RT pp. 486-491
Boethius
I find Boethius a very interesting character. It is amazing how some scholars know when something needs to be preserved. In this case, Boethius' goal was to translate all of Plato's and Aristotle's works into Latin. This was interrupted by his execution, however the work that he had done was the only Greek philosophy known to western Europe until the thirteenth century.
I also find it interesting that Boethius saw himself as a philosopher and not a rhetorician. It makes me wonder who, if anyone, will be known for their use of rhetoric hundreds of years from now. Boethius' most influential rhetorical works was a treatise on logic. Here, Boethius focuses on topical logic which is logic that uses rhetorical topics or commonplaces to explore ideas. He compares classical systems of topical invention, mostly Aristotle's and Cicero's. He finally raises the issue of borrowing rhetorical topics for philosophical ideas. Boethius' main idea is that the dialectic deals with general questions, while rhetorical arguments deal with specific situations. Boethius' life seems to be very similar to other rhetoricians of his time.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Reading Blog 5
ARCS Ch. 6 and RT pp. 429-449 & 450-485
Ethos
Suggestions of character are very persuasive. Throughout history these community assessments of character or reputation to build effective arguments. For ancient rhetoricians, character held three important senses, 'the pattern of behavior or personality, moral strength, self-discipline and fortitude; and a good reputation. Since contemporary discourse often uses large audiences where the speaker doesn't necessarily know who the main focus of audience is. I think ethos is a very effective argument appeal still today. Many audiences respond very well to people they relate to and whom they respect. If a speaker was able to build a strong reputation in a valid field, they will be very effective rhetoricians based on their character alone. I think this is incredibly important in many careers today.
Augustine
I find it interesting how scholars disagreed with Augustine in following Plato and Cicero. Augustine insists that wisdom is more important than eloquence, which is very similar to Plato's views. He also said that many could imitate eloquence without any rhetorical training. Augustine came to the conclusion that language is only a means to the final contemplation of divine truth. It seems to me that so many ancient rhetoricians would have similar philosophies, but each one we come across in the readings seems to have a different view of effective rhetoric. And, each rhetoric theory seems to still be relevant in today's society in some ways. It is almost as if they all planned to have their arguments compiled and ready for the future.
Ethos
Suggestions of character are very persuasive. Throughout history these community assessments of character or reputation to build effective arguments. For ancient rhetoricians, character held three important senses, 'the pattern of behavior or personality, moral strength, self-discipline and fortitude; and a good reputation. Since contemporary discourse often uses large audiences where the speaker doesn't necessarily know who the main focus of audience is. I think ethos is a very effective argument appeal still today. Many audiences respond very well to people they relate to and whom they respect. If a speaker was able to build a strong reputation in a valid field, they will be very effective rhetoricians based on their character alone. I think this is incredibly important in many careers today.
Augustine
I find it interesting how scholars disagreed with Augustine in following Plato and Cicero. Augustine insists that wisdom is more important than eloquence, which is very similar to Plato's views. He also said that many could imitate eloquence without any rhetorical training. Augustine came to the conclusion that language is only a means to the final contemplation of divine truth. It seems to me that so many ancient rhetoricians would have similar philosophies, but each one we come across in the readings seems to have a different view of effective rhetoric. And, each rhetoric theory seems to still be relevant in today's society in some ways. It is almost as if they all planned to have their arguments compiled and ready for the future.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Reading Blog 4
ARCS Ch. 5 and RT pp. 283-338 and 359-430
Logos
The logical proof includes ideas regarding the personal voice, speech, reason and therefore logic. I think this is a very effective proof. These logical methods are used to argue through many complex issues. The first, scientific demonstration, is used when experts accept the idea as truth. Dialectic argument is used when there is less certainty about the truth of the premise. The rhetorical method is used when the premise is a belief. And finally, false or contentious reasoning is used when the premise is based on a mistake or a lie. I find this appeal very influential on many levels. Using logic in this way to build an argument really provides a solid background of evidence. There is a lot that can be proved by supporting the topic thoroughly. I think that using this appeal correctly will produce a very effective argument.
Cicero
Cicero made his living as a lawyer. Good character was important to win a case for both the speaker and the client, so for the most part, Cicero lived a life of respect. His main claim to the development of rhetoric was the deliberative, forensic and ceremonial styles of writing. He also developed the five canons of rhetoric, invention, arrangement, style, memory and delivery. I find these canons remarkably straight forward. They are still very relevant today in creating a rhetorically effective piece. I find it interesting that rhetoric that was valid hundreds of years ago is still relevant today, even with such technological advancement.
Logos
The logical proof includes ideas regarding the personal voice, speech, reason and therefore logic. I think this is a very effective proof. These logical methods are used to argue through many complex issues. The first, scientific demonstration, is used when experts accept the idea as truth. Dialectic argument is used when there is less certainty about the truth of the premise. The rhetorical method is used when the premise is a belief. And finally, false or contentious reasoning is used when the premise is based on a mistake or a lie. I find this appeal very influential on many levels. Using logic in this way to build an argument really provides a solid background of evidence. There is a lot that can be proved by supporting the topic thoroughly. I think that using this appeal correctly will produce a very effective argument.
Cicero
Cicero made his living as a lawyer. Good character was important to win a case for both the speaker and the client, so for the most part, Cicero lived a life of respect. His main claim to the development of rhetoric was the deliberative, forensic and ceremonial styles of writing. He also developed the five canons of rhetoric, invention, arrangement, style, memory and delivery. I find these canons remarkably straight forward. They are still very relevant today in creating a rhetorically effective piece. I find it interesting that rhetoric that was valid hundreds of years ago is still relevant today, even with such technological advancement.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Reading Blog 3
ARCS Ch. 4 and RT, Aristotle pp. 169-240
I found the idea of commonplaces kind of interesting. Aristotle used two different kinds of topics for rhetoric. These included any arguments (common topics), or those that belonged to some field of argument (special topics). The common topics included topics of past, future and fact, greater or lesser and possibility. The first topic: conjecture (past, future, fact), are educated guesses that probably happened in the past or present and will take place in the future. I think this this concept is curious. Today, it seems that this information would never be enough to make a convincing argument. There usually needs to be a lot more physical evidence to be successful at persuading the opposing viewpoints. The second common topic is degree. Greater and lesser are relative to each other. This topic has a lot to do with values. Ancient rhetors agreed that goodness, justice, honor and expediency were common values. The topic can examine what values are 'greater or lesser' than others in each specific example. This concept makes me think about how different our values are to Americans today. Is honor and justice still one of the most valuable assets in society today? I think that times have changed a lot, the public now uses a different set of norms. And finally, the topic of possibility is used to see what is or isn't possible. This would be a good topic, however what is possible now may be more or less possible in the future. Possibilities are always changing.
Aristotle
I find the idea of artistic vs. nonartistic proofs very confusing. So, non artistic proofs don't need to be created, they are factual and from external sources; they use a system of logic, while the artistic proofs must create the argument and appeal to pathos, logos and ethos. I know that there are far less non artistic proofs, such as contracts and testimonies. But it seems as though almost everything needed to be a proof could be created. It seems as though it is a very subjective concept.
Aristotle
I find the idea of artistic vs. nonartistic proofs very confusing. So, non artistic proofs don't need to be created, they are factual and from external sources; they use a system of logic, while the artistic proofs must create the argument and appeal to pathos, logos and ethos. I know that there are far less non artistic proofs, such as contracts and testimonies. But it seems as though almost everything needed to be a proof could be created. It seems as though it is a very subjective concept.
Monday, September 5, 2011
Reading Blog 2
September 5, 2011.
ARCS Ch. 3 and RT, Plato pp. 80-168
The stasis theory is examined in chapter three. Stasis theory consists of where the rhetor takes a stand; it marks the place where two opposing forces come together and rest on a certain issue. An agreement to disagree is the main stance of the stasis theory. I find this very interesting because it is so true. To truly agree on something, in most cases, it takes many arguments to come to a compromise or understanding. It seems to me that every argument will end like this because usually compromises are hard to come by. Abortion is used as an active example throughout this chapter. The two sides consist of 'abortion is murder,' or 'abortion is not murder.' Of course there are going to be disagreeing opinions on this issue, especially since it involves the life or death of an unborn child. It is almost such a controversial issue that there isn't really a standing, no one really agrees to disagree, both sides believe they are right. There are four questions to analyze to help understand the situation. These include the conjecture, the definition of the act, the quality or seriousness of the act, and the policy and whether or not it will be submitted for a formal procedure. When analyzing a rhetorical text with opposing viewpoints, I will use this sequence of questions and the stasis theory to find a conclusion.
Plato:
I found it very interesting that Plato admitted women into his school. It almost surprises me that since Plato did that, women didn't gain rights until centuries later. His philosophical achievements were influential enough to influence scholars for years to come. I admire Plato's philosophy of rhetoric. He envisioned rhetoric as a discourse that is more analytic, objective and dialectical that delineates the truth behind appearances. He saw himself as didactic and not manipulative, shaping audiences for the better. Plato uses dialogs to get his point across. Gorgias looked at the value of rhetoric while Phaedrus looked at the distinction between knowledge and belief.
ARCS Ch. 3 and RT, Plato pp. 80-168
The stasis theory is examined in chapter three. Stasis theory consists of where the rhetor takes a stand; it marks the place where two opposing forces come together and rest on a certain issue. An agreement to disagree is the main stance of the stasis theory. I find this very interesting because it is so true. To truly agree on something, in most cases, it takes many arguments to come to a compromise or understanding. It seems to me that every argument will end like this because usually compromises are hard to come by. Abortion is used as an active example throughout this chapter. The two sides consist of 'abortion is murder,' or 'abortion is not murder.' Of course there are going to be disagreeing opinions on this issue, especially since it involves the life or death of an unborn child. It is almost such a controversial issue that there isn't really a standing, no one really agrees to disagree, both sides believe they are right. There are four questions to analyze to help understand the situation. These include the conjecture, the definition of the act, the quality or seriousness of the act, and the policy and whether or not it will be submitted for a formal procedure. When analyzing a rhetorical text with opposing viewpoints, I will use this sequence of questions and the stasis theory to find a conclusion.
Plato:
I found it very interesting that Plato admitted women into his school. It almost surprises me that since Plato did that, women didn't gain rights until centuries later. His philosophical achievements were influential enough to influence scholars for years to come. I admire Plato's philosophy of rhetoric. He envisioned rhetoric as a discourse that is more analytic, objective and dialectical that delineates the truth behind appearances. He saw himself as didactic and not manipulative, shaping audiences for the better. Plato uses dialogs to get his point across. Gorgias looked at the value of rhetoric while Phaedrus looked at the distinction between knowledge and belief.
Reading Blog 1
ARCS Ch. 2 and RT Intro to Part 1, Gorgias 42-46; Dissoi Logoi 47-55
I find kairos a very interesting concept. I think it is interesting when an idea which seems to be relevant today, doesn't translate into English. Kairos is a situational kind of time, or opportunity. I like that it can be described as a lengthy amount of time, or an eventful instant. The context and cultural influences have a big impact on kairos, as well as what is happening, time and place. On a side note- I love the concept of shared cultural information. To me, something that only makes sense to a certain culture really enhances the idea of community.
Plato's reaching truth is also very interesting. Especially the concept of 'Truth' and 'truth.' The Truth is external and discoverable. People need to find out what the listener is going to do with it. Could there be a potential threat with the knowledge of this Truth? It is more of an education. While truth is used in dialogs. It recognizes the imperfections, it is used as a basis on how to act, while creating and using the social construction of culture. This truth is completely subjective. It is a truth we create personally. I like the concept of two different truths. I think even today there are multiple kinds and should be defined that way. Especially with the differing subjective and objective opinions of so many people. Everyone's perception of the truth is different, this concept provides an opportunity for more of a agreement.
I find kairos a very interesting concept. I think it is interesting when an idea which seems to be relevant today, doesn't translate into English. Kairos is a situational kind of time, or opportunity. I like that it can be described as a lengthy amount of time, or an eventful instant. The context and cultural influences have a big impact on kairos, as well as what is happening, time and place. On a side note- I love the concept of shared cultural information. To me, something that only makes sense to a certain culture really enhances the idea of community.
Plato's reaching truth is also very interesting. Especially the concept of 'Truth' and 'truth.' The Truth is external and discoverable. People need to find out what the listener is going to do with it. Could there be a potential threat with the knowledge of this Truth? It is more of an education. While truth is used in dialogs. It recognizes the imperfections, it is used as a basis on how to act, while creating and using the social construction of culture. This truth is completely subjective. It is a truth we create personally. I like the concept of two different truths. I think even today there are multiple kinds and should be defined that way. Especially with the differing subjective and objective opinions of so many people. Everyone's perception of the truth is different, this concept provides an opportunity for more of a agreement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)