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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)