October 30, 2011
Enlightenment Rhetoric
This period is defined by the revolutions in sciences, philosophy and politics. In turn, these altered the concepts of knowledge and truth, human nature and society. The indirect change in logic affected rhetoric in the enlightenment period. Cicero's five canons (invention, arrangement, style, memory, delivery) became the foundation of rhetorical study through the 17th and 18th centuries. Some critics say that the writing during this time was purposeful, it was intended to please and instruct the reader. I find this very interesting, writing is used more for entertainment purposes than for education. The elocution movement focused on delivery and lasted through the 19th century. This concept was supported by psychology. This created a link to the classical period again, 'an analysis of taste and literary judgment, instruction in correct and effective speaking, and a respectable scientific theory of psychological persuasion.' These theories are linked to the intellectual and social developments that shaped the modern world.
The elocution movement was extended to pronunciation. This is a very cultural concept. The elocution could change drastically among cities. 'Linguistic discrimination is a staple of human interaction.' I like this statement. I think it describes how people interact with each other and how important linguistics are to each individual culture. It is somewhat of an identity, it describes who you are and where you're from.
John Locke
John Locke had a large impact on the direction of rhetoric and the 18th century. He extended the ideological ideas of Bacon and Descartes by presenting these ideas in a new accessible language and common sense. Using persuasion, he accounts the mental process of perception, thinking and using language. He combined this with popular treatises on civil government and the rationality of religion, turning himself a public figure in the development of modern philosophy. I like the concept of Locke's works. He looks for truth in the physical world and answers to the knowledge as a psychological phenomenon. He believes there is a real external world and that knowledge of it is possible, but only if we understand how we come to know this knowledge. This concept confuses me. It makes me wonder what the Locke's processes were to find this knowledge. It seems like it is a never ending circle. You can't know something without knowing something else. Knowledge is a tricky concept.
Mary Astell
Astell developed a rhetoric that shows the influence of sources that tend to restrict rhetoric's domain and to view it negatively. She devotes much less time to rhetoric than she does to logic. She claims that nature is the best teacher of eloquence. Astell seems to disregard rhetoric in many cases. It seems to be in the back of her mind for most of the time, but she doesn't pay active attention to it, like she does with logic. She uses arrangement, even though she gives it a different name, but even then, some people would consider this part of logic as well. She keeps rhetoric limited to the style. She is a big believer in women's 'rhetoric.' Keeping style clear and language correct was very important to her. I think it is interesting that this is the first women writing who was so devoted to feminist writings. She believes strongly in the art of conversation, I still believe this is a very important aspect of rhetoric.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Essay 2: The Rhetorical Transition
Historically, rhetoric has been specifically built on oral speech. There had been no writing of any kind. Everything that needed to be remembered was memorized and passed down from generation to generation. Today, very little information is memorized. It is impossible to go through the entire day without using some form of writing. Writing has drastically changed the idea and interpretation rhetoric.
The first ancient writings used symbols and pictographs to communicate. The very first signs of writing included clay tokens, dyed knots of twine, and markings on turtle shells (Wolf 24). These tiny, seemingly insignificant objects trained ancient peoples to communicate without talking. Slowly, these cognitive changes in the brain helped shape oral cultures into written ones over thousands of years. These forms of writing allowed for adaptations to the brain to alter the way humans think (Wolf 25). By developing numbers and letters, ancient societies were able to have a permanent record keeping system. Now, ‘stock’ could be counted without the physical objects being in sight (Wolf 28). These societies used symbolic representation. Each person had to know the difference among symbols to tell them apart, defining which symbols are meaningful.
These new ideas may seem to be irrelevant to rhetoric, however rhetorical communication can be seen everywhere. Before these simple systems of writing and record keeping, citizens had to be present for every transaction. Now, there must be a new trust present. Relying on the fact that what is marked on the token is the truth could be the biggest rhetorical problem in this ancient society. Although writing is very new at this time, having faith in what is written is a new rhetorical concept. The rhetoric is not simply oral; it now has a written form as well.
Early scholars tried to prevent the spread of writing by promoting oration in education. Socrates had many concerns about the transition from an oral culture to a literate one. He believed that to achieve virtue, as an individual and in society, one must examine previous knowledge and the internalization of the highest principles (Wolf 70). By teaching his students to question the words and concepts conveyed through spoken language, they could study what lies beneath them even more. Socrates demanded that students question everything they encounter. Finding the essence of the originating thought was the goal, and understanding how it reflected the values of society, questioning all reasoning was the most effective form of education (Wolf 71).
Socrates had three main concerns about the dangers literacy posed to society. He believed that written and oral words are too different from each other, and will have separate impacts on one’s intellectual life (Wolf 71). Socrates considered written speech as ‘dead discourse,’ words that could not speak back in any way. While ‘living speech’ was full of meaning in every word, by examining sounds, tone, stress or rhythm, one could analyze every layer of a speech (Wolf 73). This is something that could not be done with written. Words are simply ink on a page; there is no considerable interaction between the reader and the writing. Rhetoric is beginning to change significantly. Scholars can no longer simply depend on the delivery and arrangement of their writing, they must physically write down their works and do it in a way that can effectively express their point of view to the reader without being present.
Writing has a different process of development than orally spoken words. Individuals are able to edit the mistakes out of their work as many times as needed. Scholars are able to ‘refine their thoughts’ (Wolf 73). Writers are able to use a new precision in their work that had never existed before. Some people who had difficulty expressing themselves in anyway, could fully process their thoughts through writing.
The ability to write thoughts on paper would greatly influence the intellectual memory. Socrates believed that the internalization of knowledge would be lost forever with the changing norms of literacy. He saw that while this new writing increased the cultural memory, it greatly decreased the individual memory (Wolf 75). Most ancient scholars would commit extensive amounts of orally remembered material to memory to preserve the culture of their society, and in the process increase their own personal knowledge. This is no longer the case with the presence of writing. There is no longer a need to memorize information. There is a physical copy of it that can be referenced whenever it is needed. Written words are set in stone. They will not answer back when asked a question as an orally given speech would (Wolf 76). There is no questioning the writing; it is permanent. This lack of elaboration with written works is a considerable change to ancient rhetoric.
Superficial understanding of written works is another major change that had to be endured with the transition from oral to literate cultures. The literacy ability is allowing individuals to read without an educator (Wolf 76). Anyone literate would be able to read any given work and interpret it as they please. This creates a loss of control of educational knowledge. This all-access pass to knowledge could create intellectual chaos. There would be no control over what was written, who was writing it, who was reading it and how it was interpreted. Socrates considered this a threat to virtue. There is no filter to knowledge. Everyone has access to virtually anything and the individual power to interpret it in any they desire. This may be the most significant change to rhetoric. The author is no longer present to convey the intended message to the audience. The audience is now anyone with the ability to read. Socrates was right to feel the need to defend oral speech. The progression of writing has had multiple effects on rhetoric. Not only does writing change interpretation, it allows for change and revision. However, it may have decreased the importance of memorization, but it greatly increased the access and amount of knowledge to society, which in the long run, is much more beneficial.
After hundreds years of changing rhetoric, the printing press was a new revolution that mechanically changed the production of written works and rhetoric in completely new ways. Gutenberg’s press had begun printing books at amazing speeds, increasing the spread of new ideas across Europe (Bizzell and Herzberg 565). This had a large impact on rhetoric. Writing was now available to a large amount of people. Written works no longer had to be physically written by hand, they could be produced mechanically to huge audiences. The wide spread of the concept of humanism could be contributed to the new use of the printing press, especially in church and in education.
This changing educational rhetoric is a very interesting idea. Charismatic humanists were now able to spread their thoughts with the aid of these new books. Students could now physically hold the information they were learning. This helped spread thoughts to many other states instead of just in one place. Religious promoters were now looking for more ways to spread their views to the public (Bizzell and Herzberg 566). They were now competing with each other for the materials to effectively spread their views.
Writing has some very interesting effects on rhetoric. It seems as if written speech would not be much different from oral language, but after looking at some events throughout history, writing has been proven to have a large impact on rhetoric. There are a lot of very important components of oral rhetoric, delivery being very prominent. With written works, there is much less emphasis on the delivery. The reader has the luxury of interpreting the work in a new way, whether or not it is the author’s intent. Rhetoric is present in everything. A new type of written rhetoric has been developed through the transition from oral cultures to literate ones.
The first ancient writings used symbols and pictographs to communicate. The very first signs of writing included clay tokens, dyed knots of twine, and markings on turtle shells (Wolf 24). These tiny, seemingly insignificant objects trained ancient peoples to communicate without talking. Slowly, these cognitive changes in the brain helped shape oral cultures into written ones over thousands of years. These forms of writing allowed for adaptations to the brain to alter the way humans think (Wolf 25). By developing numbers and letters, ancient societies were able to have a permanent record keeping system. Now, ‘stock’ could be counted without the physical objects being in sight (Wolf 28). These societies used symbolic representation. Each person had to know the difference among symbols to tell them apart, defining which symbols are meaningful.
These new ideas may seem to be irrelevant to rhetoric, however rhetorical communication can be seen everywhere. Before these simple systems of writing and record keeping, citizens had to be present for every transaction. Now, there must be a new trust present. Relying on the fact that what is marked on the token is the truth could be the biggest rhetorical problem in this ancient society. Although writing is very new at this time, having faith in what is written is a new rhetorical concept. The rhetoric is not simply oral; it now has a written form as well.
Early scholars tried to prevent the spread of writing by promoting oration in education. Socrates had many concerns about the transition from an oral culture to a literate one. He believed that to achieve virtue, as an individual and in society, one must examine previous knowledge and the internalization of the highest principles (Wolf 70). By teaching his students to question the words and concepts conveyed through spoken language, they could study what lies beneath them even more. Socrates demanded that students question everything they encounter. Finding the essence of the originating thought was the goal, and understanding how it reflected the values of society, questioning all reasoning was the most effective form of education (Wolf 71).
Socrates had three main concerns about the dangers literacy posed to society. He believed that written and oral words are too different from each other, and will have separate impacts on one’s intellectual life (Wolf 71). Socrates considered written speech as ‘dead discourse,’ words that could not speak back in any way. While ‘living speech’ was full of meaning in every word, by examining sounds, tone, stress or rhythm, one could analyze every layer of a speech (Wolf 73). This is something that could not be done with written. Words are simply ink on a page; there is no considerable interaction between the reader and the writing. Rhetoric is beginning to change significantly. Scholars can no longer simply depend on the delivery and arrangement of their writing, they must physically write down their works and do it in a way that can effectively express their point of view to the reader without being present.
Writing has a different process of development than orally spoken words. Individuals are able to edit the mistakes out of their work as many times as needed. Scholars are able to ‘refine their thoughts’ (Wolf 73). Writers are able to use a new precision in their work that had never existed before. Some people who had difficulty expressing themselves in anyway, could fully process their thoughts through writing.
The ability to write thoughts on paper would greatly influence the intellectual memory. Socrates believed that the internalization of knowledge would be lost forever with the changing norms of literacy. He saw that while this new writing increased the cultural memory, it greatly decreased the individual memory (Wolf 75). Most ancient scholars would commit extensive amounts of orally remembered material to memory to preserve the culture of their society, and in the process increase their own personal knowledge. This is no longer the case with the presence of writing. There is no longer a need to memorize information. There is a physical copy of it that can be referenced whenever it is needed. Written words are set in stone. They will not answer back when asked a question as an orally given speech would (Wolf 76). There is no questioning the writing; it is permanent. This lack of elaboration with written works is a considerable change to ancient rhetoric.
Superficial understanding of written works is another major change that had to be endured with the transition from oral to literate cultures. The literacy ability is allowing individuals to read without an educator (Wolf 76). Anyone literate would be able to read any given work and interpret it as they please. This creates a loss of control of educational knowledge. This all-access pass to knowledge could create intellectual chaos. There would be no control over what was written, who was writing it, who was reading it and how it was interpreted. Socrates considered this a threat to virtue. There is no filter to knowledge. Everyone has access to virtually anything and the individual power to interpret it in any they desire. This may be the most significant change to rhetoric. The author is no longer present to convey the intended message to the audience. The audience is now anyone with the ability to read. Socrates was right to feel the need to defend oral speech. The progression of writing has had multiple effects on rhetoric. Not only does writing change interpretation, it allows for change and revision. However, it may have decreased the importance of memorization, but it greatly increased the access and amount of knowledge to society, which in the long run, is much more beneficial.
After hundreds years of changing rhetoric, the printing press was a new revolution that mechanically changed the production of written works and rhetoric in completely new ways. Gutenberg’s press had begun printing books at amazing speeds, increasing the spread of new ideas across Europe (Bizzell and Herzberg 565). This had a large impact on rhetoric. Writing was now available to a large amount of people. Written works no longer had to be physically written by hand, they could be produced mechanically to huge audiences. The wide spread of the concept of humanism could be contributed to the new use of the printing press, especially in church and in education.
This changing educational rhetoric is a very interesting idea. Charismatic humanists were now able to spread their thoughts with the aid of these new books. Students could now physically hold the information they were learning. This helped spread thoughts to many other states instead of just in one place. Religious promoters were now looking for more ways to spread their views to the public (Bizzell and Herzberg 566). They were now competing with each other for the materials to effectively spread their views.
Writing has some very interesting effects on rhetoric. It seems as if written speech would not be much different from oral language, but after looking at some events throughout history, writing has been proven to have a large impact on rhetoric. There are a lot of very important components of oral rhetoric, delivery being very prominent. With written works, there is much less emphasis on the delivery. The reader has the luxury of interpreting the work in a new way, whether or not it is the author’s intent. Rhetoric is present in everything. A new type of written rhetoric has been developed through the transition from oral cultures to literate ones.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Reading Blog 11
October 24, 2011
ARCS Ch. 9 & Madeleine de Scudery; Erasmus
Arrangement: Getting it Together
Rhetoricians agree that arrangement is the second part, and second most important part of rhetoric. Arrangement usually contained two processes, selecting the arguments to be used and arranging them in an order that is clear and persuasive. Obviously, arrangement has a lot to do with the rhetorical situation, there is always a time and a place for every different style. I find it very interesting how arrangement has played such a vital role in rhetoric, even in ancient times. The exordium, comes from the Latin words 'to urge forward.' Ancient rhetoricians gave the advice of exordia, being the first part of discourse and often performs the important function of establishing ethos. It causes the audience to want to listen to the rest of the speech. There are five kinds of cases used to determine the kind of exordium: honorable, difficult, mean, ambiguous and obscure. Each case has different arrangements, varying slightly from each other to be more specific. I think arrangement is very important. It completes the style of the speech, determining both what kind of speech it will be and the effect it has on it's audiences.
Madeleine de Scudery
I find the salon concept very interesting. I think it's funny that Scudery was very accepted into this society and took part in the many behaviors used in this scene. It makes me wonder why she took part in such rigorous schooling, but then she didn't write under her own name, she used her brother's until he died. Perhaps she wanted to always fit into her 'clique' instead of breaching the etiquette. I also think it's very interesting that she wrote novels. I find this especially curious since she did not marry because of the loss of freedom. It seems to me that she would be proud of her writing and publish under her own name.
Desiderius Erasmus
Erasmus took the doctorate of divinity at Turin, and while studying published a collection of proverbs from classical sources with accompanying explanatory essays. He went on to lecture at Cambridge for some time. Erasmus was very interested in education and hoped that peace would come if humanity were united in one political state with one religion and one language. He focused on education to achieve this goal. On Copia was Erasmus's most influential work on rhetoric, dominating instruction in both Latin and northern European countries for the 16th century. Another volume of this work was created some time later and was said to be more popular. Erasmus is held as a key figure in the Renaissance era. With humanist teachings and analysis of sacred texts could become a means not only to verbal fluency but also to spiritual insight and piety. Ecclesiastes, Erasmus's final work summarized the hopes for humanist education and for a newly inspired and united Christendom. He was very skeptical, and wondered if his goals were plausible. By believing in hope himself, Erasmus was able to instill hope in others as well.
ARCS Ch. 9 & Madeleine de Scudery; Erasmus
Arrangement: Getting it Together
Rhetoricians agree that arrangement is the second part, and second most important part of rhetoric. Arrangement usually contained two processes, selecting the arguments to be used and arranging them in an order that is clear and persuasive. Obviously, arrangement has a lot to do with the rhetorical situation, there is always a time and a place for every different style. I find it very interesting how arrangement has played such a vital role in rhetoric, even in ancient times. The exordium, comes from the Latin words 'to urge forward.' Ancient rhetoricians gave the advice of exordia, being the first part of discourse and often performs the important function of establishing ethos. It causes the audience to want to listen to the rest of the speech. There are five kinds of cases used to determine the kind of exordium: honorable, difficult, mean, ambiguous and obscure. Each case has different arrangements, varying slightly from each other to be more specific. I think arrangement is very important. It completes the style of the speech, determining both what kind of speech it will be and the effect it has on it's audiences.
Madeleine de Scudery
I find the salon concept very interesting. I think it's funny that Scudery was very accepted into this society and took part in the many behaviors used in this scene. It makes me wonder why she took part in such rigorous schooling, but then she didn't write under her own name, she used her brother's until he died. Perhaps she wanted to always fit into her 'clique' instead of breaching the etiquette. I also think it's very interesting that she wrote novels. I find this especially curious since she did not marry because of the loss of freedom. It seems to me that she would be proud of her writing and publish under her own name.
Desiderius Erasmus
Erasmus took the doctorate of divinity at Turin, and while studying published a collection of proverbs from classical sources with accompanying explanatory essays. He went on to lecture at Cambridge for some time. Erasmus was very interested in education and hoped that peace would come if humanity were united in one political state with one religion and one language. He focused on education to achieve this goal. On Copia was Erasmus's most influential work on rhetoric, dominating instruction in both Latin and northern European countries for the 16th century. Another volume of this work was created some time later and was said to be more popular. Erasmus is held as a key figure in the Renaissance era. With humanist teachings and analysis of sacred texts could become a means not only to verbal fluency but also to spiritual insight and piety. Ecclesiastes, Erasmus's final work summarized the hopes for humanist education and for a newly inspired and united Christendom. He was very skeptical, and wondered if his goals were plausible. By believing in hope himself, Erasmus was able to instill hope in others as well.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Reading Blog 10
October 18, 2011
ARCS Ch. 8 & Margaret Fell; Thomas Wilson
Extrinsic Proofs: Arguments Waiting to be Used
This proof was divided by Aristotle into the intrinsic and extrinsic proofs. Intrinsic proofs are invented by a rhetor, for example ethos, pathos and logos. Extrinsic proofs include empirical evidence such as facts, data, artifacts and the testimony of authorities. I find it interesting that many rhetoricians doubt Aristotle made this distinction but they all give him credit for it anyways. It makes me think that Aristotle has always been at the forefront of rhetorical arguments. He gets credit just for being who he is. The act of using testimonies is also considered an intrinsic argument. But many ancient rhetoricians usually did not trust the testimonies given by regular citizens, especially those from legal cases. It is necessary for those who view the testimony and accept the credibility of the people presenting and those they are presenting about. It makes sense, I think this is still a valid concept today. Using fact can be very effective if used correctly. These facts must be shown as empirical data and must be current, there are a lot of criteria that make a fact relevant. I guess that is a good thing, it makes them more effective and more valuable uses of the intrinsic proofs.
Margaret Fell
'Something changed for the better, during the Renaissance in women's sense of themselves, even if very little changed or changed for the better in their social condition.' I like that they actually lost some control during the Renaissance, but in general women feel like they gained more than they lost. By finding ways to get around the many authorities they came across and found ways to be happy and express themselves. An increased opportunity for education was one factor of this change. The spread of Protestant Christianity helped this change as well. I find it interesting though that they were only educated to become better Christians and better daughters and wives. I feel like the point of education should be to question the real goings on of the world. Margaret Fell is an interesting woman. Two marriages, changing religious views and becoming a very important figure to the quakers. She was an intellectual leader of her time, she promoted the participation of women in society. I found it very interesting that she didn't speak because God spoke through her, she spoke because of how she felt. She was a true player in the beginning of feminism.
Thomas Wilson
Wilson published the first English book to deal with the five parts of classical rhetoric: invention, arrangement, style, memory and delivery. Rule of Reason is Wilson's form of Aristotle's dialectic- a rigorous exchange of views among experts in the subject under discussion. Wilson calls this logic. By sticking to the previous views, Wilson believes that through reason, people can rectify their fallen state. But where would rhetoric fit in all of this? It would only be the method of conveying the truths discovered by logic. I really like the closed fist of logic and the open hand of rhetoric metaphor. It is a very effective way of looking at the differences between logic and rhetoric.
ARCS Ch. 8 & Margaret Fell; Thomas Wilson
Extrinsic Proofs: Arguments Waiting to be Used
This proof was divided by Aristotle into the intrinsic and extrinsic proofs. Intrinsic proofs are invented by a rhetor, for example ethos, pathos and logos. Extrinsic proofs include empirical evidence such as facts, data, artifacts and the testimony of authorities. I find it interesting that many rhetoricians doubt Aristotle made this distinction but they all give him credit for it anyways. It makes me think that Aristotle has always been at the forefront of rhetorical arguments. He gets credit just for being who he is. The act of using testimonies is also considered an intrinsic argument. But many ancient rhetoricians usually did not trust the testimonies given by regular citizens, especially those from legal cases. It is necessary for those who view the testimony and accept the credibility of the people presenting and those they are presenting about. It makes sense, I think this is still a valid concept today. Using fact can be very effective if used correctly. These facts must be shown as empirical data and must be current, there are a lot of criteria that make a fact relevant. I guess that is a good thing, it makes them more effective and more valuable uses of the intrinsic proofs.
Margaret Fell
'Something changed for the better, during the Renaissance in women's sense of themselves, even if very little changed or changed for the better in their social condition.' I like that they actually lost some control during the Renaissance, but in general women feel like they gained more than they lost. By finding ways to get around the many authorities they came across and found ways to be happy and express themselves. An increased opportunity for education was one factor of this change. The spread of Protestant Christianity helped this change as well. I find it interesting though that they were only educated to become better Christians and better daughters and wives. I feel like the point of education should be to question the real goings on of the world. Margaret Fell is an interesting woman. Two marriages, changing religious views and becoming a very important figure to the quakers. She was an intellectual leader of her time, she promoted the participation of women in society. I found it very interesting that she didn't speak because God spoke through her, she spoke because of how she felt. She was a true player in the beginning of feminism.
Thomas Wilson
Wilson published the first English book to deal with the five parts of classical rhetoric: invention, arrangement, style, memory and delivery. Rule of Reason is Wilson's form of Aristotle's dialectic- a rigorous exchange of views among experts in the subject under discussion. Wilson calls this logic. By sticking to the previous views, Wilson believes that through reason, people can rectify their fallen state. But where would rhetoric fit in all of this? It would only be the method of conveying the truths discovered by logic. I really like the closed fist of logic and the open hand of rhetoric metaphor. It is a very effective way of looking at the differences between logic and rhetoric.
Reading Blog 9
October 13, 2011
Peter Ramus is a very interesting man. He seemed to come up with his own versions of rhetorical argument. The Renaissance was said to revive Aristotle with scholasticism, using philosophy and the nonartistic concepts. However, Ramus argues against Aristotle and the idea of scholasticism. He believes that this concept is very limiting to scholars like himself. And that humans were born already knowing how to reasoning. He believed that if no one knew there was more than one way to reason, than everyone would think like Aristotle. With the dialectic concept, there are no absolutes. The only ones are there because of holistic agreement. The sophists use this dialectic as different ways to think. There are some things that make me agree with Ramus. The move toward science and the belief vs. fact argument are very interesting. I think these arguments are still very valid today. The fact that studying a specific scholar so closely there is bound to be a lot of influential impressions made. Many scholars like Quintilian and Cicero were influenced so much by Aristotle's work that they were said to have reproduced his work for Rome. This is a very interesting concept. This makes me think that people today have evolved into intellectual beings, but we are very influenced by the things around us. Studying in a single field will promote certain views on subjects that could have provided a different idea from someone else. There is a lot of things that make our analyses today very biased. Ramus argues that logic doesn't belong in rhetoric. I think that is completely false. Making logic rhetorically effective is the art of rhetoric.
Peter Ramus is a very interesting man. He seemed to come up with his own versions of rhetorical argument. The Renaissance was said to revive Aristotle with scholasticism, using philosophy and the nonartistic concepts. However, Ramus argues against Aristotle and the idea of scholasticism. He believes that this concept is very limiting to scholars like himself. And that humans were born already knowing how to reasoning. He believed that if no one knew there was more than one way to reason, than everyone would think like Aristotle. With the dialectic concept, there are no absolutes. The only ones are there because of holistic agreement. The sophists use this dialectic as different ways to think. There are some things that make me agree with Ramus. The move toward science and the belief vs. fact argument are very interesting. I think these arguments are still very valid today. The fact that studying a specific scholar so closely there is bound to be a lot of influential impressions made. Many scholars like Quintilian and Cicero were influenced so much by Aristotle's work that they were said to have reproduced his work for Rome. This is a very interesting concept. This makes me think that people today have evolved into intellectual beings, but we are very influenced by the things around us. Studying in a single field will promote certain views on subjects that could have provided a different idea from someone else. There is a lot of things that make our analyses today very biased. Ramus argues that logic doesn't belong in rhetoric. I think that is completely false. Making logic rhetorically effective is the art of rhetoric.
Reading Blog 8
October 6, 2011
Proust and the Squid
I really enjoyed reading this article, it was very interesting and kept my attention throughout the entire piece. The notion that reading is not natural is an unreal idea. It is somewhat odd to think of reading as an invention, it seems so natural to us now, that thinking of it as a new concept is difficult to do. The neural formations of the brain are intriguing to me. Using different pathways to read different languages seems as if it would be harder to do. Perhaps it is like learning languages, it is easier to do as a child when that part of the brain is still adaptable. I find it even more interesting that the way we read defines how we read. It seems like if we are able to read one thing, we could read anything, but that is obviously not the case. The metaphor of Proust and the squid is very interesting. Using the squid's examples of neural firings to learn about the process of reading is very unique. These processes almost make me wonder why reading is still not natural to us. It seems as though we have such an advanced learning system that we would have adapted to have reading built into us as language is. Perhaps that will come. But as we are turning into more digital beings, will that affect our reading abilities at all?
Orality of Language
I found this article more difficult to read. It seemed to jump around a lot more and keep throwing out too much information without fully analyzing each idea. It does make me wonder why people are now looking at the orality of language and what made them disregard it earlier. Language is definitely more oral than written. It is the primary way of communication. I found it interesting how few oral languages have a written literature. Why is this? The orality of language is permanent. There is no way the sequence of oral language could be any other way. The concept of reading as a conversion from text to sound is very interesting. I have never thought of this before, but it is true, when I read I can hear the words as I write them out or read them from a book. Because writing cannot exist without orality but orality can exist without writing, texts seem as if they are not needed. To me, it seems like it makes people today look less educated than they were hundreds of years ago because of how easy we have it. We don't have to memorize anything. If we need to know anything we are able to find out any possible answer with relatively little effort. It just makes me wonder if we are really evolving at all.
Proust and the Squid
I really enjoyed reading this article, it was very interesting and kept my attention throughout the entire piece. The notion that reading is not natural is an unreal idea. It is somewhat odd to think of reading as an invention, it seems so natural to us now, that thinking of it as a new concept is difficult to do. The neural formations of the brain are intriguing to me. Using different pathways to read different languages seems as if it would be harder to do. Perhaps it is like learning languages, it is easier to do as a child when that part of the brain is still adaptable. I find it even more interesting that the way we read defines how we read. It seems like if we are able to read one thing, we could read anything, but that is obviously not the case. The metaphor of Proust and the squid is very interesting. Using the squid's examples of neural firings to learn about the process of reading is very unique. These processes almost make me wonder why reading is still not natural to us. It seems as though we have such an advanced learning system that we would have adapted to have reading built into us as language is. Perhaps that will come. But as we are turning into more digital beings, will that affect our reading abilities at all?
Orality of Language
I found this article more difficult to read. It seemed to jump around a lot more and keep throwing out too much information without fully analyzing each idea. It does make me wonder why people are now looking at the orality of language and what made them disregard it earlier. Language is definitely more oral than written. It is the primary way of communication. I found it interesting how few oral languages have a written literature. Why is this? The orality of language is permanent. There is no way the sequence of oral language could be any other way. The concept of reading as a conversion from text to sound is very interesting. I have never thought of this before, but it is true, when I read I can hear the words as I write them out or read them from a book. Because writing cannot exist without orality but orality can exist without writing, texts seem as if they are not needed. To me, it seems like it makes people today look less educated than they were hundreds of years ago because of how easy we have it. We don't have to memorize anything. If we need to know anything we are able to find out any possible answer with relatively little effort. It just makes me wonder if we are really evolving at all.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Against the Sophists Imatatio
Against False Advertising
Many cars claim that they are environmentally friendly, that they are using the least possible amount of resources. But none of these cars made as many specific claims as the Toyota Prius.
So how does the Prius really compare to the rest of the environmentally harmful cars? Well, the Prius has two engines under it’s hood. There is a 1.5L gas engine as well as an electric motor. This electric motor is used to propel the car to 25mph and then the gas engine will kick in and continue to excel the car forward. But when the car is idling, or sitting in traffic, the electric engine is useful and saves gas. This battery gets recharged through the brake system.
Hybrid cars require more high tech batteries than regular cars. The Prius uses a nickel battery, which as it turns out, is not environmentally friendly. Nickel for the battery is produced at a plant in Ontario, where Toyota buys about 1,000 tons a year. There is no life for miles around this plant, affecting both the ground and the air, causing acid rain. Even NASA uses this location for moon landscape practices because of the barren land. However, these batteries are not finished here in Ontario. They travel to a refinery in Wales, then to China where the nickel is manufactured into foam, and are the finally finished in Toyota’s battery plant in Japan. So, because the batteries are not finished at one plant, they use much more energy to be sent from country to country to complete production, ultimately causing the Prius to fail in environmental effectiveness. Just for the battery alone, there is ten thousand miles of traveling by both container ship and diesel train.
These hybrid cars are only expected to last 100,000 miles in each lifetime. While other cars are expected to last two or three times as long. Because of this, the Prius is much more expensive for consumers and manufacturers. These cars do not pay for themselves after a certain number of years like they are said to be. And because of all the energy used to produce and dispose of this car, there actually are more environmental benefits in buying an SUV.
Disposing of the batteries is another issue entirely. As of right now, these cars are relatively new, so there is no need to dispose of the batteries just yet. But what is going to happen in the next few decades? Once these cars reach the end of their lifetime, it is going to take a lot more energy to dispose of the car and the battery because of the specialties involved in it. So, is buying this car really worth it? Would you want to spend extra money and be hurting the environment more?
The public perceives the Prius to be something very environmentally friendly, pollution free, and money saving. When in reality the premium for the Prius lasts five years. It would take this long before the gas savings would really make a difference.
Aside from energy issues, the Prius has been known for misleading marketing and advertising as well. When the Prius first came onto the market, Toyota claimed that the car would get up to 50 mpg on the highway and up to 60mpg in the city. Of course, everyone who heard, and believed this claim ran to the dealers to buy one of these cars. Putting themselves on yearlong waiting lists and paying thousands of dollars to ‘save money’ with this car’s amazing gas mileage. But very soon consumers found out that this was a false claim. Because of out of date government testing procedures, in reality, the Prius only got about 45 miles to the gallon. Which is not much more than other popular compact economy cars on the market.
Pricing cars based on manufacturing, use, life, and disposal shows that the Prius costs over $3 a mile over it’s entire life. That is extremely high considering a Hummer costs less than $2 a mile and many compact economy cars are less than $1. Toyota claims that the Prius is environmentally friendly. It claims that this car will save money in the long run and save the planet in the process. This is a long shot. There are very few instances where this car will begin to pay for itself. Claiming to be something you’re not, only causes more criticism and makes consumers question products even more.
However, this is my opinion, I have found these statistics and choose to believe that this is the case. If, upon your own research, you have a different finding, you are entitled to your own opinion.
Against the Sophists
Isocrates
If all who are engaged in the profession of education were willing to state the facts instead of making greater promises than they can possibly fulfill, they would not be in such bad repute with the lay-public. As it is, however, the teachers who do not scruple to vaunt their powers with utter disregard of the truth have created the impression that those who choose a life of careless indolence are better advised than those who devote themselves to serious study.
Indeed, who can fail to abhor, yes to contemn, those teachers, in the first place, who devote themselves to disputation since they pretend to search for truth, but straightway at the beginning of their professions attempt to deceive us with lies? For I think it is manifest to all that foreknowledge of future events is not vouchsafed to our human nature, but that we are so far removed from this prescience that Homer, who has been conceded the highest reputation for wisdom, has pictured even the gods as at times debating among themselves about the future--not that he knew their minds but that he desired to show us that for mankind this power lies in the realms of the impossible.
But these professors have gone so far in their lack of scruple that they attempt to persuade our young men that if they will only study under them they will know what to do in life and through this knowledge will become happy and prosperous. More than that, although they set themselves up as masters and dispensers of goods so precious, they are not ashamed of asking for them a price of three or four minae! Why, if they were to sell any other commodity for so trifling a fraction of its worth they would not deny their folly; nevertheless, although they set so insignificant a price on the whole stock of virtue and happiness, they pretend to wisdom and assume the right to instruct the rest of the world. Furthermore, although they say that they do not want money and speak contemptuously of wealth as filthy lucre, they hold their hands out for a trifling gain and promise to make their disciples all but immortal! But what is most ridiculous of all is that they distrust those from whom they are to get this money--they distrust, that is to say, the very men to whom they are about to deliver the science of just dealing--and they require that the fees advanced by their students be entrusted for safe keeping to those who have never been under their instruction, being well advised as to their security, but doing the opposite of what they preach. For it is permissible to those who give any other instruction to be exacting in matters open to dispute, since nothing prevents those who have been made adept in other lines of training from being dishonorable in the matter of contracts. But men who inculcate virtue and sobriety--is it not absurd if they do not trust in their own students before all others? For it is not to be supposed that men who are honorable and just-dealing with others will be dishonest with the very preceptors who have made them what they are.
When, therefore, the layman puts all these things together and observes that the teachers of wisdom and dispensers of happiness are themselves in great want but exact only a small fee from their students, that they are on the watch for contradictions in words but are blind to inconsistencies in deeds, and that, furthermore, they pretend to have knowledge of the future but are incapable either of saying anything pertinent or of giving any counsel regarding the present, and when he observes that those who follow their judgements are more consistent and more successful4 than those who profess to have exact knowledge, then he has, I think, good reason to contemn such studies and regard them as stuff and nonsense, and not as a true discipline of the soul.
But it is not these sophists alone who are open to criticism, but also those who profess to teach political discourse. For the latter have no interest whatever in the truth, but consider that they are masters of an art if they can attract great numbers of students by the smallness of their charges and the magnitude of their professions and get something out of them. For they are themselves so stupid and conceive others to be so dull that, although the speeches which they compose are worse than those which some laymen improvise, nevertheless they promise to make their students such clever orators that they will not overlook any of the possibilities which a subject affords. More than that, they do not attribute any of this power either to the practical experience or to the native ability of the student, but undertake to transmit the science of discourse as simply as they would teach the letters of the alphabet, not having taken trouble to examine into the nature of each kind of knowledge, but thinking that because of the extravagance of their promises they themselves will command admiration and the teaching of discourse will be held in higher esteem--oblivious of the fact that the arts are made great, not by those who are without scruple in boasting about them, but by those who are able to discover all of the resources which each art affords.
For myself, I should have preferred above great riches that philosophy had as much power as these men claim; for, possibly, I should not have been the very last in the profession nor had the least share in its profits. But since it has no such power, I could wish that this prating might cease. For I note that the bad repute which results therefrom does not affect the offenders only, but that all the rest of us who are in the same profession share in the opprobium.
But I marvel when I observe these men setting themselves up as instructors of youth who cannot see that they are applying the analogy of an art with hard and fast rules to a creative process. For, excepting these teachers, who does not know that the art of using letters remains fixed and unchanged, so that we continually and invariably use the same letters for the same purposes, while exactly the reverse is true of the art of discourse? For what has been said by one speaker is not equally useful for the speaker who comes after him; on the contrary, he is accounted most skilled in this art who speaks in a manner worthy of his subject and yet is able to discover in it topics which are nowise the same as those used by others. But the greatest proof of the difference between these two arts is that oratory is good only if it has the qualities of fitness for the occasion, propriety of style, and originality of treatment, while in the case of letters there is no such need whatsoever. So that those who make use of such analogies ought more justly to pay out than to accept fees, since they attempt to teach others when they are themselves in great need of instruction.
However, if it is my duty not only to rebuke others, but also to set forth my own views, I think all intelligent people will agree with me that while many of those who have pursued philosophy have remained in private life, others, on the other hand, who have never taken lessons from any one of the sophists have become able orators and statesmen. For ability, whether in speech or in any other activity, is found in those who are well endowed by nature and have been schooled by practical experience. Formal training makes such men more skilfull and more resourceful in discovering the possibilities of a subject; for it teaches them to take from a readier source the topics which they otherwise hit upon in haphazard fashion. But it cannot fully fashion men who are without natural aptitude into good debaters or writers, although it is capable of leading them on to self-improvement and to a greater degree of intelligence on many subjects.
But I desire, now that I have gone this far, to speak more clearly on these matters. For I hold that to obtain a knowledge of the elements out of which we make and compose all discourses is not so very difficult if anyone entrusts himself, not to those who make rash promises, but to those who have some knowledge of these things. But to choose from these elements those which should be employed for each subject, to join them together, to arrange them properly, and also, not to miss what the occasion demands but appropriately to adorn the whole speech with striking thoughts and to clothe it in flowing and melodious phrase -- these things, I hold, require much study and are the task of a vigorous and imaginative mind: for this, the student must not only have the requisite aptitude but he must learn the different kinds of discourse and practice himself in their use; and the teacher, for his part, must so expound the principles of the art with the utmost possible exactness as to leave out nothing that can be taught, and, for the rest, he must in himself set such an example of oratorythat the students who have taken form under his instruction and are able to pattern after him will, from the outset, show in their speaking a degree of grace and charm which is not found in others. When all of these requisites are found together, then the devotees of philosophy will achieve complete success; but according as any one of the things which I have mentioned is lacking, to this extent must their disciples of necessity fall below the mark.
Now as for the sophists who have lately sprung up and have very recently embraced these pretensions, even though they flourish at the moment, they will all, I am sure, come round to this position. But there remain to be considered those who lived before our time and did not scruple to write the so-called arts of oratory. These must not be dismissed without rebuke, since they professed to teach how to conduct law-suits, picking out the most discredited of terms, which the enemies, not the champions, of this discipline might have been expected to employ--and that too although this facility, in so far as it can be taught, is of no greater aid to forensic than to all other discourse. But they were much worse than those who dabble in disputation; for although the latter expounded such captious theories that were anyone to cleave to them in practice he would at once be in all manner of trouble, they did, at any rate, make professions of virtue and sobriety in their teaching, whereas the former, although exhorting others to study political discourse, neglected all the good things which this study affords, and became nothing more than professors of meddlesomeness and greed.
And yet those who desire to follow the true precepts of this discipline may, if they will, be helped more speedily towards honesty of character than towards facility in oratory. And let no one suppose that I claim that just living can be taught; for, in a word, I hold that there does not exist an art of the kind which can implant sobriety and justice in depraved natures. Nevertheless, I do think that the study of political discourse can help more than any other thing to stimulate and form such qualities of character.
But in order that I may not appear to be breaking down the pretensions of others while myself making greater claims than are within my powers, I believe that the very arguments by which I myself was convinced will make it clear to others also that these things are true.
Imitatio Reflection
This imitation was much harder than I expected. It was hard for me to pick a speech, and then it was also very difficult to find a modern day example. I chose Isocrates’ ‘Against the Sophists’ for my speech. I spent a long time debating whether I wanted to imitate this speech at all or if I wanted to choose a different speech altogether.
Isocrates’ central concept was what drew me to this speech. I found it interesting how he was accusing the sophists of not being able to deliver on the promises made to their students. Yet, he made sure that it was known that this was only his opinion, not necessarily fact. There were quite a few directions I could have gone with this speech. This speech directly related to politics, but I decided to write my imitation on the Toyota Prius, instead of choosing the more obvious option. The advertising and branding associated with this car are mirrored in Isocrates’ speech. Both the sophists and the Prius promised more than they could deliver.
From this experience, I discovered that delivery is a huge part of making a rhetorically effective speech. Someone could have an extremely strong speech, but a horrible delivery would completely change the outcome and the way the audience hears the words. Listening to a boring, unprepared speech will cause the listener to zone out or not care enough to pay attention to the bad delivery. Because of the arrangement and style, a successful speech is hard to accomplish. The speech needs to be easy to follow. Complicated outlines that jump around are not as effective in auditory rhetoric. One thing I tried to do to make my speech effective, was prepare my speech as if the listener was listening to it on a radio. I had to keep their attention for long enough to get my point across.
Ancient rhetoricians were very successful speakers. Translating this into modern times was difficult for me. I had to read through the speech many times to fully understand what was going on. Isocrates’ speech was very wordy. Compared to speeches today, there were a lot of extra things that are said that would not be in a modern day version of that speech. Isocrates used more than three pages to get his point across, while I felt I said just as much, with more support, in two. Memorizing the speech was also very difficult for me. I got very nervous and just stared at my paper instead of reciting the speech as I knew it. From watching other speeches, I found that speeches committed to memory were much more effective than those simply read off a piece of paper. Those who memorized their speeches really connected with the audience and made eye contact, this made me want to listen and fully pay attention to what was being said.
Isocrates used his speech to define himself from other teachers of rhetoric. He was pointing out how deceitful and profit-driven these teachers were. When opening his own school, he needed a way to distinguish himself from the other sophists. He describes the characteristics of most teachers, and then makes accusations of what is clearly wrong with their teaching styles. I related this concept to the advertising and branding of the Toyota Prius. It used some similar characteristics to those Isocrates used to describe the sophists.
I argued that the Prius is trying to be environmentally friendly, and leave the least possible environmental footprint, but it is actually causing more damage to the ecology of the earth than many popular SUV’s and Hummers. The marketing used to promote these cars was very deceiving also. Claims about the gas mileage and ‘green’ effects on the planet were clearly evident. The tests used on the Prius were out of date, making the gas mileage information incorrect. The process of building and disposing of the batteries used on the Prius causes these cars to leave an unbelievably big carbon footprint on the earth.
This relates to Isocrates’ ‘Against the Sophists’ because of the concept of claiming more than can be delivered. Isocrates claimed that while he was different, all of the sophists could not deliver on the teaching claims they were promoting. While the Toyota Prius claims to be good for the environment, but in reality, it is worse than most other commercial cars.
This experience really opened my eyes to see how valuable ancient rhetoric was to public speaking. Rhetoricians had to learn to use ethos, pathos and logos to their advantage while speaking. This difficult assignment showed me that a lot more time and effort goes into preparing an effect speech, especially one that is memorized. It taught me that the use of logos, pathos and ethos still pays off when building an rhetorically effective speech still.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Reading Blog 7
ARCS Ch. 7 & RT pp. 492-502
Pathetic Proof: Passionate Appeals
Pathos is a very effective appeal. Using this rhetorical argument can promote a certain point that very few other appeals can do. When Aristotle and Cicero discuss emotions, they were polar opposites of each other. For example, anger and calm, love and hate, fear and confidence etc. They claim that emotions should be distinguished from these types of things, like pleasure and pain. Distinguishing values such as justice and goodness would be considered a pathetic appeal as well. I find it interesting that many rhetors do not find this appeal very reliable. I think this is the most effective appeal. Most people try to make distinctions from reason and emotion, but when these two concepts are used together, it creates the most effective argument. Advertising is the most prominent use of this appeal. Nike was mentioned in the reading, 'Just Do It.' Any threat of losing personal status can be perceived as a pathetic appeal. I find it curious that ancient rhetors were such fans of this appeal. It seems like they, of all people, would be the most for pure, hard facts than anyone else. These rhetors treated emotions as ways of knowing. It is interesting to see how people use pathos today and what differences are used compared to the ancient use.
Principles of Letter Writing
I love the concept of a letter. The definition is 'a suitable arrangement of words set forth to express the intended meaning of its sender.' When stated like that, I feel like it is a very romantic concept, although I know that this genre of letter writing is by far the least used. But it seems to me that letters always have a specific purpose. There is always a true meaning behind of the carefully thought out words. The salutation is the greeting, the first thing the reader sees, and is usually consistent with the status of the both the sender and the receiver. Securing of goodwill is the influential ordering of words chosen by the sender. To effectively influence the mind of the reader, the sender must convey a certain voice and word choice. I find this concept interesting. I didn't consider a letter a rhetorically influential piece, but it was one of the most influential for hundreds of years. Choosing the right words and wording to express a certain opinion or persuade the reader to do something is the true art of rhetoric.
Pathetic Proof: Passionate Appeals
Pathos is a very effective appeal. Using this rhetorical argument can promote a certain point that very few other appeals can do. When Aristotle and Cicero discuss emotions, they were polar opposites of each other. For example, anger and calm, love and hate, fear and confidence etc. They claim that emotions should be distinguished from these types of things, like pleasure and pain. Distinguishing values such as justice and goodness would be considered a pathetic appeal as well. I find it interesting that many rhetors do not find this appeal very reliable. I think this is the most effective appeal. Most people try to make distinctions from reason and emotion, but when these two concepts are used together, it creates the most effective argument. Advertising is the most prominent use of this appeal. Nike was mentioned in the reading, 'Just Do It.' Any threat of losing personal status can be perceived as a pathetic appeal. I find it curious that ancient rhetors were such fans of this appeal. It seems like they, of all people, would be the most for pure, hard facts than anyone else. These rhetors treated emotions as ways of knowing. It is interesting to see how people use pathos today and what differences are used compared to the ancient use.
Principles of Letter Writing
I love the concept of a letter. The definition is 'a suitable arrangement of words set forth to express the intended meaning of its sender.' When stated like that, I feel like it is a very romantic concept, although I know that this genre of letter writing is by far the least used. But it seems to me that letters always have a specific purpose. There is always a true meaning behind of the carefully thought out words. The salutation is the greeting, the first thing the reader sees, and is usually consistent with the status of the both the sender and the receiver. Securing of goodwill is the influential ordering of words chosen by the sender. To effectively influence the mind of the reader, the sender must convey a certain voice and word choice. I find this concept interesting. I didn't consider a letter a rhetorically influential piece, but it was one of the most influential for hundreds of years. Choosing the right words and wording to express a certain opinion or persuade the reader to do something is the true art of rhetoric.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)