Erasmus, connecting with Augustine, also had a huge influence on rhetoric through religion. Erasmus believed that a few different things contributed to rhetoric, including arrangement, delivery, emotion, and figures of speech. You can actually see how this connects with Aristotle's idea of logic.
I will focus my blog today on Arrangement. There were 5 steps to making an argument with Arrangement including:
1) Word order
2) Order of propositions
3) Parts of individual arguments
4) Large section
5) Whole sermon
Word order seems like the most logically important aspect of rhetoric. You need to organize your sentences, paragraphs, and thoughts to make sense. Scattered arguments won't get anywhere. Order of propositions is along the same lines, because you need to order your thoughts to make the most sense. He thought they should go in a stepwise order.
Parts of individual arguments breaks off a bit. He thought that you should separate your arguments, and even break up each individual argument. Keep the ideas the separate and join them later.
Large section and whole sermon go together. Since Erasmus was into religious rhetoric (like Augustine), he believed in the whole thing connecting to both religion and sermons. Sermons were his way of rhetorically influencing people. He saved the best arguments for the end of his sermons.
Blog #11 -- Augustine
Augustine, for all intents and purposes, is the Cicero for Christians. He, essentially, took rhetoric and put a Christian (or "ethical") spin on it. He outlined the different "offices" of rhetoric, which were: instructing, pleasing, and persuading. These were the same as Cicero's styles (plain, middle, grand). Interestingly, he believed that it was better for rhetoric to argue a good point badly, than a bad point well.
This has obvious connections with the previous rhetorical figure Quintillian. However, I will not focus this blog on this subject (yet again). Instead, I have decided to connect what Augustine's offices were to Aristotle's components.
Instructing is essentially Aristotle's ethos. In an argument, you need to teach or tell your audience about your subject. You need credibility to properly do this. Instruction is essential for forming background information and setting up an argument, like ethos sets up logic.
Pleasing is essentially Aristotle's pathos. In rhetoric, pleasing emotions are very, very important. The audience responds well to positive emotions. Psychologically, if you try to scare people into doing something, they need to see a solution or they won't change. Simply saying "the world is on a crash course for destruction because of reckless human manipulation" won't get them to change unless you say "reduce your impact on the world," after. They've done studies on it. Emotions and pleasing go hand-in-hand.
Lastly, persuading is essentially Aristotle's logos. Logic and persuasion must go together. Although Aristotle would say that persuasion is the sum of ethos, pathos, and logos, you can definitely see that logos plays a huge role. Even Aristotle thought that logic should be the primary basis for the art of persuasion (or rhetoric). Logic has more credibility than emotions. Emotions are sometimes not even logical!
This has obvious connections with the previous rhetorical figure Quintillian. However, I will not focus this blog on this subject (yet again). Instead, I have decided to connect what Augustine's offices were to Aristotle's components.
Instructing is essentially Aristotle's ethos. In an argument, you need to teach or tell your audience about your subject. You need credibility to properly do this. Instruction is essential for forming background information and setting up an argument, like ethos sets up logic.
Pleasing is essentially Aristotle's pathos. In rhetoric, pleasing emotions are very, very important. The audience responds well to positive emotions. Psychologically, if you try to scare people into doing something, they need to see a solution or they won't change. Simply saying "the world is on a crash course for destruction because of reckless human manipulation" won't get them to change unless you say "reduce your impact on the world," after. They've done studies on it. Emotions and pleasing go hand-in-hand.
Lastly, persuading is essentially Aristotle's logos. Logic and persuasion must go together. Although Aristotle would say that persuasion is the sum of ethos, pathos, and logos, you can definitely see that logos plays a huge role. Even Aristotle thought that logic should be the primary basis for the art of persuasion (or rhetoric). Logic has more credibility than emotions. Emotions are sometimes not even logical!
Blog #10 - Quintillian
After reading and learning about Quintillian, I came to the conclusion that rhetoric is about the virtuous, or the good. He thought that rhetoric was "The good men speaking well." Rhetoric was about the presence of mind, the objectivity to decipher between right and wrong.
I don't know if he would consider rhetoric about evil things as true rhetoric, since it wasn't focused on the good. Was Hitler a good rhetorician? He was able to move an entire nation and change the entire world. He was able to speak to the masses. However, his message was flawed. But, it still begs the question, was he a good rhetorician?
Quintillian would say "no." In order to be effective, you still need the overall good in mind. However, if this were strictly the case, then would advertisements, which we almost all consider "rhetoic", be considered rhetoric? They are after getting customers and maximizing their own profits. They are almost exploiting people. Its more subtle then say, Hitler, but nonetheless, its worth pointing out.
Unfortunately, rhetoric is composed of both the good and bad, the virtuous and the evil. You almost need the bad rhetoric in order to define the good rhetoric. In this sense, I would disagree with Quintillian and his nothing of needing the good in rhetoric.
I don't know if he would consider rhetoric about evil things as true rhetoric, since it wasn't focused on the good. Was Hitler a good rhetorician? He was able to move an entire nation and change the entire world. He was able to speak to the masses. However, his message was flawed. But, it still begs the question, was he a good rhetorician?
Quintillian would say "no." In order to be effective, you still need the overall good in mind. However, if this were strictly the case, then would advertisements, which we almost all consider "rhetoic", be considered rhetoric? They are after getting customers and maximizing their own profits. They are almost exploiting people. Its more subtle then say, Hitler, but nonetheless, its worth pointing out.
Unfortunately, rhetoric is composed of both the good and bad, the virtuous and the evil. You almost need the bad rhetoric in order to define the good rhetoric. In this sense, I would disagree with Quintillian and his nothing of needing the good in rhetoric.
Blog #9 -- Rhetoric in Communications
Although I understand that Rhetoric and Communication go hand-in-hand, Communications is the reason Rhetoric gets its bad name today. People hear rhetoric, and just think of conflict, not necessarily argument. I think this has a lot to do with the fact that Communications sometimes ignores the Ethos, Pathos, and even sometimes, the Logos of rhetoric.
Ethos: News mediums often ignore the credibility of sources and individuals. Sure, opinions are just that, opinions, but they often represent very skewed ideas with faulty reasoning. Although reasoning is obviously not ethos, the characters reporting and giving their opinions aren't much smarter in the field of politics, science, or whatever the subject, than you and I. If you want to use rhetoric, make sure you use the right people.
Pathos: This is a huge problem in Communications. Turn on the 11 o'clock news and all you see is murder here, accident there, rape over there, and etc. If humans are supposedly inherently good, then why report on all the negatives. Maybe it's good rhetoric, because the people will stay around to watch the news if they hear that there is violence, but it takes a toll on the people. Lewis Black, albeit not the best source of information, had an interesting take on this topic, when he said "Terrorism in your neighborhood? What the $%#& is that!?!"
Logos: Aristotle thought that logos was the most important. That is why it so disturbing to see it thrown away so often. It is the topic of my paper, but I thought I'd still talk about it a bit here. News, politics, and the media is full of fallacies, which is the direct contradiction to what it is meant to be. It is like using the word "literally" incorrect. By using "literally" incorrect, you are using exactly opposite of its intended meaning. That is what fallacies are. They are the direct opposite of logic!
Ethos: News mediums often ignore the credibility of sources and individuals. Sure, opinions are just that, opinions, but they often represent very skewed ideas with faulty reasoning. Although reasoning is obviously not ethos, the characters reporting and giving their opinions aren't much smarter in the field of politics, science, or whatever the subject, than you and I. If you want to use rhetoric, make sure you use the right people.
Pathos: This is a huge problem in Communications. Turn on the 11 o'clock news and all you see is murder here, accident there, rape over there, and etc. If humans are supposedly inherently good, then why report on all the negatives. Maybe it's good rhetoric, because the people will stay around to watch the news if they hear that there is violence, but it takes a toll on the people. Lewis Black, albeit not the best source of information, had an interesting take on this topic, when he said "Terrorism in your neighborhood? What the $%#& is that!?!"
Logos: Aristotle thought that logos was the most important. That is why it so disturbing to see it thrown away so often. It is the topic of my paper, but I thought I'd still talk about it a bit here. News, politics, and the media is full of fallacies, which is the direct contradiction to what it is meant to be. It is like using the word "literally" incorrect. By using "literally" incorrect, you are using exactly opposite of its intended meaning. That is what fallacies are. They are the direct opposite of logic!
Blog #8 -- Chinese Rhetoric
The idea of "lost in translation" is the most interesting part about studying Chinese, or any type of foreign rhetoric. For my seminar paper, I am contemplating talking about a launch against logos and ethos by talking about meaning. Hear me out here, because it gets a little philosophical. And yes, far-fetched.
In order to completely understand the Chinese Rhetoric, you have to know the language. A lot of time, translations do not match up. In this case, rhetoric shouldn't even be considered because it isn't technically a Chinese word. What does "rhetoric" even mean then? It doesn't really mean anything. It means something to us Americans, but even we don't know what it means! What is rhetoric? Nobody will agree with you. The meaning is constructed, and always changing. Meaning is indeterminate.
Let's take a couple words and "describe" them. We'll take the word "good" for instance. In order to describe the word, you can only describe it's opposite. You cannot describe it without talking about it's opposite, in other words. Good is merely the opposite of evil. What is evil then? It is the opposite of good. It's circle reasoning. Ironically, the logic of this concept destroys any type of logical argument dealing with meaning. Meaning is constructed from a system of constructed meaning.
In order to completely understand the Chinese Rhetoric, you have to know the language. A lot of time, translations do not match up. In this case, rhetoric shouldn't even be considered because it isn't technically a Chinese word. What does "rhetoric" even mean then? It doesn't really mean anything. It means something to us Americans, but even we don't know what it means! What is rhetoric? Nobody will agree with you. The meaning is constructed, and always changing. Meaning is indeterminate.
Let's take a couple words and "describe" them. We'll take the word "good" for instance. In order to describe the word, you can only describe it's opposite. You cannot describe it without talking about it's opposite, in other words. Good is merely the opposite of evil. What is evil then? It is the opposite of good. It's circle reasoning. Ironically, the logic of this concept destroys any type of logical argument dealing with meaning. Meaning is constructed from a system of constructed meaning.
Blog #7 -- Nature vs. Nurture
According to both Parrish and Kennedy, there needs to be a greater push towards biology and nature in rhetoric. They make very valid points, pointing to different species and how they use rhetoric in everyday tasks. It was definitely interesting because a lot of what has been talked about deals with cultural factors. Others would call this nurture. So here it is, even in rhetoric there is a debate between nature and nurture. Being a psychology student, I never get done hearing about nature vs. nurture. What I find interesting is that its nature VERSUS nurture, meaning nature OR nurture. Quite obviously, it should be nature AND nurture.
In psychology, some scientists try to argue that intelligence is completely genetic. Yes, intelligence and genetics are correlated, but that doesn't mean that its causation. Any statistician or scientist will warn you that correlation does not equal causation. For instance, crime rates are correlated with ice cream sales. Do ice cream sales cause crime? No, the heat does. You have to be careful here. To get off of my tangent, I am simply trying to say that rhetors, or even common people, should look at it as nature and nurture.
In rhetoric the same applies. There are natural forms of rhetoric. The red deer will bugle or fight. However, there are certainly nurture aspects to it. The reinforcement contributes to animals learning what works and doesn't work. As Parrish tries to argue, humans are animals, so I can use them as an example here, too. We, as animals, may cry as babies in order to get our mother's attention. This is it's own type of rhetoric. However, we learn that when we cry, we usually get attention. Therefore, we associate crying with attention. Sure, it was natural for us to cry, but it turned into a learned, social, cultural, whatever you want to call it, experience. This is nurture. Nature and nurture, not nature or nurture.
In psychology, some scientists try to argue that intelligence is completely genetic. Yes, intelligence and genetics are correlated, but that doesn't mean that its causation. Any statistician or scientist will warn you that correlation does not equal causation. For instance, crime rates are correlated with ice cream sales. Do ice cream sales cause crime? No, the heat does. You have to be careful here. To get off of my tangent, I am simply trying to say that rhetors, or even common people, should look at it as nature and nurture.
In rhetoric the same applies. There are natural forms of rhetoric. The red deer will bugle or fight. However, there are certainly nurture aspects to it. The reinforcement contributes to animals learning what works and doesn't work. As Parrish tries to argue, humans are animals, so I can use them as an example here, too. We, as animals, may cry as babies in order to get our mother's attention. This is it's own type of rhetoric. However, we learn that when we cry, we usually get attention. Therefore, we associate crying with attention. Sure, it was natural for us to cry, but it turned into a learned, social, cultural, whatever you want to call it, experience. This is nurture. Nature and nurture, not nature or nurture.
Blog #6 -- Cicero, Billy Mays, and yes, Oprah
Cicero's main premise is that there isn't an art like speaking. Essentially, rhetoric can consist of different aspects (see: Aristotle's 5 Canons), but the speaking part should have the highest priority. I believe this 100%, and not just because it is an easy argument that I can get credit for.
You can look back on all the "good" (a term I hate to use) rhetors, and they are considered "good" because of their ability to speak. Sure, theorists are primarily studied through their books, essays, transcripts, and etc., but the influential people of our time are superior speakers. Why do you think that the late Billy Mays was so popular among informercials? He provided a symbol, and icon, and was able to speak and influence audiences. He was loud, but charismatic. And not everyone can learn to be a good speaker. Sure, you can learn speaking technique, meter, diction, and etc., but there is an intangible aspect to speaking that isn't learned, its biological.
To get a more serious example, would be Oprah Winfrey. Most of my blogs have focused on politicians, so I will stay away from Barrack Obama or Sarah Palin here. Oprah has been influential for years and will be the most successful woman of all time for a very long time. How did she get so influential? It wasn't her ability to write. She has a different type of rhetoric. I would call it humanistic rhetoric, a term that I just came up with. I don't know if this means something different, but I think that humanistic rhetoric is trying to report on human behavior to portray humans as "good" people. In other words, we aren't evil people. This is what Oprah tries to do everyday. She tries to bring up the human population and explain why sometimes we aren't "good" people. Her ability to speak is much more important than any other aspect.
If Cicero were alive today, he probably wouldn't care much about Oprah. However, he wouldn't disagree that she is influential and it stems from her ability to speak. Speaking is an artform that is tough to teach, difficult to replicate, and impossible to outweigh.
You can look back on all the "good" (a term I hate to use) rhetors, and they are considered "good" because of their ability to speak. Sure, theorists are primarily studied through their books, essays, transcripts, and etc., but the influential people of our time are superior speakers. Why do you think that the late Billy Mays was so popular among informercials? He provided a symbol, and icon, and was able to speak and influence audiences. He was loud, but charismatic. And not everyone can learn to be a good speaker. Sure, you can learn speaking technique, meter, diction, and etc., but there is an intangible aspect to speaking that isn't learned, its biological.
To get a more serious example, would be Oprah Winfrey. Most of my blogs have focused on politicians, so I will stay away from Barrack Obama or Sarah Palin here. Oprah has been influential for years and will be the most successful woman of all time for a very long time. How did she get so influential? It wasn't her ability to write. She has a different type of rhetoric. I would call it humanistic rhetoric, a term that I just came up with. I don't know if this means something different, but I think that humanistic rhetoric is trying to report on human behavior to portray humans as "good" people. In other words, we aren't evil people. This is what Oprah tries to do everyday. She tries to bring up the human population and explain why sometimes we aren't "good" people. Her ability to speak is much more important than any other aspect.
If Cicero were alive today, he probably wouldn't care much about Oprah. However, he wouldn't disagree that she is influential and it stems from her ability to speak. Speaking is an artform that is tough to teach, difficult to replicate, and impossible to outweigh.
Blog #5 -- Aristotle!
The most interesting part of the Aristotle readings occurred on page 180, between 1355a and 1356a where he is talking about why rhetoric is useful. He says "Further, (3) we must be able to employ persuasion, just as strict reasoning can be employed, on opposite sides of a question, not in order that we may in practice employ it in both ways (for we must not make people believe what is wrong), but in order that we may see clearly what the facts are, and that, if another man argues unfairly, we on our part may be able to confute him." Although it is a lengthly quote, I feel like it sets up some kind of ethics in rhetoric.
Today, these ethics are not followed as closely as Aristotle would have hoped. There are plenty of people out there just trying to get you to buy their product, watch their movie, endorse their name, or whatever the situation. The most troubling deviation from ethics occurs in pop culture. Anybody trying to convince you on health care, usually use some sort of scare tactic, without presenting both sides. By presenting both sides, your argument may become more credible and logical. Since Aristotle believed a lot in proofs, I wasn't surprised he believed in knowing both sides of an issue.
In previous rhetoric classes, we spent a great deal of time talking about different types of rhetoric. We learned there are two different types of rhetoric, what some call traditional and consensus arguments. Traditional arguments focus on a winner. These types of arguments actually shouldn't be used very often. The only real time it seems necessary and relevant is in the court of law. However, most other arguments should be consensus arguments. This allows both sides to be heard and, by hearing both sides, both sides can come to the conclusion that fits the best. This should definitely be used in politics. A very simplified version would go as follows:
Side A: Believes health care should be free to all
Side B: Believes health care is a privilege, not a right. It shouldn't be free.
After they both argue for some time, Side B realizes that health care companies are making prices much too high and health care is overpriced. Side A realizes that implementing free health care would cost the taxpayers a lot of money.
Result: Both sides agree that health care should be easier to obtain, and a public option should be available for people who absolutely cannot afford health care. In this instance, nobody truly "won" their argument, but both sides stated their case, and the best overall solution was decided upon.
Unfortunately, this is not how rhetoric works nowadays, and it is truly a shame.
Today, these ethics are not followed as closely as Aristotle would have hoped. There are plenty of people out there just trying to get you to buy their product, watch their movie, endorse their name, or whatever the situation. The most troubling deviation from ethics occurs in pop culture. Anybody trying to convince you on health care, usually use some sort of scare tactic, without presenting both sides. By presenting both sides, your argument may become more credible and logical. Since Aristotle believed a lot in proofs, I wasn't surprised he believed in knowing both sides of an issue.
In previous rhetoric classes, we spent a great deal of time talking about different types of rhetoric. We learned there are two different types of rhetoric, what some call traditional and consensus arguments. Traditional arguments focus on a winner. These types of arguments actually shouldn't be used very often. The only real time it seems necessary and relevant is in the court of law. However, most other arguments should be consensus arguments. This allows both sides to be heard and, by hearing both sides, both sides can come to the conclusion that fits the best. This should definitely be used in politics. A very simplified version would go as follows:
Side A: Believes health care should be free to all
Side B: Believes health care is a privilege, not a right. It shouldn't be free.
After they both argue for some time, Side B realizes that health care companies are making prices much too high and health care is overpriced. Side A realizes that implementing free health care would cost the taxpayers a lot of money.
Result: Both sides agree that health care should be easier to obtain, and a public option should be available for people who absolutely cannot afford health care. In this instance, nobody truly "won" their argument, but both sides stated their case, and the best overall solution was decided upon.
Unfortunately, this is not how rhetoric works nowadays, and it is truly a shame.
Blog #4 -- Isocrates & the Sophists
Isocrates argues that "all general principles" fail, and the only thing that matters is kairos, or the "'fitness for the ocacasion.'" Better defined, kairos is the ability to take advantage of the changing circumstances. In rhetoric, it is often overlooked because of the other three appeals (pathos, ethos, and logos). However, kairos is a huge part of the Sophist movement.
Also, Isocrates tried to dissociate himself from the belief that teachers can TEACH virtue. This is what I completely agree with.
Virtue is a tough word to define, but I like to define it as "moral excellence." To truly be morally excellent is an internal structure or system. This system seems impossible to be taught to someone. Virtue can be learned, but it is learned in a different sense than learning from a teacher or classroom. You tend to learn virtue from experiences, not from someone blabbering about it. It is practical thing that you simply must learn within life. For example, someone may tell you that stealing is morally wrong. However, you will not simply learn from hearing it, you will learn from experiences. Someone may steal something from you, or you may see the consequences of stealing. This molds your ideas far more than just simply hearing about it.
Now, you may say "well, you still learn some sort of virtue from the teacher telling you not to steal." This I will not disagree with. You are given a sort of framework for what is virtuous. Think of this like the foundation to a house. The experiences themselves, however, are the walls, the insulation, the doors, and the decorations to the house. In a way, Isocrates would agree with this. He believed that teachers could be "morally improving." Meaning, as a teacher, you could improve someone's morals, but you cannot create the virtue or moral itself.
Also, Isocrates tried to dissociate himself from the belief that teachers can TEACH virtue. This is what I completely agree with.
Virtue is a tough word to define, but I like to define it as "moral excellence." To truly be morally excellent is an internal structure or system. This system seems impossible to be taught to someone. Virtue can be learned, but it is learned in a different sense than learning from a teacher or classroom. You tend to learn virtue from experiences, not from someone blabbering about it. It is practical thing that you simply must learn within life. For example, someone may tell you that stealing is morally wrong. However, you will not simply learn from hearing it, you will learn from experiences. Someone may steal something from you, or you may see the consequences of stealing. This molds your ideas far more than just simply hearing about it.
Now, you may say "well, you still learn some sort of virtue from the teacher telling you not to steal." This I will not disagree with. You are given a sort of framework for what is virtuous. Think of this like the foundation to a house. The experiences themselves, however, are the walls, the insulation, the doors, and the decorations to the house. In a way, Isocrates would agree with this. He believed that teachers could be "morally improving." Meaning, as a teacher, you could improve someone's morals, but you cannot create the virtue or moral itself.
Blog #3 -- Chariot of the Soul
It was interesting learning about Plato's chariot of the soul. The way he described it, and the way the images look (http://www.wutsamada.com/alma/ancient/chariot2.jpg), the person is the chariot rider (charioteer?) who guides the horses. There are two horses, the noble and the unnoble, basically. If the two are working together, the chariot will soar. If, however, the two aren't in sync, the chariot will not soar. This has interesting implications in both rhetoric and real life.
In rhetoric, it portrays an interesting concept. Nowadays, in rhetoric, it almost seems like having the ethical and unethical "horse" pulling your "chariot" is common. It is really easy to pick on politicians, but they do it all the time. They don't always play fairly when trying to convince the people, or to win a vote. Obviously, Plato's chariot seems inaccurate. However, I think that for rhetoric to be considered "good rhetoric," they need to be ethical. Therefore, in my opinion, politicians' rhetoric isn't considered "good" rhetoric in my eyes. Maybe this is what Plato meant.
In rhetoric, it portrays an interesting concept. Nowadays, in rhetoric, it almost seems like having the ethical and unethical "horse" pulling your "chariot" is common. It is really easy to pick on politicians, but they do it all the time. They don't always play fairly when trying to convince the people, or to win a vote. Obviously, Plato's chariot seems inaccurate. However, I think that for rhetoric to be considered "good rhetoric," they need to be ethical. Therefore, in my opinion, politicians' rhetoric isn't considered "good" rhetoric in my eyes. Maybe this is what Plato meant.
Blog #2 -- Encomium of Helen
Gorgias does his best to try to explain rhetoric (primarily through speech) as a powerful appeal to the soul. The best quote I took from Encomium was "Speech is a powerful lord, which by means of the finest and most invisible body of effects the divinest works: it can stop fear and banish grief and create joy and nurture pity." Although Gorgias explains four different explanation or reasons why Helen did was she did, it is speech or persuasion that Gorgias believes was the real explanation. He spends a bulk of the small text talking about how powerful rhetoric is. He says that "So that on most subjects most men take opinion as counselor to their soul, but since opinion is slippery and insecure it casts those employing it into slippery and insecure successes. What cause then prevents the conclusion that Helen similarly, against her will, might have come under the influence of speech...?" Although it is a long quote, it sums up exactly what Gorgias is trying to say. Speech is powerful, it moves the soul. Why, if speech is so powerful, can we not use it as an explanation for Helen's actions? I don't necessarily want to agree that is was the soul reason for Helen's actions, but I surely don't want to disagree with the power of speech.
Speech has persuaded many people, whether it be good or bad. A good example of speech that moved people in a positive way was Martin Luther King, Jr.'s speeches. If you were on the fence of racial inequality, Dr. King could move you to fight (although fight may be the wrong word) against segregation and discrimination. Flip the coin, and look at Adolf Hitler, and you can see how he turned ordinary people into savage killers, mostly through speech. A lot of leaders need to have speech, and once that ability to speak and persuade is gone, people become less powerful. For example, President Bush came under attack because of his inability to speak effectively. Although I don't want to get into a debate on whether his policies were good, he was a good president, or etc., I think that his inability to speak to the heart and persuade was the root of a lot of his problems. Gorgias has a valid point, that speech is one of the most powerful parts of language or culture, whether it was then or now.
Speech has persuaded many people, whether it be good or bad. A good example of speech that moved people in a positive way was Martin Luther King, Jr.'s speeches. If you were on the fence of racial inequality, Dr. King could move you to fight (although fight may be the wrong word) against segregation and discrimination. Flip the coin, and look at Adolf Hitler, and you can see how he turned ordinary people into savage killers, mostly through speech. A lot of leaders need to have speech, and once that ability to speak and persuade is gone, people become less powerful. For example, President Bush came under attack because of his inability to speak effectively. Although I don't want to get into a debate on whether his policies were good, he was a good president, or etc., I think that his inability to speak to the heart and persuade was the root of a lot of his problems. Gorgias has a valid point, that speech is one of the most powerful parts of language or culture, whether it was then or now.
Week 1: Herrick
As a whole field, rhetoric is confusing. Maybe confusing isn't the right word, but convoluted might be. Also, the definition is always changing, and no matter what one person says about rhetoric, someone tries to persuade you from that definition. It's a sort of irony, because people are being persuaded on what persuasion means!
Anyways, the part I found the most interesting was when Herrick stated that "Just a few years ago Booth wrote that he believed rhetoric held 'entire dominion over all verbal pursuits. Logic, dialectic, grammar, philosophy, history, poetry, all are rhetoric.'" (Page 2). I think this is interesting because it shows that rhetoric (even if we can't agree on a set definition) is all around us. Even Herrick, or Booth, is using rhetoric in that quotation. One facet, history, is a good example of rhetoric. Rhetors often use history as a means of persuasion. For example, people will point to Vietnam to talk about the War on Terrorism we are fighting today. This is a (whether good or bad) way of using history to try to shape an idea (the War on Terrorism). Here, we even see that grammar is used as rhetoric as well. Because the term "War on Terrorism" is a form of rhetoric. There is a different connotation when the phrase "War on Terrorism" is used compared to "War in Iraq." "...on Terrorism," makes it seem like it is patriotic, and the war is something we should support. It's subtle, but shouldn't be overlooked.
One other thing that Herrick made me realize is that a lot of things may be considered rhetoric, but there needs to be a distinction between good and bad rhetoric. For example, Herrick says that rhetoric is "(1) planned, (2) adapted to an audience, (3) shaped by human motives, (4) responsive to a situation, (5) persuasion-seeking, and (6) concerned with contingent issues" (Page 8). Although there can be debate on these (and there certainly was), I think that most of them can be resolved by saying that "good" rhetoric follows these guidelines. If someone puts on the first jacket they see and it is unplanned rhetoric, I would argue that since it wasn't planned, it wasn't "good." Also, if rhetoric doesn't take into account the audience, the situation, or contingent issues, it seems like the rhetor isn't doing a good job of conveying their point. If they are speaking to teenagers like college students and not connecting, it surely can't be considered "good" rhetoric. Likewise, if rhetors don't take into account cultural situations, they could offend and disconnect with certain members. I would argue that this is "bad" rhetoric.
Again, I'd like to reemphasize that Herrick did a good job of clouding my definition of rhetoric. But, I think it was thought-provoking. I have come to realize that there needs to be a distinction between "good" and "bad" rhetoric. Likewise, I think that Herrick demonstrated that rhetoric is everywhere and ever-changing.
Anyways, the part I found the most interesting was when Herrick stated that "Just a few years ago Booth wrote that he believed rhetoric held 'entire dominion over all verbal pursuits. Logic, dialectic, grammar, philosophy, history, poetry, all are rhetoric.'" (Page 2). I think this is interesting because it shows that rhetoric (even if we can't agree on a set definition) is all around us. Even Herrick, or Booth, is using rhetoric in that quotation. One facet, history, is a good example of rhetoric. Rhetors often use history as a means of persuasion. For example, people will point to Vietnam to talk about the War on Terrorism we are fighting today. This is a (whether good or bad) way of using history to try to shape an idea (the War on Terrorism). Here, we even see that grammar is used as rhetoric as well. Because the term "War on Terrorism" is a form of rhetoric. There is a different connotation when the phrase "War on Terrorism" is used compared to "War in Iraq." "...on Terrorism," makes it seem like it is patriotic, and the war is something we should support. It's subtle, but shouldn't be overlooked.
One other thing that Herrick made me realize is that a lot of things may be considered rhetoric, but there needs to be a distinction between good and bad rhetoric. For example, Herrick says that rhetoric is "(1) planned, (2) adapted to an audience, (3) shaped by human motives, (4) responsive to a situation, (5) persuasion-seeking, and (6) concerned with contingent issues" (Page 8). Although there can be debate on these (and there certainly was), I think that most of them can be resolved by saying that "good" rhetoric follows these guidelines. If someone puts on the first jacket they see and it is unplanned rhetoric, I would argue that since it wasn't planned, it wasn't "good." Also, if rhetoric doesn't take into account the audience, the situation, or contingent issues, it seems like the rhetor isn't doing a good job of conveying their point. If they are speaking to teenagers like college students and not connecting, it surely can't be considered "good" rhetoric. Likewise, if rhetors don't take into account cultural situations, they could offend and disconnect with certain members. I would argue that this is "bad" rhetoric.
Again, I'd like to reemphasize that Herrick did a good job of clouding my definition of rhetoric. But, I think it was thought-provoking. I have come to realize that there needs to be a distinction between "good" and "bad" rhetoric. Likewise, I think that Herrick demonstrated that rhetoric is everywhere and ever-changing.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)