ­āļ™āđāļšāļšāļ™āļĩāđ‰ āļ­āļļāļ›āļāļĢāļ“āđŒāļāļēāļĢāļŠāļ­āļ™ āļŠāļ·āđˆāļ­āļāļēāļĢāļŠāļ­āļ™āļ—āļļāļāļ­āļĒāđˆāļēāļ‡āļ—āļĩāđˆāļ­āļĒāļđāđˆāļ•āļĢāļ‡āļŦāļ™āđ‰āļē āļāđ‡āļĄāļēāļˆāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļ„āļ§āļąāļāļāļĢāļ°āđ€āļ›āđ‹āļēāļ‚āļ­āļ‡āļ™āđ‰āļ­āļ‡āđ€āļ­āļ‡āļ—āļąāđ‰āļ‡āļ™āļąāđ‰āļ™ āļŠāđˆāļēāļ‡āļ™āđˆāļēāļ āļđāļĄāļīāđƒāļˆāļˆāļĢāļīāļ‡āđ† āļ™āđ‰āļ­āļ‡āļŠāļ­āļ™āđ€āļŠāļĢāđ‡āļˆ āđ€āļĢāļēāļšāļ­āļāļ™āđ‰āļ­āļ‡āđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļāļēāļĢāļŠāļ­āļ™āļ•āļąāļ§āļ§āđˆāļē…”āļžāļĩāđˆāļ āļđāļĄāļīāđƒāļˆāđƒāļ™āļ•āļąāļ§āđ€āļ˜āļ­āļ™āļ°“ āļ™āđ‰āļ­āļ‡āļ–āļēāļĄāļāļĨāļąāļšāļ§āđˆāļē ”āļžāļĩāđˆāđ„āļ”āđ‰āļ™āļ­āļ™āļŦāļĢāļ·āļ­āđ€āļ›āļĨāđˆāļē āļžāļĩāđˆāļˆāļąāļ”āļāļēāļĢāđ€āļ§āļĨāļēāļ•āļąāļ§āđ€āļ­āļ‡āļĒāļąāļ‡āđ„ā āđ€āļžāļĢāļēāļ°āļāđˆāļ­āļ™āļ—āļĩāđˆāļˆāļ°āļĄāļēāļ–āļķāļ‡āļāļēāļĢāļŠāļ­āļ™āļˆāļĢāļīāļ‡ āļ™āđ‰āļ­āļ‡āđ‚āļ—āļĢāļĄāļē āđ„āļĨāļ™āđŒāļĄāļē āļ›āļĢāļķāļāļĐāļēāļ•āđˆāļēāļ‡āđ† āļ™āļēāļ™āļē āļĒāļīāđˆāļ‡āđ„āļ›āļāļ§āđˆāļēāļ™āļąāđ‰āļ™āļŠāđˆāļ‡āđāļœāļ™āļĄāļēāđƒāļŦāđ‰āļ”āļđāļ•āļ­āļ™āļ•āļĩāļŦāđ‰āļē āļŠāļĩāđˆāļŠāļīāļšāļŦāđ‰āļē āļ‚āļ­āļ‡āļ§āļąāļ™āļ—āļĩāđˆāļˆāļ°āļŠāļ­āļ™ āđ€āļ‚āđ‰āļēāđƒāļˆāļ§āđˆāļēāļ„āļ‡āđ€āļāļĢāļ‡āđƒāļˆāđāļŦāļĨāļ° āđāļ•āđˆāđ€āļĢāļēāļāđ‡āļāļĨāđˆāļēāļ§āļāļĨāļąāļšāđ„āļ›āļ§āđˆāļē āļĒāļīāļ™āļ”āļĩāļ—āļļāļāļ„āļĢāļąāđ‰āļ‡ āđ€āļĢāļēāļšāļ­āļāļ™āđ‰āļ­āļ‡āļ§āđˆāļē āđ€āļĢāļēāļˆāļąāļ”āļāļēāļĢāđ€āļ§āļĨāļēāļ•āļąāļ§āđ€āļ­āļ‡āļĒāļąāļ‡āđ„āļ‡ āđ€āļĢāļēāļ—āļģāļĒāļąāļ‡āđ„āļ‡ āļ‚āļ“āļ°āļ—āļĩāđˆāđ€āļĨāđˆāļēāļāđ‡āļŠāļąāļ‡āđ€āļāļ•āļˆāļēāļāđāļ§āļ§āļ•āļē āđāļĨāļ°āļ™āđ‰āļģāđ€āļŠāļĩāļĒāļ‡ āļ™āđ‰āļ­āļ‡āļ„āļ‡āļˆāļ°āđāļ›āļĨāļāđƒāļˆāđ„āļĄāđˆāļ™āđ‰āļ­āļĒ āđ€āļžāļĢāļēāļ°āđ€āļĢāļēāđ„āļĄāđˆāđ€āļ„āļĒāļ­āļ”āļ™āļ­āļ™āđ€āļžāļĢāļēāļ°āļ‡āļēāļ™āļšāđˆāļ­āļĒāđ† āđ€āļ§āļĨāļēāļ—āļģāļ‡āļēāļ™āļ„āļ·āļ­āļ—āļģāđ€āļ•āđ‡āļĄāļ—āļĩāđˆ āđ€āļ§āļĨāļēāļžāļąāļāļāđ‡āļˆāļ°āļžāļąāļāđ€āļ•āđ‡āļĄāļ—āļĩāđˆāđ€āļŠāđˆāļ™āļāļąāļ™ āđ€āļĢāļēāļˆāļšāļ›āļĢāļ°āđ‚āļĒāļ„āļŠāļ™āļ—āļ™āļēāļāļąāļšāļ™āđ‰āļ­āļ‡āļ§āđˆāļē “āļ­āļēāļˆāļēāļĢāļĒāđŒāļžāļĩāđˆ āļšāļ­āļāļāļąāļšāļžāļĩāđˆāđ€āļŠāļĄāļ­āļ§āđˆāļē āđƒāļŦāđ‰āļ—āļģāļ—āļļāļ āđ† āļ§āļąāļ™āđƒāļŦāđ‰āđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļ›āļĢāļ°āđ‚āļĒāļŠāļ™āđŒ āđ€āļĢāļēāļāđ‡āļˆāļ°āļĄāļĩāđāļĢāļ‡ āļĄāļĩāļžāļĨāļąāļ‡āļ—āļģāļŠāļīāđˆāļ‡āļ™āļąāđ‰āļ™āļ•āđˆāļ­āđ„āļ›” āļĢāļđāđ‰āļŠāļķāļāļ āļđāļĄāļīāđƒāļˆāļĄāļēāļ āļ—āļĩāđˆāđ„āļ”āđ‰āļžāļđāļ”āļ›āļĢāļ°āđ‚āļĒāļ„āļ™āļĩāđ‰āļāļąāļšāļ™āđ‰āļ­āļ‡ āļĄāļąāļ™āđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āđ€āļŦāļĄāļ·āļ­āļ™āļāļēāļĢāļ–āđˆāļēāļĒāļ—āļ­āļ”āļžāļĨāļąāļ‡āļ‡āļēāļ™āļšāļ§āļāđƒāļŦāđ‰āļāļąāļšāļ„āļ™āļ­āļ·āđˆāļ™āļ•āđˆāļ­āđ„āļ› āļ­āļĒāļēāļāđ€āļ‚āļĩāļĒāļ™āđ„āļ§āđ‰ āđ€āļœāļ·āđˆāļ­āļ§āđˆāļēāđƒāļ„āļĢāļœāđˆāļēāļ™āļĄāļēāļˆāļ°āđāļ§āļ°āđ€āļ­āļēāđ„āļ›āđƒāļŠāđ‰āļšāđ‰āļēāļ‡ āļ™āļąāļšāđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļ§āļąāļ™āļ—āļĩāđˆāļ”āļĩāļ­āļĩāļāļ§āļąāļ™ ðŸĨ°
    0 Comments 0 Shares 235 Views 0 Reviews
  • Understand The Difference Between Ethos, Pathos, And Logos To Make Your Point

    During an argument, people will often say whatever is necessary to win. If that is the case, they would certainly need to understand the three modes of persuasion, also commonly known as the three rhetorical appeals: ethos, pathos, and logos. In short, these three words refer to three main methods that a person can use to speak or write persuasively. As you’re about to find out, the modes of persuasion are important because a speaker who knows how to effectively use them will have a significant advantage over someone who doesn’t.

    The terms ethos, pathos, and logos and the theory of their use can be traced back to ancient Greece to the philosophy of Aristotle. Aristotle used these three concepts in his explanations of rhetoric, or the art of influencing the thought and conduct of an audience. For Aristotle, the three modes of persuasion specifically referred to the three major parts of an argument: the speaker (ethos), the argument itself (logos), and the audience (pathos). In particular, Aristotle focused on the speaker’s character, the logic and reason presented by an argument, and the emotional impact the argument had on an audience.

    While they have ancient roots, these modes of persuasion are alive and well today. Put simply, ethos refers to persuasion based on the credibility or authority of the speaker, pathos refers to persuasion based on emotion, and logos refers to persuasion based on logic or reason.

    By effectively using the three modes of persuasion with a large supply of rhetorical devices, a speaker or writer can become a master of rhetoric and win nearly any argument or win over any audience. Before they can do that, though, they must know exactly what ethos, pathos, and logos mean. Fortunately, we are going to look closely at each of these three ideas and see if they are really as effective as they are said to be.

    Quick summary

    Ethos, pathos, and logos are the three classical modes of persuasion that a person can use to speak or write persuasively. Specifically:

    ethos (character): known as “the appeal to authority” or “the appeal to credibility.” This is the method in which a person relies on their credibility or character when making an appeal or an argument.

    pathos (emotions): known as “the appeal to emotion.” Pathos refers to the method of trying to persuade an audience by eliciting some kind of emotional reaction.

    logos (logic): known as “the appeal to reason.” This method involves using facts and logical reasoning to support an argument and persuade an audience.


    What is ethos?

    The word ethos comes straight from Greek. In Greek, ethos literally translates to “habit,” “custom,” or “character.” Ethos is related to the words ethic and ethical, which are typically used to refer to behavior that is or isn’t acceptable for a particular person.

    In rhetoric, the word ethos is used to refer to the character or reputation of the speaker. As a rhetorical appeal, ethos is known as “the appeal to authority” or “the appeal to credibility.” When it comes to ethos, one important consideration is how the speaker carries themself and how they present themselves to the audience: Does it seem like they know what they are talking about? Do they even believe the words they are saying? Are they an expert? Do they have some experience or skills that tell us we should listen to them?

    Ethos is important in rhetoric because it often influences the opinion or mood of the audience. If a speaker seems unenthusiastic, unprepared, or inexperienced, the audience is more likely to discount the speaker’s argument regardless of what it even is. On the other hand, a knowledgeable, authoritative, confident speaker is much more likely to win an audience over.

    Ethos often depends on more than just the argument itself. For example, a speaker’s word choice, grammar, and diction also contribute to ethos; an audience may react more favorably toward a professional speaker who has a good grasp of industry jargon and enunciates clearly versus a speaker who lacks the necessary vocabulary and fails to enunciate. Ethos can also be influenced by nonverbal factors as well, such as posture, body language, eye contact, and even the speaker’s choice of clothing. For example, a military officer proudly wearing their uniform bedecked with medals will go a long way to establishing ethos without them saying a single word.

    Here as a simple example of ethos:

    “As a former mayor of this city, I believe we can solve this crisis if we band together.”
    The speaker uses ethos by alerting the audience of their credentials and experience. By doing so, they rely on their reputation to be more persuasive. This “as a…” method of establishing ethos is common, and you have probably seen it used in many persuasive advertisements and speeches.


    What is pathos?

    In Greek, pathos literally translates to “suffering, experience, or sensation.” The word pathos is related to the words pathetic, sympathy, and empathy, which all have to do with emotions or emotional connections. Aristotle used the word pathos to refer to the emotional impact that an argument had on an audience; this usage is still mainly how pathos is used in rhetoric today.

    As a rhetorical appeal, pathos is referred to as “the appeal to emotion.” Generally speaking, an author or speaker is using pathos when they are trying to persuade an audience by causing some kind of emotional reaction. When it comes to pathos, any and all emotions are on the table: sadness, fear, hope, joy, anger, lust, pity, etc.

    As you probably know from your own life, emotions are a powerful motivating factor. For this reason, relying on pathos is often a smart and effective strategy for persuading an audience. Both positive and negative emotions can heavily influence an audience: for example, an audience will want to support a speaker whose position will make them happy, a speaker who wants to end their sadness, or a speaker who is opposed to something that makes them angry.

    Here is a simple example of pathos:

    “Every day, the rainforests shrink and innocent animals are killed. We must do something about this calamitous trend before the planet we call our home is damaged beyond repair.”
    Here, the author is trying to win over an audience by making them feel sad, concerned, or afraid. The author’s choice of words like “innocent” and “calamitous” enforce the fact that they are trying to rely on pathos.


    What is logos?

    In Greek, the word logos literally translates to “word, reason, or discourse.” The word logos is related to many different words that have to do with reason, discourse, or knowledge, such as logic, logical, and any words that end in the suffixes -logy or -logue.

    As a mode of persuasion and rhetorical appeal, logos is often referred to as “the appeal to reason.” If a speaker or author is relying on logos, they are typically reciting facts or providing data and statistics that support their argument. In a manner of speaking, logos does away with all of the bells and whistles of ethos and pathos and cuts to the chase by trying to present a rational argument.

    Logos can be effective in arguments because, in theory, it is impossible to argue against truth and facts. An audience is more likely to agree with a speaker who can provide strong, factual evidence that shows their position is correct. On the flip side, an audience is less likely to support an argument that is flawed or entirely wrong. Going further, a speaker that presents a lot of supporting evidence and data to the audience is likely to come across as knowledgeable and someone to be listened to, which earns bonus points in ethos as well.

    While Aristotle clearly valued an argument based on reason very highly, we know that logos alone doesn’t always effectively persuade an audience. In your own life, you have likely seen a rational, correct speaker lose an argument to a charismatic, authoritative speaker who may not have the facts right.

    Here is a simple example of logos:

    “According to market research, sales of computer chips have increased by 300% in the last five years. Analysis of the industry tells us that the market share of computer chips is dominated by Asian manufacturers. It is clear that the Asian technology sector will continue to experience rapid growth for the foreseeable future.”
    In this paragraph, the author is using data, statistics, and logical reasoning to make their argument. They clearly hope to use logos to try to convince an audience to agree with them.

    Examples of ethos, pathos, and logos
    Ethos, pathos, and logos can all be employed to deliver compelling and persuasive arguments or to win over an audience. Let’s look at a variety of examples to see how different speakers and authors have turned to these modes of persuasion over the years.


    ethos

    “Come I to speak in Caesar’s funeral.
    He was my friend, faithful and just to me […] You all did see that on the Lupercal
    I thrice presented him a kingly crown,
    Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?”
    —Marc Antony, Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare

    In this scene, Marc Antony is trying to win over the Roman people, so Shakespeare has Antony rely on ethos. Antony is establishing himself as both a person of authority in Rome (having the power to offer Caesar a crown) and an expert on Caesar’s true character (Antony was Caesar’s close friend and advisor).

    “During the next five years, I started a company named NeXT, another company named Pixar, and fell in love with an amazing woman who would become my wife. Pixar went on to create the world’s first computer animated feature film, Toy Story, and is now the most successful animation studio in the world. In a remarkable turn of events, Apple bought NeXT, I returned to Apple, and the technology we developed at NeXT is at the heart of Apple’s current renaissance.”
    —Steve Jobs, 2005

    Here, Steve Jobs is providing his background–via humblebrag– of being a major figure in several different highly successful tech companies. Jobs is using ethos to provide substance to his words and make it clear to the audience that he knows what he is talking about and they should listen to him.


    pathos

    “Moreover, though you hate both him and his gifts with all your heart, yet pity the rest of the Achaeans who are being harassed in all their host; they will honour you as a god, and you will earn great glory at their hands. You might even kill Hector; he will come within your reach, for he is infatuated, and declares that not a Danaan whom the ships have brought can hold his own against him.”
    —Ulysses to Achilles, The Iliad by Homer

    In this plea, Ulysses is doing his best to pile on the pathos. In one paragraph, Ulysses is attempting to appeal to several of Achilles’s emotions: his hatred of Hector, his infamous stubborn pride, his sympathy for civilians, and his desire for vengeance.

    “I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest—quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality.”
    —Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., 1963

    In this excerpt from his “I Have A Dream” speech, King is using pathos to accomplish two goals at once. First, he is connecting with his audience by making it clear is aware of their plight and suffering. Second, he is citing these examples to cause sadness or outrage in the audience. Both of these effects will make an audience interested in what he has to say and more likely to support his position.


    logos

    “Let it be remembered how powerful the influence of a single introduced tree or mammal has been shown to be. But in the case of an island, or of a country partly surrounded by barriers, into which new and better adapted forms could not freely enter, we should then have places in the economy of nature which would assuredly be better filled up if some of the original inhabitants were in some manner modified; for, had the area been open to immigration, these same places would have been seized on by intruders. In such case, every slight modification, which in the course of ages chanced to arise, and which in any way favoured the individuals of any of the species, by better adapting them to their altered conditions, would tend to be preserved; and natural selection would have free scope for the work of improvement.”
    —Charles Darwin, On the Origin of the Species, 1859

    In this passage, Darwin is using logos by presenting a rational argument in support of natural selection. Darwin connects natural selection to established scientific knowledge to argue that it makes logical sense that animals would adapt to better survive in their environment.

    “I often echo the point made by the climate scientist James Hansen: The accumulation of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases—some of which will envelop the planet for hundreds and possibly thousands of years—is now trapping as much extra energy daily as 500,000 Hiroshima-class atomic bombs would release every 24 hours. This is the crisis we face.”
    —Al Gore, “The Climate Crisis Is the Battle of Our Time, and We Can Win,” 2019

    In this call to action, Al Gore uses logos to attempt to convince his audience of the significance of climate change. In order to do this, Gore both cites an expert in the field and provides a scientifically accurate simile to explain the scale of the effect that greenhouse gases have on Earth’s atmosphere.


    What are mythos and kairos?

    Some modern scholars may also use terms mythos and kairos when discussing modes of persuasion or rhetoric in general.

    Aristotle used the term mythos to refer to the plot or story structure of Greek tragedies, i.e., how a playwright ordered the events of the story to affect the audience. Today, mythos is most often discussed as a literary or poetic term rather than a rhetorical one. However, mythos may rarely be referred to as the “appeal to culture” or the “appeal to myth” if it is treated as an additional mode of persuasion. According to this viewpoint, a speaker/writer is using mythos if they try to persuade an audience using shared cultural customs or societal values.

    A commonly cited example of mythos is King’s “I Have a Dream” speech quoted earlier. King says:

    “When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men—yes, black men as well as white men—would be guaranteed the ‘unalienable rights’ of ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’ ”

    Throughout the speech, King repeatedly uses American symbols and American history (mythos) to argue that all Americans should be outraged that Black Americans have been denied freedom and civil rights.

    Some modern scholars may also consider kairos as an additional mode of persuasion. Kairos is usually defined as referring to the specific time and place that a speaker chooses to deliver their speech. For written rhetoric, the “place” instead refers to the specific medium or publication in which a piece of writing appears.

    Unlike the other modes of persuasion, kairos relates to the context of a speech and how the appropriateness (or not) of a setting affects how effective a speaker is. Once again, King’s “I Have a Dream” speech is a great example of the use of kairos. This speech was delivered at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial during the 100th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation at the end of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. Clearly, King intended to use kairos to enhance the importance and timeliness of this landmark speech.

    Copyright 2024, XAKKHRA, All Rights Reserved.
    Understand The Difference Between Ethos, Pathos, And Logos To Make Your Point During an argument, people will often say whatever is necessary to win. If that is the case, they would certainly need to understand the three modes of persuasion, also commonly known as the three rhetorical appeals: ethos, pathos, and logos. In short, these three words refer to three main methods that a person can use to speak or write persuasively. As you’re about to find out, the modes of persuasion are important because a speaker who knows how to effectively use them will have a significant advantage over someone who doesn’t. The terms ethos, pathos, and logos and the theory of their use can be traced back to ancient Greece to the philosophy of Aristotle. Aristotle used these three concepts in his explanations of rhetoric, or the art of influencing the thought and conduct of an audience. For Aristotle, the three modes of persuasion specifically referred to the three major parts of an argument: the speaker (ethos), the argument itself (logos), and the audience (pathos). In particular, Aristotle focused on the speaker’s character, the logic and reason presented by an argument, and the emotional impact the argument had on an audience. While they have ancient roots, these modes of persuasion are alive and well today. Put simply, ethos refers to persuasion based on the credibility or authority of the speaker, pathos refers to persuasion based on emotion, and logos refers to persuasion based on logic or reason. By effectively using the three modes of persuasion with a large supply of rhetorical devices, a speaker or writer can become a master of rhetoric and win nearly any argument or win over any audience. Before they can do that, though, they must know exactly what ethos, pathos, and logos mean. Fortunately, we are going to look closely at each of these three ideas and see if they are really as effective as they are said to be. Quick summary Ethos, pathos, and logos are the three classical modes of persuasion that a person can use to speak or write persuasively. Specifically: ethos (character): known as “the appeal to authority” or “the appeal to credibility.” This is the method in which a person relies on their credibility or character when making an appeal or an argument. pathos (emotions): known as “the appeal to emotion.” Pathos refers to the method of trying to persuade an audience by eliciting some kind of emotional reaction. logos (logic): known as “the appeal to reason.” This method involves using facts and logical reasoning to support an argument and persuade an audience. What is ethos? The word ethos comes straight from Greek. In Greek, ethos literally translates to “habit,” “custom,” or “character.” Ethos is related to the words ethic and ethical, which are typically used to refer to behavior that is or isn’t acceptable for a particular person. In rhetoric, the word ethos is used to refer to the character or reputation of the speaker. As a rhetorical appeal, ethos is known as “the appeal to authority” or “the appeal to credibility.” When it comes to ethos, one important consideration is how the speaker carries themself and how they present themselves to the audience: Does it seem like they know what they are talking about? Do they even believe the words they are saying? Are they an expert? Do they have some experience or skills that tell us we should listen to them? Ethos is important in rhetoric because it often influences the opinion or mood of the audience. If a speaker seems unenthusiastic, unprepared, or inexperienced, the audience is more likely to discount the speaker’s argument regardless of what it even is. On the other hand, a knowledgeable, authoritative, confident speaker is much more likely to win an audience over. Ethos often depends on more than just the argument itself. For example, a speaker’s word choice, grammar, and diction also contribute to ethos; an audience may react more favorably toward a professional speaker who has a good grasp of industry jargon and enunciates clearly versus a speaker who lacks the necessary vocabulary and fails to enunciate. Ethos can also be influenced by nonverbal factors as well, such as posture, body language, eye contact, and even the speaker’s choice of clothing. For example, a military officer proudly wearing their uniform bedecked with medals will go a long way to establishing ethos without them saying a single word. Here as a simple example of ethos: “As a former mayor of this city, I believe we can solve this crisis if we band together.” The speaker uses ethos by alerting the audience of their credentials and experience. By doing so, they rely on their reputation to be more persuasive. This “as a…” method of establishing ethos is common, and you have probably seen it used in many persuasive advertisements and speeches. What is pathos? In Greek, pathos literally translates to “suffering, experience, or sensation.” The word pathos is related to the words pathetic, sympathy, and empathy, which all have to do with emotions or emotional connections. Aristotle used the word pathos to refer to the emotional impact that an argument had on an audience; this usage is still mainly how pathos is used in rhetoric today. As a rhetorical appeal, pathos is referred to as “the appeal to emotion.” Generally speaking, an author or speaker is using pathos when they are trying to persuade an audience by causing some kind of emotional reaction. When it comes to pathos, any and all emotions are on the table: sadness, fear, hope, joy, anger, lust, pity, etc. As you probably know from your own life, emotions are a powerful motivating factor. For this reason, relying on pathos is often a smart and effective strategy for persuading an audience. Both positive and negative emotions can heavily influence an audience: for example, an audience will want to support a speaker whose position will make them happy, a speaker who wants to end their sadness, or a speaker who is opposed to something that makes them angry. Here is a simple example of pathos: “Every day, the rainforests shrink and innocent animals are killed. We must do something about this calamitous trend before the planet we call our home is damaged beyond repair.” Here, the author is trying to win over an audience by making them feel sad, concerned, or afraid. The author’s choice of words like “innocent” and “calamitous” enforce the fact that they are trying to rely on pathos. What is logos? In Greek, the word logos literally translates to “word, reason, or discourse.” The word logos is related to many different words that have to do with reason, discourse, or knowledge, such as logic, logical, and any words that end in the suffixes -logy or -logue. As a mode of persuasion and rhetorical appeal, logos is often referred to as “the appeal to reason.” If a speaker or author is relying on logos, they are typically reciting facts or providing data and statistics that support their argument. In a manner of speaking, logos does away with all of the bells and whistles of ethos and pathos and cuts to the chase by trying to present a rational argument. Logos can be effective in arguments because, in theory, it is impossible to argue against truth and facts. An audience is more likely to agree with a speaker who can provide strong, factual evidence that shows their position is correct. On the flip side, an audience is less likely to support an argument that is flawed or entirely wrong. Going further, a speaker that presents a lot of supporting evidence and data to the audience is likely to come across as knowledgeable and someone to be listened to, which earns bonus points in ethos as well. While Aristotle clearly valued an argument based on reason very highly, we know that logos alone doesn’t always effectively persuade an audience. In your own life, you have likely seen a rational, correct speaker lose an argument to a charismatic, authoritative speaker who may not have the facts right. Here is a simple example of logos: “According to market research, sales of computer chips have increased by 300% in the last five years. Analysis of the industry tells us that the market share of computer chips is dominated by Asian manufacturers. It is clear that the Asian technology sector will continue to experience rapid growth for the foreseeable future.” In this paragraph, the author is using data, statistics, and logical reasoning to make their argument. They clearly hope to use logos to try to convince an audience to agree with them. Examples of ethos, pathos, and logos Ethos, pathos, and logos can all be employed to deliver compelling and persuasive arguments or to win over an audience. Let’s look at a variety of examples to see how different speakers and authors have turned to these modes of persuasion over the years. ethos “Come I to speak in Caesar’s funeral. He was my friend, faithful and just to me […] You all did see that on the Lupercal I thrice presented him a kingly crown, Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?” —Marc Antony, Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare In this scene, Marc Antony is trying to win over the Roman people, so Shakespeare has Antony rely on ethos. Antony is establishing himself as both a person of authority in Rome (having the power to offer Caesar a crown) and an expert on Caesar’s true character (Antony was Caesar’s close friend and advisor). “During the next five years, I started a company named NeXT, another company named Pixar, and fell in love with an amazing woman who would become my wife. Pixar went on to create the world’s first computer animated feature film, Toy Story, and is now the most successful animation studio in the world. In a remarkable turn of events, Apple bought NeXT, I returned to Apple, and the technology we developed at NeXT is at the heart of Apple’s current renaissance.” —Steve Jobs, 2005 Here, Steve Jobs is providing his background–via humblebrag– of being a major figure in several different highly successful tech companies. Jobs is using ethos to provide substance to his words and make it clear to the audience that he knows what he is talking about and they should listen to him. pathos “Moreover, though you hate both him and his gifts with all your heart, yet pity the rest of the Achaeans who are being harassed in all their host; they will honour you as a god, and you will earn great glory at their hands. You might even kill Hector; he will come within your reach, for he is infatuated, and declares that not a Danaan whom the ships have brought can hold his own against him.” —Ulysses to Achilles, The Iliad by Homer In this plea, Ulysses is doing his best to pile on the pathos. In one paragraph, Ulysses is attempting to appeal to several of Achilles’s emotions: his hatred of Hector, his infamous stubborn pride, his sympathy for civilians, and his desire for vengeance. “I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest—quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality.” —Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., 1963 In this excerpt from his “I Have A Dream” speech, King is using pathos to accomplish two goals at once. First, he is connecting with his audience by making it clear is aware of their plight and suffering. Second, he is citing these examples to cause sadness or outrage in the audience. Both of these effects will make an audience interested in what he has to say and more likely to support his position. logos “Let it be remembered how powerful the influence of a single introduced tree or mammal has been shown to be. But in the case of an island, or of a country partly surrounded by barriers, into which new and better adapted forms could not freely enter, we should then have places in the economy of nature which would assuredly be better filled up if some of the original inhabitants were in some manner modified; for, had the area been open to immigration, these same places would have been seized on by intruders. In such case, every slight modification, which in the course of ages chanced to arise, and which in any way favoured the individuals of any of the species, by better adapting them to their altered conditions, would tend to be preserved; and natural selection would have free scope for the work of improvement.” —Charles Darwin, On the Origin of the Species, 1859 In this passage, Darwin is using logos by presenting a rational argument in support of natural selection. Darwin connects natural selection to established scientific knowledge to argue that it makes logical sense that animals would adapt to better survive in their environment. “I often echo the point made by the climate scientist James Hansen: The accumulation of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases—some of which will envelop the planet for hundreds and possibly thousands of years—is now trapping as much extra energy daily as 500,000 Hiroshima-class atomic bombs would release every 24 hours. This is the crisis we face.” —Al Gore, “The Climate Crisis Is the Battle of Our Time, and We Can Win,” 2019 In this call to action, Al Gore uses logos to attempt to convince his audience of the significance of climate change. In order to do this, Gore both cites an expert in the field and provides a scientifically accurate simile to explain the scale of the effect that greenhouse gases have on Earth’s atmosphere. What are mythos and kairos? Some modern scholars may also use terms mythos and kairos when discussing modes of persuasion or rhetoric in general. Aristotle used the term mythos to refer to the plot or story structure of Greek tragedies, i.e., how a playwright ordered the events of the story to affect the audience. Today, mythos is most often discussed as a literary or poetic term rather than a rhetorical one. However, mythos may rarely be referred to as the “appeal to culture” or the “appeal to myth” if it is treated as an additional mode of persuasion. According to this viewpoint, a speaker/writer is using mythos if they try to persuade an audience using shared cultural customs or societal values. A commonly cited example of mythos is King’s “I Have a Dream” speech quoted earlier. King says: “When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men—yes, black men as well as white men—would be guaranteed the ‘unalienable rights’ of ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’ ” Throughout the speech, King repeatedly uses American symbols and American history (mythos) to argue that all Americans should be outraged that Black Americans have been denied freedom and civil rights. Some modern scholars may also consider kairos as an additional mode of persuasion. Kairos is usually defined as referring to the specific time and place that a speaker chooses to deliver their speech. For written rhetoric, the “place” instead refers to the specific medium or publication in which a piece of writing appears. Unlike the other modes of persuasion, kairos relates to the context of a speech and how the appropriateness (or not) of a setting affects how effective a speaker is. Once again, King’s “I Have a Dream” speech is a great example of the use of kairos. This speech was delivered at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial during the 100th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation at the end of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. Clearly, King intended to use kairos to enhance the importance and timeliness of this landmark speech. Copyright 2024, XAKKHRA, All Rights Reserved.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 1668 Views 0 Reviews
  • My dinnerrrr
    My dinnerrrr
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 260 Views 0 Reviews
  • 12 āļāļąāļ™āļĒāļēāļĒāļ™ 2567-āļžāļšāļāļąāļš āļĢāļĻ.āļ”āļĢ.āļ›āļīāļ•āļī āļĻāļĢāļĩāđāļŠāļ‡āļ™āļēāļĄ āļ­āļēāļˆāļēāļĢāļĒāđŒāļ›āļĢāļ°āļˆāļģāļ„āļ“āļ°āđ€āļĻāļĢāļĐāļāļĻāļēāļŠāļ•āļĢāđŒ āļˆāļļāļŽāļēāļĨāļ‡āļāļĢāļ“āđŒāļĄāļŦāļēāļ§āļīāļ—āļĒāļēāļĨāļąāļĒ āļ§āļīāđ€āļ„āļĢāļēāļ°āļŦāđŒāļ›āļĢāļ°āđ€āļ”āđ‡āļ™āļĢāđ‰āļ­āļ™āļ—āļēāļ‡āđ€āļĻāļĢāļĐāļāļāļīāļˆāđ€āļĢāļ·āđˆāļ­āļ‡ āļ āļēāļĐāļĩ āđāļĢāļ‡āļ‡āļēāļ™ āļ—āļļāļ™āļ‚āđ‰āļēāļĄāļŠāļēāļ•āļī āļ§āļīāļāļĪāļ•āđāļĨāļ°āđ‚āļ­āļāļēāļŠ āļ—āļĩāđˆāļˆāļ°āļ§āļąāļ”āļāļĩāļĄāļ·āļ­āļĢāļąāļāļšāļēāļĨāđāļžāļ—āļ­āļ‡āļ˜āļēāļĢ āđƒāļ™āļĢāļēāļĒāļāļēāļĢāļ„āļ™āđ€āļ„āļēāļ°āļ‚āđˆāļēāļ§ āđ‚āļ”āļĒ āļāļīāļ•āļ•āļīāļŠāļąāļĒ āđ„āļžāđ‚āļĢāļˆāļ™āđŒāđ„āļŠāļĒāļāļļāļĨ āļ”āļģāđ€āļ™āļīāļ™āļĢāļēāļĒāļāļēāļĢ

    āļ—āļĩāđˆāļĄāļē https://youtu.be/XG6gq0c66bI?si=d-aGu0fg7dy1zC6D

    #Thaitimes
    12 āļāļąāļ™āļĒāļēāļĒāļ™ 2567-āļžāļšāļāļąāļš āļĢāļĻ.āļ”āļĢ.āļ›āļīāļ•āļī āļĻāļĢāļĩāđāļŠāļ‡āļ™āļēāļĄ āļ­āļēāļˆāļēāļĢāļĒāđŒāļ›āļĢāļ°āļˆāļģāļ„āļ“āļ°āđ€āļĻāļĢāļĐāļāļĻāļēāļŠāļ•āļĢāđŒ āļˆāļļāļŽāļēāļĨāļ‡āļāļĢāļ“āđŒāļĄāļŦāļēāļ§āļīāļ—āļĒāļēāļĨāļąāļĒ āļ§āļīāđ€āļ„āļĢāļēāļ°āļŦāđŒāļ›āļĢāļ°āđ€āļ”āđ‡āļ™āļĢāđ‰āļ­āļ™āļ—āļēāļ‡āđ€āļĻāļĢāļĐāļāļāļīāļˆāđ€āļĢāļ·āđˆāļ­āļ‡ āļ āļēāļĐāļĩ āđāļĢāļ‡āļ‡āļēāļ™ āļ—āļļāļ™āļ‚āđ‰āļēāļĄāļŠāļēāļ•āļī āļ§āļīāļāļĪāļ•āđāļĨāļ°āđ‚āļ­āļāļēāļŠ āļ—āļĩāđˆāļˆāļ°āļ§āļąāļ”āļāļĩāļĄāļ·āļ­āļĢāļąāļāļšāļēāļĨāđāļžāļ—āļ­āļ‡āļ˜āļēāļĢ āđƒāļ™āļĢāļēāļĒāļāļēāļĢāļ„āļ™āđ€āļ„āļēāļ°āļ‚āđˆāļēāļ§ āđ‚āļ”āļĒ āļāļīāļ•āļ•āļīāļŠāļąāļĒ āđ„āļžāđ‚āļĢāļˆāļ™āđŒāđ„āļŠāļĒāļāļļāļĨ āļ”āļģāđ€āļ™āļīāļ™āļĢāļēāļĒāļāļēāļĢ āļ—āļĩāđˆāļĄāļē https://youtu.be/XG6gq0c66bI?si=d-aGu0fg7dy1zC6D #Thaitimes
    Like
    11
    0 Comments 0 Shares 1032 Views 0 Reviews
  • Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 78 Views 0 Reviews
  • āļŠāļ–āļēāļ™āļāļēāļĢāļ“āđŒāļ™āđ‰āļģāļ—āđˆāļ§āļĄāđ€āļŠāļĩāļĒāļ‡āļĢāļēāļĒ-āđ€āļŠāļĩāļĒāļ‡āđƒāļŦāļĄāđˆ āļĒāļąāļ‡āļ™āđˆāļēāđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļŦāđˆāļ§āļ‡
    GISTDA āđ€āļ›āļīāļ”āļ āļēāļžāļ”āļēāļ§āđ€āļ—āļĩāļĒāļĄ āļ™āđ‰āļģāļ—āđˆāļ§āļĄāļžāļ·āđ‰āļ™āļ—āļĩāđˆāļĢāļ§āļĄāļāļ§āđˆāļē
    86,438 āđ„āļĢāđˆ 8 āļ­āļģāđ€āļ āļ­āļˆāļĄāļšāļēāļ”āļēāļĨ āļ›āļĢāļ°āļŠāļēāļŠāļ™āđƒāļ™āļžāļ·āđ‰āļ™āļ—āļĩāđˆ
    āđ„āļ”āđ‰āļĢāļąāļšāļ„āļ§āļēāļĄāđ€āļ”āļ·āļ­āļ”āļĢāđ‰āļ­āļ™āļŦāļ™āļąāļ āļ§āļ­āļ™āļ—āļļāļāļŦāļ™āđˆāļ§āļĒāļ‡āļēāļ™
    āđ€āļ‚āđ‰āļēāđ„āļ›āđƒāļŦāđ‰āļ„āļ§āļēāļĄāļŠāđˆāļ§āļĒāđ€āļŦāļĨāļ·āļ­āļ­āļĒāđˆāļēāļ‡āđ€āļĢāđˆāļ‡āļ”āđˆāļ§āļ™
    āļ—āļĩāđˆāļĄāļē : āļ›āļĢāļ°āļŠāļēāļŠāļēāļ•āļīāļ˜āļļāļĢāļāļīāļˆ

    #āļŦāļļāđ‰āļ™āļ•āļīāļ”āļ”āļ­āļĒ #āļāļēāļĢāļĨāļ‡āļ—āļļāļ™ #āļ™āđ‰āļģāļ—āđˆāļ§āļĄ #thaitimes
    ðŸ”ĨðŸ”ĨāļŠāļ–āļēāļ™āļāļēāļĢāļ“āđŒāļ™āđ‰āļģāļ—āđˆāļ§āļĄāđ€āļŠāļĩāļĒāļ‡āļĢāļēāļĒ-āđ€āļŠāļĩāļĒāļ‡āđƒāļŦāļĄāđˆ āļĒāļąāļ‡āļ™āđˆāļēāđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļŦāđˆāļ§āļ‡ GISTDA āđ€āļ›āļīāļ”āļ āļēāļžāļ”āļēāļ§āđ€āļ—āļĩāļĒāļĄ āļ™āđ‰āļģāļ—āđˆāļ§āļĄāļžāļ·āđ‰āļ™āļ—āļĩāđˆāļĢāļ§āļĄāļāļ§āđˆāļē 86,438 āđ„āļĢāđˆ 8 āļ­āļģāđ€āļ āļ­āļˆāļĄāļšāļēāļ”āļēāļĨ āļ›āļĢāļ°āļŠāļēāļŠāļ™āđƒāļ™āļžāļ·āđ‰āļ™āļ—āļĩāđˆ āđ„āļ”āđ‰āļĢāļąāļšāļ„āļ§āļēāļĄāđ€āļ”āļ·āļ­āļ”āļĢāđ‰āļ­āļ™āļŦāļ™āļąāļ āļ§āļ­āļ™āļ—āļļāļāļŦāļ™āđˆāļ§āļĒāļ‡āļēāļ™ āđ€āļ‚āđ‰āļēāđ„āļ›āđƒāļŦāđ‰āļ„āļ§āļēāļĄāļŠāđˆāļ§āļĒāđ€āļŦāļĨāļ·āļ­āļ­āļĒāđˆāļēāļ‡āđ€āļĢāđˆāļ‡āļ”āđˆāļ§āļ™ āļ—āļĩāđˆāļĄāļē : āļ›āļĢāļ°āļŠāļēāļŠāļēāļ•āļīāļ˜āļļāļĢāļāļīāļˆ #āļŦāļļāđ‰āļ™āļ•āļīāļ”āļ”āļ­āļĒ #āļāļēāļĢāļĨāļ‡āļ—āļļāļ™ #āļ™āđ‰āļģāļ—āđˆāļ§āļĄ #thaitimes
    Love
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 1579 Views 0 Reviews
  • 0 Comments 0 Shares 46 Views 0 Reviews
  • āđ€āļ‰āļĨāļĩāđˆāļĒāđāļĨāđ‰āļ§āļ”āļąāļŠāļ™āļĩāļ•āļĨāļēāļ”āļŦāļļāđ‰āļ™āđ„āļ—āļĒ
    āļ–āđ‰āļēāļˆāļ°āļ›āļĢāļąāļšāļ•āļąāļ§āļŠāļđāļ‡āļ‚āļķāđ‰āļ™āļ—āļļāļāđ† 80 āļˆāļļāļ”
    āļˆāļ°āđƒāļŠāđ‰āđ€āļĄāđ‡āļ”āđ€āļ‡āļīāļ™āļŦāļĢāļ·āļ­ Fundflow āđ„āļŦāļĨāđ€āļ‚āđ‰āļēāļ•āļĨāļēāļ”āļ›āļĢāļ°āļĄāļēāļ“ 1 āđāļŠāļ™āļĨāđ‰āļēāļ™āļšāļēāļ—
    āļ•āļ­āļ™āļ™āļĩāđ‰ SET āļ­āļĒāļđāđˆāļ—āļĩāđˆ 1421.58 āļ–āđ‰āļēāļˆāļ°āđƒāļŦāđ‰āļ”āļąāļŠāļ™āļĩ āđ„āļ›āļ—āļĩāđˆ 1800 āđ„āļ”āđ‰
    āļ•āđ‰āļ­āļ‡āļĄāļĩāđ€āļĄāđ‡āļ”āđ€āļ‡āļīāļ™ āļŦāļĢāļ·āļ­ Fundflow āđ„āļŦāļĨāđ€āļ‚āđ‰āļē āļ­āļĩāļāļ›āļĢāļ°āļĄāļēāļ“ 5 āđāļŠāļ™āļĨāđ‰āļēāļ™āļšāļēāļ—
    āđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļ­āļĒāđˆāļēāļ‡āļ™āđ‰āļ­āļĒ

    #āļŦāļļāđ‰āļ™āļ•āļīāļ”āļ”āļ­āļĒ #āļāļēāļĢāļĨāļ‡āļ—āļļāļ™ #SET #āļ•āļĨāļēāļ”āļŦāļļāđ‰āļ™āđ„āļ—āļĒ #thaitimes
    ðŸ”ĨðŸ”Ĩāđ€āļ‰āļĨāļĩāđˆāļĒāđāļĨāđ‰āļ§āļ”āļąāļŠāļ™āļĩāļ•āļĨāļēāļ”āļŦāļļāđ‰āļ™āđ„āļ—āļĒ āļ–āđ‰āļēāļˆāļ°āļ›āļĢāļąāļšāļ•āļąāļ§āļŠāļđāļ‡āļ‚āļķāđ‰āļ™āļ—āļļāļāđ† 80 āļˆāļļāļ” āļˆāļ°āđƒāļŠāđ‰āđ€āļĄāđ‡āļ”āđ€āļ‡āļīāļ™āļŦāļĢāļ·āļ­ Fundflow āđ„āļŦāļĨāđ€āļ‚āđ‰āļēāļ•āļĨāļēāļ”āļ›āļĢāļ°āļĄāļēāļ“ 1 āđāļŠāļ™āļĨāđ‰āļēāļ™āļšāļēāļ— āļ•āļ­āļ™āļ™āļĩāđ‰ SET āļ­āļĒāļđāđˆāļ—āļĩāđˆ 1421.58 āļ–āđ‰āļēāļˆāļ°āđƒāļŦāđ‰āļ”āļąāļŠāļ™āļĩ āđ„āļ›āļ—āļĩāđˆ 1800 āđ„āļ”āđ‰ āļ•āđ‰āļ­āļ‡āļĄāļĩāđ€āļĄāđ‡āļ”āđ€āļ‡āļīāļ™ āļŦāļĢāļ·āļ­ Fundflow āđ„āļŦāļĨāđ€āļ‚āđ‰āļē āļ­āļĩāļāļ›āļĢāļ°āļĄāļēāļ“ 5 āđāļŠāļ™āļĨāđ‰āļēāļ™āļšāļēāļ— āđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļ­āļĒāđˆāļēāļ‡āļ™āđ‰āļ­āļĒ #āļŦāļļāđ‰āļ™āļ•āļīāļ”āļ”āļ­āļĒ #āļāļēāļĢāļĨāļ‡āļ—āļļāļ™ #SET #āļ•āļĨāļēāļ”āļŦāļļāđ‰āļ™āđ„āļ—āļĒ #thaitimes
    Like
    3
    0 Comments 0 Shares 1150 Views 0 Reviews
  • 0 Comments 0 Shares 89 Views 0 Reviews
  • 0 Comments 0 Shares 84 Views 0 Reviews
  • #āđ€āļāļĢāļīāđˆāļ™āļ™āļģ#
    āļ•āđ‰āļ­āļ‡āđ€āļ‚āđ‰āļēāđƒāļˆāļāđˆāļ­āļ™āļ§āđˆāļē āđ€āļ”āļīāļĄāļ—āļĩāđāļ•āđˆāļĨāļ°āļ­āļēāļĢāļĒāļ˜āļĢāļĢāļĄāđ‚āļšāļĢāļēāļ“ āļ—āļąāđ‰āļ‡āđ€āļĄāđ‚āļŠāđ‚āļ›āđ€āļ•āđ€āļĄāļĩāļĒ āļ­āļĩāļĒāļīāļ›āļ•āđŒ āļāļĢāļĩāļ āđ‚āļĢāļĄāļąāļ™ āđāļĨāļ°āļˆāļĩāļ™ āđƒāļ™āļĒāļļāļ„āļĒāđ‰āļ­āļ™āđ„āļ›āļŠāļąāļ3000 āļ›āļĩ (āđ‚āļ”āļĒāļ›āļĢāļ°āļĄāļēāļ“)āļ•āđˆāļēāļ‡āļ›āļĢāļ°āļ”āļīāļĐāļāđŒāļ•āļąāļ§āđ€āļĨāļ‚āļŦāļĢāļ·āļ­āļĢāļ°āļšāļšāļŠāļąāļāļĨāļąāļāļĐāļ“āđŒāļ‚āļķāđ‰āļ™āļĄāļēāđƒāļŠāđ‰āđāļ—āļ™āļāļēāļĢāļ™āļąāļšāļˆāļģāļ™āļ§āļ™āđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļ‚āļ­āļ‡āļ•āļąāļ§āđ€āļ­āļ‡ āđ‚āļ”āļĒāđāļ•āđˆāđˆāļĨāļ°āļ§āļąāļ’āļ™āļ˜āļĢāļĢāļĄāļĨāđ‰āļ§āļ™āđāļ•āļāļ•āđˆāļēāļ‡āļāļąāļ™ āđāļ•āđˆāļ•āļąāļ§āļāļēāļĢāļŠāļģāļ„āļąāļāļ—āļĩāđˆāļ—āļģāđƒāļŦāđ‰ āļ•āļąāļ§āđ€āļĨāļ‚āļŪāļīāļ™āļ”āļđāļ­āļēāļĢāļšāļīāļ (Hindu-Arabic numerals) āđāļžāļĢāđˆāļŦāļĨāļēāļĒāđ„āļ›āļ—āļąāđˆāļ§āđ‚āļĨāļāļˆāļ™āļāļĨāļēāļĒāđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļĢāļ°āļšāļšāļāļĨāļēāļ‡āļŦāļĢāļ·āļ­āļĢāļ°āļšāļšāļŠāļēāļāļĨāļ‚āļ­āļ‡āļĄāļ™āļļāļĐāļĒāļŠāļēāļ•āļīāļ­āļĒāđˆāļēāļ‡āļ—āļļāļāļ§āļąāļ™āļ™āļĩāđ‰ āļ—āļĩāđˆāđ€āļĢāļēāļ—āļļāļāļ„āļ™āļ­āđˆāļēāļ™āļ­āļ­āļāđ€āļ‚āļĩāļĒāļ™āđ„āļ”āđ‰ āđāļĨāļ°āđ€āļ‚āđ‰āļēāđƒāļˆāļ„āļ§āļēāļĄāļŦāļĄāļēāļĒāļ•āļĢāļ‡āļāļąāļ™ āļ„āļ·āļ­ āļŠāļēāļ§āļĒāļļāđ‚āļĢāļ›

    āļ„āļ™āļĒāļļāđ‚āļĢāļ›āđ„āļĄāđˆāđ„āļ”āđ‰āļ„āļīāļ”āļ„āđ‰āļ™āđ€āļĨāļ‚āļŪāļīāļ™āļ”āļđāļ­āļēāļĢāļšāļīāļ āđāļ•āđˆāđƒāļŠāđ‰āļ§āļīāļ˜āļĩāļŦāļĒāļīāļšāļĒāļ·āļĄāļĢāļ°āļšāļšāļ•āļąāļ§āđ€āļĨāļ‚āļĄāļēāļˆāļēāļāļ§āļąāļ’āļ™āļ˜āļĢāļĢāļĄāļŪāļīāļ™āļ”āļđāđāļĨāļ°āļ­āļēāļŦāļĢāļąāļšāļ­āļĩāļāļ—āļ­āļ”āļŦāļ™āļķāđˆāļ‡ āļŠāļąāļ‡āđ€āļāļ•āđ„āļ”āđ‰āļ‡āđˆāļēāļĒāđ† āļˆāļēāļāļŠāļ·āđˆāļ­āđ€āļĢāļĩāļĒāļāļĢāļ°āļšāļšāđ€āļĨāļ‚āļŠāļļāļ”āļ™āļĩāđ‰āļ§āđˆāļē āļŪāļīāļ™āļ”āļđ āđāļĨāļ° āļ­āļēāļĢāļšāļīāļ
    āļ•āļąāļ§āđ€āļĨāļ‚āļŪāļīāļ™āļ”āļđāļ­āļēāļĢāļšāļīāļāđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļ—āļĩāđˆāļĢāļđāđ‰āļˆāļąāļāļ—āļąāđˆāļ§āđ‚āļĨāļāđ€āļžāļĢāļēāļ°āļŠāļēāļ§āļĒāļļāđ‚āļĢāļ› āļœāđˆāļēāļ™āļāļēāļĢāļ‚āļĒāļēāļĒāļ­āļīāļ—āļ˜āļīāļžāļĨāļ‚āļ­āļ‡āļ­āļēāļĢāļĒāļ˜āļĢāļĢāļĄ āđƒāļ™āļĒāļļāļ„āļĨāđˆāļēāļ­āļ“āļēāļ™āļīāļ„āļĄ āļŦāļĢāļ·āļ­āļŠāđˆāļ‡āļœāđˆāļēāļ™āļŠāļđāđˆāļāļēāļĢāļ„āđ‰āļēāļāļēāļĢāļ‚āļēāļĒ

    āļĢāļđāļ›āđāļšāļšāļāļēāļĢāđ€āļ‚āļĩāļĒāļ™āļ•āļąāļ§āđ€āļĨāļ‚āļŪāļīāļ™āļ”āļđāļ­āļēāļĢāļšāļīāļāđƒāļ™āļĒāļļāđ‚āļĢāļ›āđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļĢāļđāļ›āđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļĢāđˆāļēāļ‡āđ€āļĄāļ·āđˆāļ­ āđ€āļĨāđ‚āļ­āļ™āļēāļĢāđŒāđ‚āļ” āļŸāļīāđ‚āļšāļ™āļąāļŠāļŠāļĩ (Leonardo Fibonacci) āļ™āļąāļāļ„āļ“āļīāļ•āļĻāļēāļŠāļ•āļĢāđŒāļŠāļēāļ§āļ­āļīāļ•āļēāđ€āļĨāļĩāļĒāļ™ āļ•āļĩāļžāļīāļĄāļžāđŒāļŦāļ™āļąāļ‡āļŠāļ·āļ­ Liber Abaci āļŦāļĢāļ·āļ­āđāļ›āļĨāđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļ āļēāļĐāļēāļ­āļąāļ‡āļāļĪāļĐāđ„āļ”āđ‰āļ§āđˆāļē Book of the Abacus āļŦāļĢāļ·āļ­ Book of Calculation āđƒāļ™āļ›āļĩ 1202 āđ‚āļ”āļĒāļĄāļĩāđ€āļ™āļ·āđ‰āļ­āļŦāļēāļŦāļĨāļąāļ āļ„āļ·āļ­ āđ€āļ™āđ‰āļ™āļ­āļ˜āļīāļšāļēāļĒāļāļēāļĢāđāļāđ‰āđ‚āļˆāļ—āļĒāđŒāļ›āļąāļāļŦāļēāđāļĨāļ°āļ§āļīāļ˜āļĩāļāļēāļĢāļ„āļģāļ™āļ§āļ“āđ‚āļ”āļĒāđƒāļŠāđ‰āļ•āļąāļ§āđ€āļĨāļ‚āļŪāļīāļ™āļ”āļđāļ­āļēāļĢāļšāļīāļ āđ€āļ§āļĨāļēāļ•āđˆāļ­āļĄāļēāļŦāļ™āļąāļ‡āļŠāļ·āļ­āđ€āļĨāđˆāļĄāļ™āļĩāđ‰āđ„āļ”āđ‰āļĢāļąāļšāļ„āļ§āļēāļĄāļ™āļīāļĒāļĄāļ—āļąāđˆāļ§āļĒāļļāđ‚āļĢāļ› āļ—āļģāđƒāļŦāđ‰āļœāļđāđ‰āļ„āļ™āļˆāļ”āļˆāļģāļ§āļīāļ˜āļĩāļāļēāļĢāđ€āļ‚āļĩāļĒāļ™āļ•āļąāļ§āđ€āļĨāļ‚āđƒāļ™āđāļšāļšāļ‰āļšāļąāļšāļ‚āļ­āļ‡āļŸāļīāđ‚āļšāļ™āļąāļŠāļŠāļĩāđ„āļ›āđ‚āļ”āļĒāļ›āļĢāļīāļĒāļēāļĒ
    #āđ€āļāļĢāļīāđˆāļ™āļ™āļģ# āļ•āđ‰āļ­āļ‡āđ€āļ‚āđ‰āļēāđƒāļˆāļāđˆāļ­āļ™āļ§āđˆāļē āđ€āļ”āļīāļĄāļ—āļĩāđāļ•āđˆāļĨāļ°āļ­āļēāļĢāļĒāļ˜āļĢāļĢāļĄāđ‚āļšāļĢāļēāļ“ āļ—āļąāđ‰āļ‡āđ€āļĄāđ‚āļŠāđ‚āļ›āđ€āļ•āđ€āļĄāļĩāļĒ āļ­āļĩāļĒāļīāļ›āļ•āđŒ āļāļĢāļĩāļ āđ‚āļĢāļĄāļąāļ™ āđāļĨāļ°āļˆāļĩāļ™ āđƒāļ™āļĒāļļāļ„āļĒāđ‰āļ­āļ™āđ„āļ›āļŠāļąāļ3000 āļ›āļĩ (āđ‚āļ”āļĒāļ›āļĢāļ°āļĄāļēāļ“)āļ•āđˆāļēāļ‡āļ›āļĢāļ°āļ”āļīāļĐāļāđŒāļ•āļąāļ§āđ€āļĨāļ‚āļŦāļĢāļ·āļ­āļĢāļ°āļšāļšāļŠāļąāļāļĨāļąāļāļĐāļ“āđŒāļ‚āļķāđ‰āļ™āļĄāļēāđƒāļŠāđ‰āđāļ—āļ™āļāļēāļĢāļ™āļąāļšāļˆāļģāļ™āļ§āļ™āđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļ‚āļ­āļ‡āļ•āļąāļ§āđ€āļ­āļ‡ āđ‚āļ”āļĒāđāļ•āđˆāđˆāļĨāļ°āļ§āļąāļ’āļ™āļ˜āļĢāļĢāļĄāļĨāđ‰āļ§āļ™āđāļ•āļāļ•āđˆāļēāļ‡āļāļąāļ™ āđāļ•āđˆāļ•āļąāļ§āļāļēāļĢāļŠāļģāļ„āļąāļāļ—āļĩāđˆāļ—āļģāđƒāļŦāđ‰ āļ•āļąāļ§āđ€āļĨāļ‚āļŪāļīāļ™āļ”āļđāļ­āļēāļĢāļšāļīāļ (Hindu-Arabic numerals) āđāļžāļĢāđˆāļŦāļĨāļēāļĒāđ„āļ›āļ—āļąāđˆāļ§āđ‚āļĨāļāļˆāļ™āļāļĨāļēāļĒāđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļĢāļ°āļšāļšāļāļĨāļēāļ‡āļŦāļĢāļ·āļ­āļĢāļ°āļšāļšāļŠāļēāļāļĨāļ‚āļ­āļ‡āļĄāļ™āļļāļĐāļĒāļŠāļēāļ•āļīāļ­āļĒāđˆāļēāļ‡āļ—āļļāļāļ§āļąāļ™āļ™āļĩāđ‰ āļ—āļĩāđˆāđ€āļĢāļēāļ—āļļāļāļ„āļ™āļ­āđˆāļēāļ™āļ­āļ­āļāđ€āļ‚āļĩāļĒāļ™āđ„āļ”āđ‰ āđāļĨāļ°āđ€āļ‚āđ‰āļēāđƒāļˆāļ„āļ§āļēāļĄāļŦāļĄāļēāļĒāļ•āļĢāļ‡āļāļąāļ™ āļ„āļ·āļ­ āļŠāļēāļ§āļĒāļļāđ‚āļĢāļ› āļ„āļ™āļĒāļļāđ‚āļĢāļ›āđ„āļĄāđˆāđ„āļ”āđ‰āļ„āļīāļ”āļ„āđ‰āļ™āđ€āļĨāļ‚āļŪāļīāļ™āļ”āļđāļ­āļēāļĢāļšāļīāļ āđāļ•āđˆāđƒāļŠāđ‰āļ§āļīāļ˜āļĩāļŦāļĒāļīāļšāļĒāļ·āļĄāļĢāļ°āļšāļšāļ•āļąāļ§āđ€āļĨāļ‚āļĄāļēāļˆāļēāļāļ§āļąāļ’āļ™āļ˜āļĢāļĢāļĄāļŪāļīāļ™āļ”āļđāđāļĨāļ°āļ­āļēāļŦāļĢāļąāļšāļ­āļĩāļāļ—āļ­āļ”āļŦāļ™āļķāđˆāļ‡ āļŠāļąāļ‡āđ€āļāļ•āđ„āļ”āđ‰āļ‡āđˆāļēāļĒāđ† āļˆāļēāļāļŠāļ·āđˆāļ­āđ€āļĢāļĩāļĒāļāļĢāļ°āļšāļšāđ€āļĨāļ‚āļŠāļļāļ”āļ™āļĩāđ‰āļ§āđˆāļē āļŪāļīāļ™āļ”āļđ āđāļĨāļ° āļ­āļēāļĢāļšāļīāļ āļ•āļąāļ§āđ€āļĨāļ‚āļŪāļīāļ™āļ”āļđāļ­āļēāļĢāļšāļīāļāđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļ—āļĩāđˆāļĢāļđāđ‰āļˆāļąāļāļ—āļąāđˆāļ§āđ‚āļĨāļāđ€āļžāļĢāļēāļ°āļŠāļēāļ§āļĒāļļāđ‚āļĢāļ› āļœāđˆāļēāļ™āļāļēāļĢāļ‚āļĒāļēāļĒāļ­āļīāļ—āļ˜āļīāļžāļĨāļ‚āļ­āļ‡āļ­āļēāļĢāļĒāļ˜āļĢāļĢāļĄ āđƒāļ™āļĒāļļāļ„āļĨāđˆāļēāļ­āļ“āļēāļ™āļīāļ„āļĄ āļŦāļĢāļ·āļ­āļŠāđˆāļ‡āļœāđˆāļēāļ™āļŠāļđāđˆāļāļēāļĢāļ„āđ‰āļēāļāļēāļĢāļ‚āļēāļĒ āļĢāļđāļ›āđāļšāļšāļāļēāļĢāđ€āļ‚āļĩāļĒāļ™āļ•āļąāļ§āđ€āļĨāļ‚āļŪāļīāļ™āļ”āļđāļ­āļēāļĢāļšāļīāļāđƒāļ™āļĒāļļāđ‚āļĢāļ›āđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļĢāļđāļ›āđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļĢāđˆāļēāļ‡āđ€āļĄāļ·āđˆāļ­ āđ€āļĨāđ‚āļ­āļ™āļēāļĢāđŒāđ‚āļ” āļŸāļīāđ‚āļšāļ™āļąāļŠāļŠāļĩ (Leonardo Fibonacci) āļ™āļąāļāļ„āļ“āļīāļ•āļĻāļēāļŠāļ•āļĢāđŒāļŠāļēāļ§āļ­āļīāļ•āļēāđ€āļĨāļĩāļĒāļ™ āļ•āļĩāļžāļīāļĄāļžāđŒāļŦāļ™āļąāļ‡āļŠāļ·āļ­ Liber Abaci āļŦāļĢāļ·āļ­āđāļ›āļĨāđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļ āļēāļĐāļēāļ­āļąāļ‡āļāļĪāļĐāđ„āļ”āđ‰āļ§āđˆāļē Book of the Abacus āļŦāļĢāļ·āļ­ Book of Calculation āđƒāļ™āļ›āļĩ 1202 āđ‚āļ”āļĒāļĄāļĩāđ€āļ™āļ·āđ‰āļ­āļŦāļēāļŦāļĨāļąāļ āļ„āļ·āļ­ āđ€āļ™āđ‰āļ™āļ­āļ˜āļīāļšāļēāļĒāļāļēāļĢāđāļāđ‰āđ‚āļˆāļ—āļĒāđŒāļ›āļąāļāļŦāļēāđāļĨāļ°āļ§āļīāļ˜āļĩāļāļēāļĢāļ„āļģāļ™āļ§āļ“āđ‚āļ”āļĒāđƒāļŠāđ‰āļ•āļąāļ§āđ€āļĨāļ‚āļŪāļīāļ™āļ”āļđāļ­āļēāļĢāļšāļīāļ āđ€āļ§āļĨāļēāļ•āđˆāļ­āļĄāļēāļŦāļ™āļąāļ‡āļŠāļ·āļ­āđ€āļĨāđˆāļĄāļ™āļĩāđ‰āđ„āļ”āđ‰āļĢāļąāļšāļ„āļ§āļēāļĄāļ™āļīāļĒāļĄāļ—āļąāđˆāļ§āļĒāļļāđ‚āļĢāļ› āļ—āļģāđƒāļŦāđ‰āļœāļđāđ‰āļ„āļ™āļˆāļ”āļˆāļģāļ§āļīāļ˜āļĩāļāļēāļĢāđ€āļ‚āļĩāļĒāļ™āļ•āļąāļ§āđ€āļĨāļ‚āđƒāļ™āđāļšāļšāļ‰āļšāļąāļšāļ‚āļ­āļ‡āļŸāļīāđ‚āļšāļ™āļąāļŠāļŠāļĩāđ„āļ›āđ‚āļ”āļĒāļ›āļĢāļīāļĒāļēāļĒ
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 314 Views 0 Reviews
  • āđ„āļĄāđˆāđƒāļŠāđˆāđ‚āļŦāļĢāļēāļĻāļēāļŠāļ•āļĢāđŒ āđāļ•āđˆāļžāļīāļŠāļđāļˆāļ™āđŒāļˆāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāđ€āļāđ‡āļšāļŠāļ–āļīāļ•āļī āđāļĨāļ°āļ•āļģāļĢāļēāļ•āđˆāļēāļ‡āļ›āļĢāļ°āđ€āļ—āļĻāļŦāļĨāļēāļĒāđ€āļĨāđˆāļĄ āļ•āļĨāļ­āļ”āļĢāļ°āļĒāļ°āđ€āļ§āļĨāļē 15 āļ›āļĩ (āđ„āļĄāđˆāđƒāļŠāđˆāļāļēāļĢāļ”āļđāļ”āļ§āļ‡) āļ–āļķāļ‡āļžāļĨāļąāļ‡āļ‚āļ­āļ‡āđāļ•āđˆāļĨāļ°āļ•āļąāļ§āđ€āļĨāļ‚.āļ—āļĩāđˆāđƒāļŦāđ‰āļ„āļļāļ“āđƒāļŦāđ‰āđ‚āļ—āļĐāđ„āļ”āđ‰āļˆāļĢāļīāļ‡
    āđ„āļĄāđˆāđƒāļŠāđˆāđ‚āļŦāļĢāļēāļĻāļēāļŠāļ•āļĢāđŒ āđāļ•āđˆāļžāļīāļŠāļđāļˆāļ™āđŒāļˆāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāđ€āļāđ‡āļšāļŠāļ–āļīāļ•āļī āđāļĨāļ°āļ•āļģāļĢāļēāļ•āđˆāļēāļ‡āļ›āļĢāļ°āđ€āļ—āļĻāļŦāļĨāļēāļĒāđ€āļĨāđˆāļĄ āļ•āļĨāļ­āļ”āļĢāļ°āļĒāļ°āđ€āļ§āļĨāļē 15 āļ›āļĩ (āđ„āļĄāđˆāđƒāļŠāđˆāļāļēāļĢāļ”āļđāļ”āļ§āļ‡) āļ–āļķāļ‡āļžāļĨāļąāļ‡āļ‚āļ­āļ‡āđāļ•āđˆāļĨāļ°āļ•āļąāļ§āđ€āļĨāļ‚.āļ—āļĩāđˆāđƒāļŦāđ‰āļ„āļļāļ“āđƒāļŦāđ‰āđ‚āļ—āļĐāđ„āļ”āđ‰āļˆāļĢāļīāļ‡
    0 Comments 0 Shares 202 Views 0 Reviews
  • āļ§āļąāļ™āļ™āļķāļ‡āđ€āļĄāļ·āđˆāļ­āļŦāļĨāļēāļĒāļ›āļĩāļāđˆāļ­āļ™ āļ­āđˆāļēāļ™āļŦāļ™āļąāļ‡āļŠāļ·āļ­āđāļ›āļĨāļ‚āļ­āļ‡āļāļĩāđˆāļ›āļļāđˆāļ™ āļ—āļēāļĒāļ™āļīāļŠāļąāļĒāļˆāļēāļāļ§āļąāļ™āļ—āļĩāđˆāđ€āļāļīāļ” ..āļ­āđˆāļēāļ™āđāļĨāđ‰āļ§āļ•āļāđƒāļˆ..āļĄāļąāļ™āđƒāļŠāđˆ 90% ..āđ€āļĨāļĒāļŠāđˆāļ‡āļ•āđˆāļ­āđƒāļŦāđ‰āļ­āļĩāļ 8 āļ„āļ™āļ­āđˆāļēāļ™..āļ„āļģāļ•āļ­āļšāđ€āļ”āļĩāļĒāļ§āļāļąāļ™ āļĄāļąāļ™āđ„āļĄāđˆāđƒāļŠāđˆāļāļēāļĢāļ”āļđāļ”āļ§āļ‡āđāļ™āđˆāļ™āļ­āļ™..āļ™āļąāđˆāļ™āđāļ›āļĨāļ§āđˆāļē āļĄāļąāļ™āļ„āļ·āļ­ "āļŠāļ–āļīāļ•āļī" āļ—āļĩāđˆāļžāļĨāļąāļ‡āđāļŦāđˆāļ‡āļ•āļąāļ§āđ€āļĨāļ‚āļ™āļąāđ‰āļ™āđ† āđƒāļŦāđ‰āļœāļĨāđ€āļŦāļĄāļ·āļ­āļ™āđ†āļāļąāļ™.. āđƒāļ™āļ•āļąāļ§āđ€āļĨāļ‚āļ—āļĩāđˆāļ•āļīāļ”āļ•āļąāļ§āļĄāļēāļ•āļąāđ‰āļ‡āđāļ•āđˆāđ€āļāļīāļ” (āļ•āđ‰āļ­āļ‡āđ„āļ›āļœāļ™āļ§āļāļāļąāļšāđ€āļĢāļ·āđˆāļ­āļ‡āļāļĢāļĢāļĄāļ”āđ‰āļ§āļĒāļœāļĨāļˆāļ°āļ•āđˆāļēāļ‡āļāļąāļ™)
    āļ§āļąāļ™āļ™āļķāļ‡āđ€āļĄāļ·āđˆāļ­āļŦāļĨāļēāļĒāļ›āļĩāļāđˆāļ­āļ™ āļ­āđˆāļēāļ™āļŦāļ™āļąāļ‡āļŠāļ·āļ­āđāļ›āļĨāļ‚āļ­āļ‡āļāļĩāđˆāļ›āļļāđˆāļ™ āļ—āļēāļĒāļ™āļīāļŠāļąāļĒāļˆāļēāļāļ§āļąāļ™āļ—āļĩāđˆāđ€āļāļīāļ” ..āļ­āđˆāļēāļ™āđāļĨāđ‰āļ§āļ•āļāđƒāļˆ..āļĄāļąāļ™āđƒāļŠāđˆ 90% ..āđ€āļĨāļĒāļŠāđˆāļ‡āļ•āđˆāļ­āđƒāļŦāđ‰āļ­āļĩāļ 8 āļ„āļ™āļ­āđˆāļēāļ™..āļ„āļģāļ•āļ­āļšāđ€āļ”āļĩāļĒāļ§āļāļąāļ™ āļĄāļąāļ™āđ„āļĄāđˆāđƒāļŠāđˆāļāļēāļĢāļ”āļđāļ”āļ§āļ‡āđāļ™āđˆāļ™āļ­āļ™..āļ™āļąāđˆāļ™āđāļ›āļĨāļ§āđˆāļē āļĄāļąāļ™āļ„āļ·āļ­ "āļŠāļ–āļīāļ•āļī" āļ—āļĩāđˆāļžāļĨāļąāļ‡āđāļŦāđˆāļ‡āļ•āļąāļ§āđ€āļĨāļ‚āļ™āļąāđ‰āļ™āđ† āđƒāļŦāđ‰āļœāļĨāđ€āļŦāļĄāļ·āļ­āļ™āđ†āļāļąāļ™.. āđƒāļ™āļ•āļąāļ§āđ€āļĨāļ‚āļ—āļĩāđˆāļ•āļīāļ”āļ•āļąāļ§āļĄāļēāļ•āļąāđ‰āļ‡āđāļ•āđˆāđ€āļāļīāļ” (āļ•āđ‰āļ­āļ‡āđ„āļ›āļœāļ™āļ§āļāļāļąāļšāđ€āļĢāļ·āđˆāļ­āļ‡āļāļĢāļĢāļĄāļ”āđ‰āļ§āļĒāļœāļĨāļˆāļ°āļ•āđˆāļēāļ‡āļāļąāļ™)
    0 Comments 0 Shares 322 Views 0 Reviews
  • āđƒāļ™āļ—āļļāļāļ„āļ™āļĨāđ‰āļ§āļ™āļĄāļĩāđ€āļĨāļ‚āļ—āļĩāđˆāđƒāļŦāđ‰āļžāļĨāļąāļ‡āļ‡āļēāļ™āļ”āļĩ āđāļĨāļ°āļžāļĨāļąāļ‡āļ‡āļēāļ™āđ„āļĄāđˆāļ”āļĩ āļ•āļīāļ”āļ•āļąāļ§āļĄāļē āļ—āļĩāđˆāđāļāđ‰āđ„āļ‚āđ„āļĄāđˆāđ„āļ”āđ‰ āđ€āļŠāđˆāļ™ āļ§āļąāļ™āđ€āļ”āļ·āļ­āļ™āļ›āļĩāđ€āļāļīāļ” āđ€āļĨāļ‚āļ—āļĩāđˆāļšāđ‰āļēāļ™ āđ€āļĨāļ‚āļšāļąāļ•āļĢāļ›āļĢāļ°āļŠāļēāļŠāļ™ āļ‹āļķāđˆāļ‡āļĄāļąāļ™āđƒāļŦāđ‰āļœāļĨ āļˆāļķāļ‡āļ•āđ‰āļ­āļ‡āļ—āļģāļŠāļīāđˆāļ‡āļ—āļĩāđˆāļāļĢāļ°āļ—āļģāđ„āļ”āđ‰ āļ„āļ·āļ­āđ€āļ›āļĨāļĩāđˆāļĒāļ™āđ€āļĨāļ‚āļ—āļĩāđˆāđƒāļŦāđ‰āļžāļĨāļąāļ‡āļ”āļĩāļ—āļĩāđˆāļ§āļ™āđ€āļ§āļĩāļĒāļ™āļ­āļĒāļđāđˆāđƒāļ™āļŠāļĩāļ§āļīāļ•āđ€āļĢāļē āļāļ”āļ•āļīāļ”āļ•āļēāļĄāđ„āļ§āđ‰āļ„āļĢāļąāļš.
    āđƒāļ™āļ—āļļāļāļ„āļ™āļĨāđ‰āļ§āļ™āļĄāļĩāđ€āļĨāļ‚āļ—āļĩāđˆāđƒāļŦāđ‰āļžāļĨāļąāļ‡āļ‡āļēāļ™āļ”āļĩ āđāļĨāļ°āļžāļĨāļąāļ‡āļ‡āļēāļ™āđ„āļĄāđˆāļ”āļĩ āļ•āļīāļ”āļ•āļąāļ§āļĄāļē āļ—āļĩāđˆāđāļāđ‰āđ„āļ‚āđ„āļĄāđˆāđ„āļ”āđ‰ āđ€āļŠāđˆāļ™ āļ§āļąāļ™āđ€āļ”āļ·āļ­āļ™āļ›āļĩāđ€āļāļīāļ” āđ€āļĨāļ‚āļ—āļĩāđˆāļšāđ‰āļēāļ™ āđ€āļĨāļ‚āļšāļąāļ•āļĢāļ›āļĢāļ°āļŠāļēāļŠāļ™ āļ‹āļķāđˆāļ‡āļĄāļąāļ™āđƒāļŦāđ‰āļœāļĨ āļˆāļķāļ‡āļ•āđ‰āļ­āļ‡āļ—āļģāļŠāļīāđˆāļ‡āļ—āļĩāđˆāļāļĢāļ°āļ—āļģāđ„āļ”āđ‰ āļ„āļ·āļ­āđ€āļ›āļĨāļĩāđˆāļĒāļ™āđ€āļĨāļ‚āļ—āļĩāđˆāđƒāļŦāđ‰āļžāļĨāļąāļ‡āļ”āļĩāļ—āļĩāđˆāļ§āļ™āđ€āļ§āļĩāļĒāļ™āļ­āļĒāļđāđˆāđƒāļ™āļŠāļĩāļ§āļīāļ•āđ€āļĢāļē ⭐🧧 āļāļ”āļ•āļīāļ”āļ•āļēāļĄāđ„āļ§āđ‰āļ„āļĢāļąāļš.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 124 Views 0 Reviews
  • āđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļ§āļīāļ—āļĒāļēāļĻāļēāļŠāļ•āļĢāđŒ āđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļŠāļ–āļīāļ•āļī āļ—āļĩāđˆāđ€āļāđ‡āļšāļˆāļēāļāļœāļđāđ‰āļ„āļ™āļˆāļģāļ™āļ§āļ™āļĄāļēāļ āļ•āļĨāļ­āļ”āļĢāļ°āļĒāļ°āđ€āļ§āļĨāļēāļŦāļĨāļēāļĒāļ›āļĩ āđ„āļĄāđˆāđƒāļŠāđˆāļāļēāļĢāļ”āļđāļ”āļ§āļ‡ .
    āđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļ§āļīāļ—āļĒāļēāļĻāļēāļŠāļ•āļĢāđŒ āđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļŠāļ–āļīāļ•āļī āļ—āļĩāđˆāđ€āļāđ‡āļšāļˆāļēāļāļœāļđāđ‰āļ„āļ™āļˆāļģāļ™āļ§āļ™āļĄāļēāļ āļ•āļĨāļ­āļ”āļĢāļ°āļĒāļ°āđ€āļ§āļĨāļēāļŦāļĨāļēāļĒāļ›āļĩ āđ„āļĄāđˆāđƒāļŠāđˆāļāļēāļĢāļ”āļđāļ”āļ§āļ‡ .
    0 Comments 0 Shares 123 Views 0 Reviews
  • āļāļēāļĢāļ”āļđāļĻāļīāļĨāļ›āļ°āļļāļĒāļļāļ„āļŠāļĄāļąāļĒāđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™ āđāļĨāļ° āđ€āļ‚āđ‰āļēāđƒāļˆāļ§āļīāļ˜āļĩāļāļēāļĢāļŠāļĢāđ‰āļēāļ‡ āļˆāļ°āļ—āļĢāļēāļšāļ§āđˆāļē āđāļšāļšāļ™āļĩāđ‰āđ€āļāđŠāļ āļēāļĒāđƒāļ™āđ€āļ§āļĨāļē 1 āļ§āļīāļ™āļēāļ—āļĩ..
    āļāļēāļĢāļ”āļđāļĻāļīāļĨāļ›āļ°āļļāļĒāļļāļ„āļŠāļĄāļąāļĒāđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™ āđāļĨāļ° āđ€āļ‚āđ‰āļēāđƒāļˆāļ§āļīāļ˜āļĩāļāļēāļĢāļŠāļĢāđ‰āļēāļ‡ āļˆāļ°āļ—āļĢāļēāļšāļ§āđˆāļē āđāļšāļšāļ™āļĩāđ‰āđ€āļāđŠāļ āļēāļĒāđƒāļ™āđ€āļ§āļĨāļē 1 āļ§āļīāļ™āļēāļ—āļĩ..
    Love
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 102 Views 0 Reviews
  • āļ‡āļēāļ™āļāļīāļ™ āđ€āļ—āļĩāđˆāļĒāļ§ āđƒāļŠāđ‰ āļĄāļŦāļāļĢāļĢāļĄāļ„āļ­āļ™āđ€āļŠāļīāļĢāđŒāļ• āđāļĨāļ°āļ­āļēāļŦāļēāļĢ āđ€āļŸāļ­āļĢāđŒāļ™āļīāđ€āļˆāļ­āļĢāđŒ āđ„āļĄāđ‰āļ”āļ­āļāđ„āļĄāđ‰āļ›āļĢāļ°āļ”āļąāļš āļ“ āļšāļĢāļīāđ€āļ§āļ“āļ–āļ™āļ™āđ€āļ—āļĻāļšāļēāļĨ āļŠāļēāļĒ 7 āļ­āļģāđ€āļ āļ­āļ‚āļĨāļļāļ‡ āļˆāļąāļ‡āļŦāļ§āļąāļ”āļˆāļąāļ™āļ—āļšāļļāļĢāļĩ āļĢāļ°āļŦāļ§āđˆāļēāļ‡āļ§āļąāļ™āļ—āļĩāđˆ 27 āļāļąāļ™āļĒāļēāļĒāļ™ āļ–āļķāļ‡āļ§āļąāļ™āļ—āļĩāđˆ 6 āļ•āļļāļĨāļēāļ„āļĄ āļž.āļĻ. 2567
    āļ‡āļēāļ™āļāļīāļ™ āđ€āļ—āļĩāđˆāļĒāļ§ āđƒāļŠāđ‰ āļĄāļŦāļāļĢāļĢāļĄāļ„āļ­āļ™āđ€āļŠāļīāļĢāđŒāļ• āđāļĨāļ°āļ­āļēāļŦāļēāļĢ āđ€āļŸāļ­āļĢāđŒāļ™āļīāđ€āļˆāļ­āļĢāđŒ āđ„āļĄāđ‰āļ”āļ­āļāđ„āļĄāđ‰āļ›āļĢāļ°āļ”āļąāļš āļ“ āļšāļĢāļīāđ€āļ§āļ“āļ–āļ™āļ™āđ€āļ—āļĻāļšāļēāļĨ āļŠāļēāļĒ 7 āļ­āļģāđ€āļ āļ­āļ‚āļĨāļļāļ‡ āļˆāļąāļ‡āļŦāļ§āļąāļ”āļˆāļąāļ™āļ—āļšāļļāļĢāļĩ āļĢāļ°āļŦāļ§āđˆāļēāļ‡āļ§āļąāļ™āļ—āļĩāđˆ 27 āļāļąāļ™āļĒāļēāļĒāļ™ āļ–āļķāļ‡āļ§āļąāļ™āļ—āļĩāđˆ 6 āļ•āļļāļĨāļēāļ„āļĄ āļž.āļĻ. 2567
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 242 Views 0 Reviews
  • āļ‡āļēāļ™āļ›āļĢāļ°āđ€āļžāļ“āļĩāļ§āļīāđˆāļ‡āļ„āļ§āļēāļĒ āļ„āļĢāļąāđ‰āļ‡āļ—āļĩāđˆ 153 āļ“ āļšāļĢāļīāđ€āļ§āļ“āļŠāļ™āļēāļĄāļŦāļ™āđ‰āļēāļĻāļēāļĨāļēāļāļĨāļēāļ‡āļˆāļąāļ‡āļŦāļ§āļąāļ”āļŠāļĨāļšāļļāļĢāļĩ āļĢāļ°āļŦāļ§āđˆāļēāļ‡āļ§āļąāļ™āļ—āļĩāđˆ 8 - 16 āļ•āļļāļĨāļēāļ„āļĄ āļž.āļĻ. 2567
    āļ‡āļēāļ™āļ›āļĢāļ°āđ€āļžāļ“āļĩāļ§āļīāđˆāļ‡āļ„āļ§āļēāļĒ āļ„āļĢāļąāđ‰āļ‡āļ—āļĩāđˆ 153 āļ“ āļšāļĢāļīāđ€āļ§āļ“āļŠāļ™āļēāļĄāļŦāļ™āđ‰āļēāļĻāļēāļĨāļēāļāļĨāļēāļ‡āļˆāļąāļ‡āļŦāļ§āļąāļ”āļŠāļĨāļšāļļāļĢāļĩ āļĢāļ°āļŦāļ§āđˆāļēāļ‡āļ§āļąāļ™āļ—āļĩāđˆ 8 - 16 āļ•āļļāļĨāļēāļ„āļĄ āļž.āļĻ. 2567
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 347 Views 0 Reviews
  • āļĄāļĩāļ„āļ™āļŦāļĨāļ‡āđ€āļŦāļĨāļĩāđˆāļĒāļĄāđāļšāļšāļ™āļĩāđ‰āļˆāļģāļ™āļ§āļ™āđ„āļĄāđˆāļ™āđ‰āļ­āļĒ āđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļ‚āļ­āļ‡āđ€āļāđŠāļ—āļĩāđˆāđ„āļĄāđˆāļĄāļĩāļ•āđ‰āļ™āđāļšāļšāļˆāļēāļāļ‚āļ­āļ‡āđāļ—āđ‰ āļˆāļīāļ™āļ•āļ™āļēāļāļēāļĢāļ‚āļ­āļ‡āļœāļđāđ‰āļŠāļĢāđ‰āļēāļ‡āļĨāđ‰āļ§āļ™āđ† āļ‹āļķāđˆāļ‡āļĄāļąāđˆāļ§ āđāļĨāļ°āđ„āļĄāđˆāđ€āļ‚āđ‰āļēāđƒāļˆāļĻāļīāļĨāļ›āļ°āļ‚āļ­āļ‡āļĒāļļāļ„āļŠāļĄāļąāļĒ
    ..āļāļĨāļēāļ‡āđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļ—āļ§āļēāļĢāļēāļ§āļ”āļĩ āļšāļ™āļŠāļļāļ”āđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļ›āļĢāļāđ€āļŠāļĩāļĒāļ‡āđāļŠāļ™..āļĄāļĩāļžāļĢāļ°āļĢāđˆāļ§āļ‡āļĨāļžāļšāļļāļĢāļĩāđ„āļ›āļœāļŠāļĄ āļĄāļĩāļŠāļąāļ‡āļ‚āļˆāļēāļĒāļ™āđŒāļ‚āļ­āļ‡āļĢāļąāļ•āļ™āđ‚āļāļŠāļīāļ™āļ—āļĢāđŒāļ”āđ‰āļ§āļĒ āļ‹āļķāđˆāļ‡āđƒāļ™āļ„āļ§āļēāļĄāđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļˆāļĢāļīāļ‡āļĄāļąāļ™āđ„āļ›āļĢāļ§āļĄāļāļąāļ™āđ„āļĄāđˆāđ„āļ”āđ‰ āđ€āļžāļĢāļēāļ°āļĄāļąāļ™āļ„āļ™āļĨāļ°āļŠāđˆāļ§āļ‡āđ€āļ§āļĨāļēāļāļąāļ™..āđ€āļ­āļ­āļ–āđ‰āļēāđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™ āļŠāļļāđ‚āļ‚āļ—āļąāļĒāļāļģāđāļžāļ‡ āļ­āļĒāļļāļ˜āļĒāļēāļāļģāđāļžāļ‡ āļĄāļąāļ™āđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āđ„āļ›āđ„āļ”āđ‰ āđ€āļžāļĢāļēāļ°āļĄāļĩāļŠāđˆāļ§āļ™āļ„āļēāļšāđ€āļāļĩāđˆāļĒāļ§āļĢāđˆāļ§āļĄāļĒāļļāļ„āļāļąāļ™.
    āđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļ‚āļ­āļ‡āļ—āļĩāđˆāļ­āļ­āļāļĄāļēāļ™āļēāļ™āļŠāļĄāļąāļĒāļĒāļļāļ„āļ•āļĨāļēāļ”āļžāļĢāļ°āļ§āļąāļ”āļĢāļēāļŠāļ™āļąāļ”āļ”āļē āđ€āļĄāļ·āđˆāļ­ 50 āļ›āļĩāļāđˆāļ­āļ™.
    āļĄāļĩāļ„āļ™āļŦāļĨāļ‡āđ€āļŦāļĨāļĩāđˆāļĒāļĄāđāļšāļšāļ™āļĩāđ‰āļˆāļģāļ™āļ§āļ™āđ„āļĄāđˆāļ™āđ‰āļ­āļĒ āđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļ‚āļ­āļ‡āđ€āļāđŠāļ—āļĩāđˆāđ„āļĄāđˆāļĄāļĩāļ•āđ‰āļ™āđāļšāļšāļˆāļēāļāļ‚āļ­āļ‡āđāļ—āđ‰ āļˆāļīāļ™āļ•āļ™āļēāļāļēāļĢāļ‚āļ­āļ‡āļœāļđāđ‰āļŠāļĢāđ‰āļēāļ‡āļĨāđ‰āļ§āļ™āđ† āļ‹āļķāđˆāļ‡āļĄāļąāđˆāļ§ āđāļĨāļ°āđ„āļĄāđˆāđ€āļ‚āđ‰āļēāđƒāļˆāļĻāļīāļĨāļ›āļ°āļ‚āļ­āļ‡āļĒāļļāļ„āļŠāļĄāļąāļĒ ..āļāļĨāļēāļ‡āđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļ—āļ§āļēāļĢāļēāļ§āļ”āļĩ āļšāļ™āļŠāļļāļ”āđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļ›āļĢāļāđ€āļŠāļĩāļĒāļ‡āđāļŠāļ™..āļĄāļĩāļžāļĢāļ°āļĢāđˆāļ§āļ‡āļĨāļžāļšāļļāļĢāļĩāđ„āļ›āļœāļŠāļĄ āļĄāļĩāļŠāļąāļ‡āļ‚āļˆāļēāļĒāļ™āđŒāļ‚āļ­āļ‡āļĢāļąāļ•āļ™āđ‚āļāļŠāļīāļ™āļ—āļĢāđŒāļ”āđ‰āļ§āļĒ āļ‹āļķāđˆāļ‡āđƒāļ™āļ„āļ§āļēāļĄāđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļˆāļĢāļīāļ‡āļĄāļąāļ™āđ„āļ›āļĢāļ§āļĄāļāļąāļ™āđ„āļĄāđˆāđ„āļ”āđ‰ āđ€āļžāļĢāļēāļ°āļĄāļąāļ™āļ„āļ™āļĨāļ°āļŠāđˆāļ§āļ‡āđ€āļ§āļĨāļēāļāļąāļ™..āđ€āļ­āļ­āļ–āđ‰āļēāđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™ āļŠāļļāđ‚āļ‚āļ—āļąāļĒāļāļģāđāļžāļ‡ āļ­āļĒāļļāļ˜āļĒāļēāļāļģāđāļžāļ‡ āļĄāļąāļ™āđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āđ„āļ›āđ„āļ”āđ‰ āđ€āļžāļĢāļēāļ°āļĄāļĩāļŠāđˆāļ§āļ™āļ„āļēāļšāđ€āļāļĩāđˆāļĒāļ§āļĢāđˆāļ§āļĄāļĒāļļāļ„āļāļąāļ™. āđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļ‚āļ­āļ‡āļ—āļĩāđˆāļ­āļ­āļāļĄāļēāļ™āļēāļ™āļŠāļĄāļąāļĒāļĒāļļāļ„āļ•āļĨāļēāļ”āļžāļĢāļ°āļ§āļąāļ”āļĢāļēāļŠāļ™āļąāļ”āļ”āļē āđ€āļĄāļ·āđˆāļ­ 50 āļ›āļĩāļāđˆāļ­āļ™.
    Love
    1
    1 Comments 0 Shares 167 Views 0 Reviews
  • āļ­āļ‡āļ„āđŒāļšāļĢāļĄāļ„āļĢāļđ āđ€āļ›āļĨāļĩāđˆāļĒāļ™āļĄāļ·āļ­āļ„āļĢāļąāđ‰āļ‡āļŦāļĨāļąāļ‡āļŠāļļāļ” 200 āļĨ.
    āļ­āļ‡āļ„āđŒāļšāļĢāļĄāļ„āļĢāļđ āđ€āļ›āļĨāļĩāđˆāļĒāļ™āļĄāļ·āļ­āļ„āļĢāļąāđ‰āļ‡āļŦāļĨāļąāļ‡āļŠāļļāļ” 200 āļĨ.
    Wow
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 78 Views 0 Reviews