For this last blog entry, I found the readings to be really interesting in the term of rhetoric. First off, I found Stephen Toulmin very interesting in the sense that he wasn't actually at all interested in rhetoric when doing his work on argument. What I really enjoyed reading about Toulmin was his interested in data and warrant. Toulmin focuses more on "logic of arguments rather than of propositions." He goes on to continue in his piece The Uses of Argument that "model is to demonstrate, first, that most arguments have a more complex structure than the syllogism and, second, that the syllogism misrepresents the very nature of argument by its arbitrary restriction to a three part structure." (1410) After reading about Toulmin, I found it interesting to be reading about a man who really wasn't focused on rhetoric or the subject even, but making such a huge impact on the idea of that "knowledge is the product of argument." I enjoyed reading about Toulmin because his perspective and views are so different than many rhetoricians we have read about before. I did enjoy this part in the reading as well. "Indeed, Toulmin shows little interest in rhetoric as a subject. In his first book, An Examination of the Place of Reason in Ethics, he uses the term rhetoric to refer to emotional statements about ethical principles. In place of the terms rhetoric and argument, he clearly prefers the phrase practical reasoning." (14111)
Reading about someone who doesn't prefer the subject rhetoric, yet still manages to get his name in the giant Rhetorical Tradition textbook did something right in his life. I also really enjoyed reading about Michel Foucault as well. He came across as very philosophical as well as knowledgeable. In his reading, the one sentence that most stood out to be was the following: "Knowledge is created not by the act of observing, Foucault says, but through 'relations...between institutions, economic and social processes, behavioral patterns, systems of norms, techniques, types of classification, modes of characterization; and these relations are not present in the object." I found this extremely fascinating to read about because he is not just claiming we obtain knowledge through just seeing and living, but through observation. Through really identifying and looking at what could is. I believe that Foucault offers a new perspective on what we call rhetoric and these last readings were really interesting to see how even though certain arguments and techniques can be classified as rhetoric, they don't have to be rhetoric.
Sunday, November 30, 2014
Monday, November 17, 2014
Reading Response - Tuesday, Nov. 17
During this reading, I ended up focusing on Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. I found this most interesting, but honestly I have heard about Marxism but I would not be able to tell you what it actually is. I find this to be a big bummer. Now that it is my senior year, I would I go back and tell myself to remember important things like this because now I regret not knowing true and valuable information like this. But regardless of this, I found it interesting that basis of signs and that in regards to language.
On page 1210 it states the following: "Everything ideological possesses meaning: it represents, depicts, or stands for something lying outside of itself. In other words, it is a sign. Without signs, there is no ideology. A physical body equals itself, so to speak; it does not signify anything but wholly coincides with its particular given nature. In this case there is no question of ideology." (pg. 1210)
I found this paragraph very interesting at a reader because it is such a bizarre concept to think about. When thinking about everything, it is true that everything does have a sign. It also says, "Every sign is subject to the criteria of ideological evaluation (i.e. whether it is true, false, correct, fair, good, etc.). The domain of ideology coincides with the domain of signs They equate with one another. Wherever a sign is present, ideology is present, too." (pg. 1211) I just find this concepts to bizarre to wrap my head around. Marxism is such a huge part of our world and logic.
I feel as though rhetoric is interrelated in someway or another I find it hard to believe we haven't as a society put these pieces together yet. The world is such a large place, but yet we can somehow connect every thing to one another.
On page 1210 it states the following: "Everything ideological possesses meaning: it represents, depicts, or stands for something lying outside of itself. In other words, it is a sign. Without signs, there is no ideology. A physical body equals itself, so to speak; it does not signify anything but wholly coincides with its particular given nature. In this case there is no question of ideology." (pg. 1210)
I found this paragraph very interesting at a reader because it is such a bizarre concept to think about. When thinking about everything, it is true that everything does have a sign. It also says, "Every sign is subject to the criteria of ideological evaluation (i.e. whether it is true, false, correct, fair, good, etc.). The domain of ideology coincides with the domain of signs They equate with one another. Wherever a sign is present, ideology is present, too." (pg. 1211) I just find this concepts to bizarre to wrap my head around. Marxism is such a huge part of our world and logic.
I feel as though rhetoric is interrelated in someway or another I find it hard to believe we haven't as a society put these pieces together yet. The world is such a large place, but yet we can somehow connect every thing to one another.
Wednesday, November 12, 2014
Reading Response to Tuesday the 11th, for Thursday Class?
I didn't really know what to read for Thursday, since there were readings for Tuesday too, so I am just going to talk about Tuesday's readings for Thursday!
The most interesting thing I found was in our Rhetoric Tradition was on page 988 about the nineteenth century America and really some of the first times that Protestant women spoke out. The paragraph reads, "the tendency for Protestant women to speak out on public issues gave rise to sustained political movement conducted by women, a movement that began in public social action against slavery and expanded into a campaign for broad agenda of civil rights." Later on in the paragraph it says, "People of color, previously largely excluded from rhetorical tradition defined as white as well as male, would not simply imitate white rhetoric but would develop their own ways of using language for public action..."
After reading this paragraph, it made me really reexamine why I am in deciding to take this route of rhetoric and why I enjoy this major so much. Rhetoric is such a universal concept that it is so hard not to be happy thinking about it. It is the one thing that allows everyone to connect. After reading that last sentence that I quoted above, I found it so cool that people of color could develop their own ways and methods. Which all makes total sense because there are so many different cultures and practices out in the world that it is cool that rhetoric can be different too.
Rhetoric is so universal, yet such special thing. Regardless of text or oral, we are all using words and a type of vernacular to express our emotions and feelings and thoughts and persuasions. It is such a cool idea that people overlook so easily. I even overlook it and I am practicing this major everyday. Rhetoric is a unique thing and I am happy to see that the world we live in is able to express it differently in other parts of the world.
The most interesting thing I found was in our Rhetoric Tradition was on page 988 about the nineteenth century America and really some of the first times that Protestant women spoke out. The paragraph reads, "the tendency for Protestant women to speak out on public issues gave rise to sustained political movement conducted by women, a movement that began in public social action against slavery and expanded into a campaign for broad agenda of civil rights." Later on in the paragraph it says, "People of color, previously largely excluded from rhetorical tradition defined as white as well as male, would not simply imitate white rhetoric but would develop their own ways of using language for public action..."
After reading this paragraph, it made me really reexamine why I am in deciding to take this route of rhetoric and why I enjoy this major so much. Rhetoric is such a universal concept that it is so hard not to be happy thinking about it. It is the one thing that allows everyone to connect. After reading that last sentence that I quoted above, I found it so cool that people of color could develop their own ways and methods. Which all makes total sense because there are so many different cultures and practices out in the world that it is cool that rhetoric can be different too.
Rhetoric is so universal, yet such special thing. Regardless of text or oral, we are all using words and a type of vernacular to express our emotions and feelings and thoughts and persuasions. It is such a cool idea that people overlook so easily. I even overlook it and I am practicing this major everyday. Rhetoric is a unique thing and I am happy to see that the world we live in is able to express it differently in other parts of the world.
Wednesday, November 5, 2014
Reading Response - November 5th
I found it interesting about everything that makes up style. Between composition and ornament alone, there is so much involved with it. It basically takes everything we learned from kindergarten through high school and puts a rhetorician's twist on it. I am just in shock that how much there is to an argument. I mean, I know I have successfully won arguments that inquire screaming and yelling, but I have won. I know I am not proud of it, because I wish I relayed off valid points and won my argument through fact and knowledge, not screaming and yelling. But after reading this chapter, it makes a lot of sense that any argument requires style. Such as a lawyer, needs to have an opening argument and closing argument. However, I do feel like a lot of these are great for maneuvering and not per say tricking your audience, but persuading them without really persuading them.
Such as, the term metonomy. "Metonomy, 'altered name,' names something with a word or phrase closely associate with with it: 'the White House' for the president of the United States or 'the Kremlin' for the leadership of the former Union of Socialist Soviet Republics." By using this strategy, you are using word association to persuade your audience. Or another word trick would be the use of hyperbaton. "Hyperbaton is the transposition of a word to somewhere other than its usual place." I liked what Quintilian said about hyperbaton. "But, as Quintilian noted, it can be called a trope when 'the meaning is not complete until the two words have been put together.'" I found this interesting because it seems very true.
I enjoyed reading this types of new strategic word associations. I am still just mind blown. This chapter was a lot longer than I anticipated. So who knew there would be so much to style of persuasion.
Such as, the term metonomy. "Metonomy, 'altered name,' names something with a word or phrase closely associate with with it: 'the White House' for the president of the United States or 'the Kremlin' for the leadership of the former Union of Socialist Soviet Republics." By using this strategy, you are using word association to persuade your audience. Or another word trick would be the use of hyperbaton. "Hyperbaton is the transposition of a word to somewhere other than its usual place." I liked what Quintilian said about hyperbaton. "But, as Quintilian noted, it can be called a trope when 'the meaning is not complete until the two words have been put together.'" I found this interesting because it seems very true.
I enjoyed reading this types of new strategic word associations. I am still just mind blown. This chapter was a lot longer than I anticipated. So who knew there would be so much to style of persuasion.
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
Essay #2
What’s better: Oral or Print?
Aristotle, Cicero, Quintilian. All classical thinkers, all responsible with creating the basis of rhetoric. Aristotle, a man of wit, created the basis for what rhetoric is today. Cicero then showed up and became one of the most significant rhetoricians of all time. Cicero took the writings of past rhetoricians and became a renown orator and writing of rhetoric. Cicero was the first to introduce and set a new standard of rhetorician to be well-versed in multiple branches, not just persuasion. Quintilian then polished some ideas of an orator to become active, virtuous, and a well minded and public citizen. He changed the concepts of rhetoric and turned into a lifestyle. So how did that change of from print and text to oral speech affect people and their thoughts behind rhetoric? Overall, it would be believed that oral can be more effective in certain situations, while text can be effective in other ways. However, text articles can relay facts quickly, without distractions, while oral speech, such as a news casts can give off multiple aspects, including an emotional appeal to viewers as well as many different facets of news. So, depending on the issue will dictate the relationship and compel the audience to relate to the speech or text in a different ways.
Currently, the United States has been stuck with the well known virus called Ebola. Ebola is a “rare and deadly disease caused by infection with one of the Ebola virus strains.” (CDC) The article then continues on to explain the origin of the virus. “Ebola viruses are found in several African countries. Ebola was first discovered in 1976 near the Ebola River in what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo.” (CDC) Since the outbreak the USA has seen six outbreak of Ebola, with only one fatality. According to the text article that Forbes Magazine has produced, says that the worst possible scenario for the United States is becoming less and less each day. “With no more U.S. Ebola patients and no more deaths, that worst-case scenario begins to look more and more unlikely. And the best-case scenario - that the United States has weathered a public heath crisis and will be stronger for it - is starting to become more realistic, too” (Diamond) With the optimism that Forbes is producing, the text of this article seems calm and relays the message that the United States in strong. Concluding the article, Forbes continues to express concern that Ebola is still not going away. “Tens of thousands remain sick or at risk in West Africa, and the longer there’s an Ebola hotspot on any part of the globe, the worse it will be for the rest of the world.” (Diamond) By stating such a powerful accusation, Forbes uses certain rhetoric techniques, such as ethos and logos to convince the reader the strength and power behind the deadly virus. Forbes then ends the article by saying this: “Ebola came to America. And America is beating Ebola back.” (Diamond) With this window of truth, the message is strong and clear to any reader that Ebola is losing the fight and America is coming back swinging. The message of this article seems fit and clear dictating the reader to assume optimism in the fight against Ebola, in addition to relaying credible information. With only text, the reader can pick up on the context of the article without feeling the massive landslide of emotion, as well as learning more factual information. All text base articles only carry one main purpose, which is to inform the readers about news and give their audience as much information as they can. With this being said, print and text articles can mandate how a reader can conclude an article.
After proving that the main feature of a text article is to relay facts as quickly as possible, an oral speech varies, but usually zooms in more on the emotional appeal or also known as pathos. Although it does carry ethos, like any news story should, the emotional response is what draws the viewer back time and time again. A short clip posted by CNN on October 19, 2014, answers some the United States’ questions about decontamination for Ebola. Erick McCallum, Owner of CG Environment, otherwise known as the “Cleaning Guys” are put on the case of decontaminating the apartment of deceased Ebola victim Thomas Eric Duncan, along with taking care of Bentley, the dog of nurse Nina Pham, who was recently just cleared of Ebola. With this short four minute and forty-second clip, the audience is introduced to how the decontamination process works. CNN anchor asks McCallum a serious of questions about the decontamination process, what they must do and how the company handles it emotionally. In this video, both anchor and McCallum resume serious faces and genuine voices, letting the audience know that the topic of discussion is severe. While the two are conversing, the clip is also showing a silent clip on the other half of the screen of two employees of McCallum’s that are cleaning the apartment. Among the images that are being displayed, these employee’s are in full body, yellow hazmat suits transporting tightly wrapped objects and boxes that were in the apartment with the potential risk of Ebola on them. After the decontamination process was explained, the anchor also asks about Bentley and then show pictures of the dog in a quarantined area, unable to go outside. By using these almost Hollywood like pictures, the use of pathos taps into the audiences emotional appeal. Examining the facial features as well as the tone of their voices of the two gentlemen, plus CNN bringing pictures of Nina Pham’s dog, and showing clips of the deceased victim’s apartment, the entire clip is using pathos to show the severity of the situation. By using pathos, the persuasion is at full swing, bring back the viewers at a later time for more information about the disease. This video is a representation of the seriousness behind the issue and has many more facets than a print article does.
Another example of extremely well played commercial that uses all three of Aristotle’s persuasion techniques is the oral speech of Sarah McLachlan’s ASPCA animal cruelty commercials. The use of dismal music, the pictures of dozens of hurt animals, and her popular reputation is the perfect use of ethos, pathos and logos. By using pathos, the commercial tunes into people’s emotional and sympathetic side for animals by going straight for their heart strings. Sarah McLachlan, a singer who is very well known for her emotional songs such as “I Will Remember You,” played into the commercial very well, due to her solid reputation for being soft hearted. By using her, people were more likely to view the commercial giving it creditability. While she is speaking, the audience is viewing many pictures of abused animals. By the end of the commercial and combining ethos and pathos, McLachlan asks for a donation for ASPCA to help these animals find loving homes which could easily appear as logos. Asking for donations, especially for injured animals appears logical to any viewer. This particular commercial uses all three techniques to a tee which ended up raising over 30 million dollars in the first year. (New York Times) However, the commercial does not give the audience any statistical information, like a text article would. If the ASPCA was trying to write a formal article, their only source would be that of logos, which would be proven through studies and surveys and giving correct numbers to their readers. Without the use of ethos and pathos, it could be predicted that the ASPCA would not have earned as much as they did with the commercial.
After viewing Aristotle’s techniques of persuasion, (ethos, pathos, and logos) it could be stated that depending on the audience, if they are readers or viewers, will dictate how text or oral speech will effect them. If the audience tends to be readers, articles of text will do more using ethos and logos and giving them facts fast. If the audience tends to be viewers, all three will suffice. In the end, depending on the issue at hand will direct the audience to what will be more effective for them personally.
Works Cited
"About Ebola Virus Disease." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 3 Oct. 2014. Web. 4 Nov. 2014. <http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/about.html>.
Diamond, Dan. "America Is Beating Ebola: Every Patient Taken To An Elite U.S. Facility Has Survived." Forbes 23 Oct. 2014. Print.
Strom, Stephanie. "Ad Featuring Singer Proves Bonanza for the A.S.P.C.A." The New York Times 25 Dec. 2008. Web. 28 Oct. 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/26/us/26charity.html?_r=1&>.
What It Takes to Keep Ebola Under Control. CNN.com, 2014. Film.
Thursday, October 30, 2014
Reading Response to 10/30
I really enjoyed reading about John Locke. Obviously, being known as the "Father of the Enlightenment Period" he really contributed to a lot of the philosophical thinkers. I enjoyed reading about his philosophy because he looks at knowledge in a new light.
"Locke's philosophy, which follows Bacon and the experimental scientists, searches for truth in the physical world and attempts to understand knowledge as a psychological phenomenon. This perspective stands opposed to the traditional doctrines of received truth, innate ideas, and the presumption that direct knowledge is available through revelation or perception."
I believe that Locke's philosophy says a lot about the depth Locke's thoughts. "We have direct knowledge only of our own ideas," which is absolutely true. Its basically the same idea that we can only control what we do and not what others do around us. By understanding this knowledge Locke does unleashes a new set of ideas and thoughts which end up make a very effective presence later in twentieth century.
His theory on Reflection was also very interesting. "Reflection is the act of relating our ideas to one another, forming mental associations, and examining the mental processes which we are aware: thinking, doubting, believing, and so on. These operations of the faculty of understanding are the source of all our knowledge. " And although, this thought has always been used, Locke finally recognizes outside of the motion of thought. I really like that Locke uses words and languages in his arguments and theories.
Even though his reading was shorter than the others, he challenged my thinking more than past rhetoricians have.
"Locke's philosophy, which follows Bacon and the experimental scientists, searches for truth in the physical world and attempts to understand knowledge as a psychological phenomenon. This perspective stands opposed to the traditional doctrines of received truth, innate ideas, and the presumption that direct knowledge is available through revelation or perception."
I believe that Locke's philosophy says a lot about the depth Locke's thoughts. "We have direct knowledge only of our own ideas," which is absolutely true. Its basically the same idea that we can only control what we do and not what others do around us. By understanding this knowledge Locke does unleashes a new set of ideas and thoughts which end up make a very effective presence later in twentieth century.
His theory on Reflection was also very interesting. "Reflection is the act of relating our ideas to one another, forming mental associations, and examining the mental processes which we are aware: thinking, doubting, believing, and so on. These operations of the faculty of understanding are the source of all our knowledge. " And although, this thought has always been used, Locke finally recognizes outside of the motion of thought. I really like that Locke uses words and languages in his arguments and theories.
Even though his reading was shorter than the others, he challenged my thinking more than past rhetoricians have.
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
Reading Response for October 23rd
I believe that if Madeleine de Scudery were alive today, we would be friends. I found her extremely fascinating with her feminist outlooks and thoughts on many issues. Although she wasn't as "polished" as many rhetoricians thought she should of been, she still believed in the woman's voice, which you don't see a lot of during the Renaissance. These novels that she produced were strong, determined and portrayed a loud voice of a proud woman. She reminds me a lot of the woman in the Titanic, Molly Brown (who is played by Kathy Bates) who speaks up for women and their rights. Again, like I said in the last blog, it is very refreshing to see a woman in the field of rhetoricians and see her getting praised for the work she has done. It seems to rare in a world that men ruled for such a long time.
I enjoyed that Madame de Rambouillet invented the "salon." I felt as though it allowed some fun because it seems so rare in those times. Things were serious and always down to business, that women never knew fun until the salon. The following passage is what makes me believe that de Scudery and me would be friends: "To enter salon society, one should be able to behave like a salon denizen and be witty, imaginative, urbane, and above all, verbally adapted in both writing and speech. (...) One must not monopolize the conversation - indeed, no faux pas was worse than insisting on one's on point of view to the exclusion of all others' - but also, one must never be at a loss for words. Madeleine de Scudery won instant acceptance in this milieu." (761)
By reading her story, Madeleine de Scudery presents a woman of strength and outright dominance and I appreciate reading about her and what she represents for women rhetoricians, past, present and future.
In the reading for ARCS, I thought that the chapter on arrangement was very interesting. I really enjoyed that the way an argument is presented can make a difference in the outcome. I also thought that Aristotle in absolutely nuts in his logic sometimes because the guy doesn't even take into consideration other's work and it is always his way or the highway. I know he is a classical thinker, so don't think I was judging the guy and claiming that his arguments are false, but my god, he is crazy. Any who, the more I read, the more I begin to comprehend Cicero was among one of the first to take rhetoric and form it into what it should be.
I enjoyed that Madame de Rambouillet invented the "salon." I felt as though it allowed some fun because it seems so rare in those times. Things were serious and always down to business, that women never knew fun until the salon. The following passage is what makes me believe that de Scudery and me would be friends: "To enter salon society, one should be able to behave like a salon denizen and be witty, imaginative, urbane, and above all, verbally adapted in both writing and speech. (...) One must not monopolize the conversation - indeed, no faux pas was worse than insisting on one's on point of view to the exclusion of all others' - but also, one must never be at a loss for words. Madeleine de Scudery won instant acceptance in this milieu." (761)
By reading her story, Madeleine de Scudery presents a woman of strength and outright dominance and I appreciate reading about her and what she represents for women rhetoricians, past, present and future.
In the reading for ARCS, I thought that the chapter on arrangement was very interesting. I really enjoyed that the way an argument is presented can make a difference in the outcome. I also thought that Aristotle in absolutely nuts in his logic sometimes because the guy doesn't even take into consideration other's work and it is always his way or the highway. I know he is a classical thinker, so don't think I was judging the guy and claiming that his arguments are false, but my god, he is crazy. Any who, the more I read, the more I begin to comprehend Cicero was among one of the first to take rhetoric and form it into what it should be.
Monday, October 20, 2014
Reading Response for 10/21
I felt that is was very refreshing to read about a woman involved in rhetoric. I am not some huge feminist, but I do believe in women's rights and that women should be treated equally so it was nice to hear that coming from a woman that was so heavily involved in the world of the rhetorics.
First of all, I found it very interesting that Quaker women were among the first to speak out and give an opinion. I had no idea that the Quaker women had made such an impact in the world of public social issues and social-activism. Margaret Fell made an impact on the history for women and making a trail for these women to engage in a man's world.
I do feel very grateful for Fell's presence in this world, however I am not a huge fan on the religious front. Fell used religion to help guide her through into speaking publicly. Given, at the time, it was very hard for women to speak their minds due to the role that men so heavily played in society, so I don't blame her for that. However, I am not a fan of people who try and push their religion on other. I do know that the Quaker society is a religious bunch, so that makes sense, however, it just doesn't sit well with me overall on that front.
Overall, Fell made an impact on rhetoric history so I found it refreshing to see a woman make a stand.
Thomas Wilson, also another refreshing read. Although he does spend a lot of time reiterating Aristotle and Cicero, it feels nice to read someone who was respectful, unlike Ramus from last week's reading. I found it nice that Wilson expands on these practices, questions them and also answers the questions for future readers, unlike Aristotle who just left.
In the reading it says this: 'The five-part structure is, of course, drawn from classical rhetoric, but Wilson's work goes further beyond translation and paraphrase than other rhetorics of the period do."
This was, in fact, was extremely helpful in for us as the reader's because it doesn't allow us just to interpret their information, but actually gives us an answer. In the end though, Wilson does the same thing every other rhetoric does though and reiterates the classical thinkers and turns it into his own.
First of all, I found it very interesting that Quaker women were among the first to speak out and give an opinion. I had no idea that the Quaker women had made such an impact in the world of public social issues and social-activism. Margaret Fell made an impact on the history for women and making a trail for these women to engage in a man's world.
I do feel very grateful for Fell's presence in this world, however I am not a huge fan on the religious front. Fell used religion to help guide her through into speaking publicly. Given, at the time, it was very hard for women to speak their minds due to the role that men so heavily played in society, so I don't blame her for that. However, I am not a fan of people who try and push their religion on other. I do know that the Quaker society is a religious bunch, so that makes sense, however, it just doesn't sit well with me overall on that front.
Overall, Fell made an impact on rhetoric history so I found it refreshing to see a woman make a stand.
Thomas Wilson, also another refreshing read. Although he does spend a lot of time reiterating Aristotle and Cicero, it feels nice to read someone who was respectful, unlike Ramus from last week's reading. I found it nice that Wilson expands on these practices, questions them and also answers the questions for future readers, unlike Aristotle who just left.
In the reading it says this: 'The five-part structure is, of course, drawn from classical rhetoric, but Wilson's work goes further beyond translation and paraphrase than other rhetorics of the period do."
This was, in fact, was extremely helpful in for us as the reader's because it doesn't allow us just to interpret their information, but actually gives us an answer. In the end though, Wilson does the same thing every other rhetoric does though and reiterates the classical thinkers and turns it into his own.
Thursday, October 16, 2014
Response to readings 10/16
So after reading about Peter or Petrus Ramus and Renaissance Rhetoric, one thing that stood out to me most was my grown hatred for Peter. I really disagree with the way that he work and his concepts about rhetoric. I felt as though he did not appreciate the work of the classical thinkers and honestly, I think that is really lame.
Aristotle, Socrates, Cicero and Quintilian (to name just a few) I believe were the basis in creating rhetoric... So I guess I have a hard time understanding why Ramus can just all of the sudden enter into the world and think his way of thinking is better than theirs? First off, he obviously based a lot of his information off of their thinking, because his idea's needed to come from somewhere.
However, don't get me wrong. I understand that Ramus comes from a more modern time than classical thinkers named above, however, I don't believe it is fair for him to attack Quintilian's work. I understand if there were certain ideas or concepts to disagree with, but to blatantly attack is unjust.
Also, on page 678, it states the following: "Having thus severely limited rhetoric's domain, Ramus is prepared to prove his chief accusation against Quintilian: that his advice on invention and arrangement is useless. Rhetoric without philosophical content cannot, of course, contribute to much to invention and arrangement, but this idea serves Ramus's purpose making it necessary to turn to dialectic (his method) for help with invention, arrangement, and also memory."
I have a hard time understanding this because I feel when using Rhetoric, being able to associate pathos, ethos, and logos should be required to prove your points. Overall, I really just did not like Ramus and his way of rhetoric. Insulting and attacking the basis of his argument seems backwards.
Monday, October 13, 2014
Final Speech
Ancient Speech:
Parts 18-21
This, however, I do feel first of all — that friendship cannot exist except among good men; nor do I go into that too deeply,15 as is done by those16 who, in discussing this point with more than usual accuracy, and it may be correctly, but with too little view to practical results, say that no one is good unless he is wise. We may grant that; but they understand wisdom to be a thing such as no mortal man has yet attained.17 I, however, am bound to look at things as they are in the experience of everyday life and not as they are in fancy or in hope. Never could I say that Gaius Fabricius, Manius Curius, and Tiberius Coruncanius, whom our ancestors adjudged to be wise, were wise by such a standard as that. p129Therefore, let the Sophists keep their unpopular18 and unintelligible word to themselves, granting only that the men just named were good men. They will not do it though; they will say that goodness can be predicated only of the "wise" man. 19 Let us then proceed "with our own dull wits," as the saying is. Those who so act and so live as to give proof of loyalty and uprightness, of fairness and generosity; who are free from all passion, caprice, and insolence, and have great strength of character — men like those just mentioned — such men let us consider good, as they were accounted good in life, and also entitled to be called by that term because, in as far as that is possible for man, they follow Nature, who is the best guide to good living.
For it seems clear to me that we were so created that between us all there exists a certain tie which strengthens with our proximity to each other. Therefore, fellow countrymen are preferred to foreigners and relatives19a to strangers, for with them Nature herself engenders friendship, but it is one that is lacking in constancy. For friendship excels relationship19b in this, that goodwill may be eliminated from relationship while from friendship it cannot; since, if you remove goodwill from friendship the very name of friendship is gone; if you remove it from relationship, the name of relationship still remains. 20 Moreover, how great the power of friendship is may most clearly be recognized from the fact that, in comparison with the infinite ties uniting the human race and fashioned by Nature herself, this thing called friendship has been so narrowed that the bonds of affection always united two persons only, or, at most, a few.
p131 6 For friendship is nothing else than an accord in all things, human and divine, conjoined with mutual goodwill and affection, and I am inclined to think that, with the exception of wisdom, no better thing has been given to man by the immortal gods. Some prefer riches, some good health, some power, some public honours, and many even prefer sensual pleasures. This last is the highest aim of brutes; the others are fleeting and unstable things and dependent less upon human foresight than upon the fickleness of fortune. Again, there are those who place the "chief good" in virtue and that is really a noble view; but this very virtue is the parent and preserver of friendship and without virtue friendship cannot exist at all. 21 To proceed then, let us interpret the word "virtue" by the familiar usage of our everyday life and speech, and not in pompous phrase apply to it the precise standards which certain philosophers use; and let us include in the number of good men those who are so considered — men like Paulus, Cato, Gallus, Scipio, and Philus — who satisfy the ordinary standard of life; but let us pass by such men as are nowhere to be found at all.20
My Imitatio:
First of all, let me start off saying that this is a real issue. Obesity does not exist just among the United States, it exists everywhere and it can happen to anyone. It can be an addiction, and it can take over someone’s wellbeing. It surrounds us and yet we are too okay with it. We see and experience it all around us, but do nothing about it. So let us make a change. Let those McDonald and Taco Bell fast food chains think you are unpopular because you won’t choose to eat there anymore. Their food is filled with preservatives and saturated fats and you much rather consume home grown greens and vitamins. However, don’t get me wrong, they will still try to persuade you to buy their food. With commercials on every channel of TV and the convenience that they offer, they will fight for you and will try to win you back. But, we are stronger than that. So let me proceed “with the unpopular choice” by saying this: Those who act and live to prove that they are head strong and determined, willing to fight for a healthy lifestyle, and are free from caring what other people think, are the people we should listen too. The people who fight for the feeling of confidence in themselves, feeling beautiful and feeling determined to never give up a lifestyle they know is right. These people are the ones that have the best guide to good living. The ones that strive to live a healthy life.
“For it seems to clear to me that we were created that between us all there exists a certain tie which strengthens with our proximity to each other.” (Cicero) Therefore, my fellow students, we should prefer living an active and healthy lifestyle together. Because our generation is what excels the norm. We surpass the older generations and create higher standards for younger ones. We are considered to be the “failed” generation; the one’s who depend too heavily on technology to survive. Well, so what if we do this? We should take these things that supposedly ruined us and let it help create us instead. Help us become a better and more advanced society than the standard our parents left behind. So let us take this advantage we have and make it grow. By combining the ties that we all share, we can strengthen and develop healthy lifestyles.
For a healthy and active lifestyle is nothing else than just a habit. I am inclined to think that we are given a body to live in, so why not take the best care of it that we can so it can keep giving back to us? For us to excel and conquer and live to our fullest potentials. If we are weighed down by unnecessary fat, our body will not function at it’s best, cheating us from years of life, those years of adventure. Some prefer money, some prefer material items, some prefer food. But preferring a healthy lifestyle is what will get you past the rest of those preferences and into the ones that count, the good ones. Without a body to rely on, you won’t be able to get that six figure salary or that car you always dreamed of. So let us reflect on our everyday habits and lifestyle. Let us realize the balance of exercise, diet and being happy that comes along with choosing this lifestyle and let us realize that this body you are living in now, is the only one that you have. There are no second chances, just blessings and good health.
So the next time you pass McDonald’s or Taco Bell, consider if that is the best way you can live a healthy lifestyle. Will your body thank you once you have eaten it? Your tastes bud might, but your brain will not.
"Laelius on Friendship Parts 18-21." Laelius De Amicitia by Cicero. 17 Nov. 2013. Web. 12 Sept. 2014. <http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cicero/Laelius_de_Amicitia/text*.html>.
Reflection to Imitatio:
Reflection to Imitatio’s
Throughout the last four to five weeks, Professor Condon kept reminding us about this Imitatio speech. In my head I kept thinking, “Oh, this won’t be that bad. It’s just taking a speech and translating it into something different. Simple enough, no problem.” I found a speech by Cicero on friendship, which in Latin translates to Laelius de Amicitia. After about an hour of research and thought that the speech was ideal for my Imitatio, I read through the stanzas until I settled on stanzas 18-21. From that point on, I didn’t think much of it, falsely imagining I have this Imitatio in the bag. The weeks went by until about Thursday the eighteenth when we went over the prompt in class. My initial thought about the project being easy, dramatically shifted into “I am extremely confused” and the stress of the project became extreme.
Once I read Cicero’s few stanza’s on friendship about 100 times, I finally thought that I should sit down and write the speech. I am very passionate about living a very active and healthy lifestyle, so I knew that choosing that topic would be very easy due to it being so present in my every day life. One of the most difficult aspects I found in this project was literally just getting started. I spent more than just a few minutes staring at my computer screen, wondering how I should go about dissecting this speech written by a man of rhetoric. Cicero, being a man of philosophy, law and politics, as well as an orator, was best known for the pieces of literature that he produced over the years. By trying to understand and learn how his writing style was structured, the idea of trying to create and mimic his strategies behind his friendship speech was very difficult. I felt as though my topic of Imitatio did not match up as well I had hoped. I considered trying to look for another speech that would be more consistent with the idea of my speech. I searched for awhile, striking out on every speech I came across. (Looking for rhetoric speeches is harder than I imagined.) So finally, after procrastinating for as long as I did, I just decided to write it.
While composing my Imitatio, I attempted to parallel with Cicero’s speech. For example in the second stanza of my speech I addressed my “fellow students” like Cicero addressed his “fellow countrymen.” However, the longer I tested that theory, the harder it became. I continued to try to use very similar wording and structure that he did, however, with the way things were translated into English it did not come out making sense. Understanding what he was trying to say made sense, however, word choice among sentence structure did not, so that made creating my speech difficult.
During Cicero’s speech, he tried to go back and forth to state both sides of the argument, as well as give credit to the one’s surrounding him in society. That was hard to execute well due to a couple of different reasons. One, I don’t believe that my topic worked well with the structure that Cicero used. The contemporary issue that I used could be considered internal, meaning that this is an independent issue and you cannot reel others into what you consume and how much you exercise. His speech on friendship considered many outsiders and became dependent on others to talk about in his speech. Furthermore, I believe that the difference in writing skill also played a part. Cicero again, was a professional at public speaking and writing, so trying to match up with his skill level seemed tough right out of the gate. However, as soon I got over the hump of following Cicero’s speech pattern, creating my speech easily spilled out all over the page. I was able to become consistent enough with Cicero, evening taking quotes from his speech and adding them into my mine.
After doing the assignment and now reflecting upon it, there are a few things that I learned from the ancient rhetoric. I am happy I live in the days we do now, because we are able to express ourselves more freely than they were able to. Cicero was looked upon as being a man of high value and high profession, so he had a harder time stating his opinion if it was not already pre-approved by other politicians in that system. The majority of his writing had a political undertone, so Cicero always had to make a choice in his argument and stick too it. Also, grammatically speaking, the difference in sentence structure and context is huge! I found that many sentences of Cicero’s were long and very drawn out. If speaking in public, that would be extremely hard to talk that long without a slight pause. I found it hard to keep writing sentences without the urge to use some sort of punctuation.
In the end, once I was able to get over the difficulty of initially starting the process, I enjoyed writing about an issue that I cared about. Studying and dissecting Cicero’s speech on friendship taught me about the structure and context of the ancient rhetorics. The lack of structure from the assignment created a challenge for all of us, which was actually something I enjoyed once the process was over. I enjoyed hearing the differences in speeches among each student and what speech those chose to mock. Overall, it was a hard assignment, but taught many things about the ancient rhetorics and turned out very rewarding in the end.
Parts 18-21
This, however, I do feel first of all — that friendship cannot exist except among good men; nor do I go into that too deeply,15 as is done by those16 who, in discussing this point with more than usual accuracy, and it may be correctly, but with too little view to practical results, say that no one is good unless he is wise. We may grant that; but they understand wisdom to be a thing such as no mortal man has yet attained.17 I, however, am bound to look at things as they are in the experience of everyday life and not as they are in fancy or in hope. Never could I say that Gaius Fabricius, Manius Curius, and Tiberius Coruncanius, whom our ancestors adjudged to be wise, were wise by such a standard as that. p129Therefore, let the Sophists keep their unpopular18 and unintelligible word to themselves, granting only that the men just named were good men. They will not do it though; they will say that goodness can be predicated only of the "wise" man. 19 Let us then proceed "with our own dull wits," as the saying is. Those who so act and so live as to give proof of loyalty and uprightness, of fairness and generosity; who are free from all passion, caprice, and insolence, and have great strength of character — men like those just mentioned — such men let us consider good, as they were accounted good in life, and also entitled to be called by that term because, in as far as that is possible for man, they follow Nature, who is the best guide to good living.
For it seems clear to me that we were so created that between us all there exists a certain tie which strengthens with our proximity to each other. Therefore, fellow countrymen are preferred to foreigners and relatives19a to strangers, for with them Nature herself engenders friendship, but it is one that is lacking in constancy. For friendship excels relationship19b in this, that goodwill may be eliminated from relationship while from friendship it cannot; since, if you remove goodwill from friendship the very name of friendship is gone; if you remove it from relationship, the name of relationship still remains. 20 Moreover, how great the power of friendship is may most clearly be recognized from the fact that, in comparison with the infinite ties uniting the human race and fashioned by Nature herself, this thing called friendship has been so narrowed that the bonds of affection always united two persons only, or, at most, a few.
p131 6 For friendship is nothing else than an accord in all things, human and divine, conjoined with mutual goodwill and affection, and I am inclined to think that, with the exception of wisdom, no better thing has been given to man by the immortal gods. Some prefer riches, some good health, some power, some public honours, and many even prefer sensual pleasures. This last is the highest aim of brutes; the others are fleeting and unstable things and dependent less upon human foresight than upon the fickleness of fortune. Again, there are those who place the "chief good" in virtue and that is really a noble view; but this very virtue is the parent and preserver of friendship and without virtue friendship cannot exist at all. 21 To proceed then, let us interpret the word "virtue" by the familiar usage of our everyday life and speech, and not in pompous phrase apply to it the precise standards which certain philosophers use; and let us include in the number of good men those who are so considered — men like Paulus, Cato, Gallus, Scipio, and Philus — who satisfy the ordinary standard of life; but let us pass by such men as are nowhere to be found at all.20
My Imitatio:
First of all, let me start off saying that this is a real issue. Obesity does not exist just among the United States, it exists everywhere and it can happen to anyone. It can be an addiction, and it can take over someone’s wellbeing. It surrounds us and yet we are too okay with it. We see and experience it all around us, but do nothing about it. So let us make a change. Let those McDonald and Taco Bell fast food chains think you are unpopular because you won’t choose to eat there anymore. Their food is filled with preservatives and saturated fats and you much rather consume home grown greens and vitamins. However, don’t get me wrong, they will still try to persuade you to buy their food. With commercials on every channel of TV and the convenience that they offer, they will fight for you and will try to win you back. But, we are stronger than that. So let me proceed “with the unpopular choice” by saying this: Those who act and live to prove that they are head strong and determined, willing to fight for a healthy lifestyle, and are free from caring what other people think, are the people we should listen too. The people who fight for the feeling of confidence in themselves, feeling beautiful and feeling determined to never give up a lifestyle they know is right. These people are the ones that have the best guide to good living. The ones that strive to live a healthy life.
“For it seems to clear to me that we were created that between us all there exists a certain tie which strengthens with our proximity to each other.” (Cicero) Therefore, my fellow students, we should prefer living an active and healthy lifestyle together. Because our generation is what excels the norm. We surpass the older generations and create higher standards for younger ones. We are considered to be the “failed” generation; the one’s who depend too heavily on technology to survive. Well, so what if we do this? We should take these things that supposedly ruined us and let it help create us instead. Help us become a better and more advanced society than the standard our parents left behind. So let us take this advantage we have and make it grow. By combining the ties that we all share, we can strengthen and develop healthy lifestyles.
For a healthy and active lifestyle is nothing else than just a habit. I am inclined to think that we are given a body to live in, so why not take the best care of it that we can so it can keep giving back to us? For us to excel and conquer and live to our fullest potentials. If we are weighed down by unnecessary fat, our body will not function at it’s best, cheating us from years of life, those years of adventure. Some prefer money, some prefer material items, some prefer food. But preferring a healthy lifestyle is what will get you past the rest of those preferences and into the ones that count, the good ones. Without a body to rely on, you won’t be able to get that six figure salary or that car you always dreamed of. So let us reflect on our everyday habits and lifestyle. Let us realize the balance of exercise, diet and being happy that comes along with choosing this lifestyle and let us realize that this body you are living in now, is the only one that you have. There are no second chances, just blessings and good health.
So the next time you pass McDonald’s or Taco Bell, consider if that is the best way you can live a healthy lifestyle. Will your body thank you once you have eaten it? Your tastes bud might, but your brain will not.
"Laelius on Friendship Parts 18-21." Laelius De Amicitia by Cicero. 17 Nov. 2013. Web. 12 Sept. 2014. <http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cicero/Laelius_de_Amicitia/text*.html>.
Reflection to Imitatio:
Reflection to Imitatio’s
Throughout the last four to five weeks, Professor Condon kept reminding us about this Imitatio speech. In my head I kept thinking, “Oh, this won’t be that bad. It’s just taking a speech and translating it into something different. Simple enough, no problem.” I found a speech by Cicero on friendship, which in Latin translates to Laelius de Amicitia. After about an hour of research and thought that the speech was ideal for my Imitatio, I read through the stanzas until I settled on stanzas 18-21. From that point on, I didn’t think much of it, falsely imagining I have this Imitatio in the bag. The weeks went by until about Thursday the eighteenth when we went over the prompt in class. My initial thought about the project being easy, dramatically shifted into “I am extremely confused” and the stress of the project became extreme.
Once I read Cicero’s few stanza’s on friendship about 100 times, I finally thought that I should sit down and write the speech. I am very passionate about living a very active and healthy lifestyle, so I knew that choosing that topic would be very easy due to it being so present in my every day life. One of the most difficult aspects I found in this project was literally just getting started. I spent more than just a few minutes staring at my computer screen, wondering how I should go about dissecting this speech written by a man of rhetoric. Cicero, being a man of philosophy, law and politics, as well as an orator, was best known for the pieces of literature that he produced over the years. By trying to understand and learn how his writing style was structured, the idea of trying to create and mimic his strategies behind his friendship speech was very difficult. I felt as though my topic of Imitatio did not match up as well I had hoped. I considered trying to look for another speech that would be more consistent with the idea of my speech. I searched for awhile, striking out on every speech I came across. (Looking for rhetoric speeches is harder than I imagined.) So finally, after procrastinating for as long as I did, I just decided to write it.
While composing my Imitatio, I attempted to parallel with Cicero’s speech. For example in the second stanza of my speech I addressed my “fellow students” like Cicero addressed his “fellow countrymen.” However, the longer I tested that theory, the harder it became. I continued to try to use very similar wording and structure that he did, however, with the way things were translated into English it did not come out making sense. Understanding what he was trying to say made sense, however, word choice among sentence structure did not, so that made creating my speech difficult.
During Cicero’s speech, he tried to go back and forth to state both sides of the argument, as well as give credit to the one’s surrounding him in society. That was hard to execute well due to a couple of different reasons. One, I don’t believe that my topic worked well with the structure that Cicero used. The contemporary issue that I used could be considered internal, meaning that this is an independent issue and you cannot reel others into what you consume and how much you exercise. His speech on friendship considered many outsiders and became dependent on others to talk about in his speech. Furthermore, I believe that the difference in writing skill also played a part. Cicero again, was a professional at public speaking and writing, so trying to match up with his skill level seemed tough right out of the gate. However, as soon I got over the hump of following Cicero’s speech pattern, creating my speech easily spilled out all over the page. I was able to become consistent enough with Cicero, evening taking quotes from his speech and adding them into my mine.
After doing the assignment and now reflecting upon it, there are a few things that I learned from the ancient rhetoric. I am happy I live in the days we do now, because we are able to express ourselves more freely than they were able to. Cicero was looked upon as being a man of high value and high profession, so he had a harder time stating his opinion if it was not already pre-approved by other politicians in that system. The majority of his writing had a political undertone, so Cicero always had to make a choice in his argument and stick too it. Also, grammatically speaking, the difference in sentence structure and context is huge! I found that many sentences of Cicero’s were long and very drawn out. If speaking in public, that would be extremely hard to talk that long without a slight pause. I found it hard to keep writing sentences without the urge to use some sort of punctuation.
In the end, once I was able to get over the difficulty of initially starting the process, I enjoyed writing about an issue that I cared about. Studying and dissecting Cicero’s speech on friendship taught me about the structure and context of the ancient rhetorics. The lack of structure from the assignment created a challenge for all of us, which was actually something I enjoyed once the process was over. I enjoyed hearing the differences in speeches among each student and what speech those chose to mock. Overall, it was a hard assignment, but taught many things about the ancient rhetorics and turned out very rewarding in the end.
Wednesday, October 8, 2014
Response to Ong and Wolf - 10/8/2014
I found these readings by Ong and Wolf to be quite interesting. However, I felt like these were super hard to read. It took me quite awhile to really comprehend and digest just really was being said. Among the complex ideas and theories, the context was just deep and I felt like I would miss a lot being said if I didn't reread the majority of it. So personally, I think I might just talk my reaction to the readings instead of talking about the readings themselves, because I think I would end up chopping up a lot of it and not understanding what exactly was being said.
First off, like I said before wow. Those were really hard to comprehend. However, I found it very very cool the connections between orality and linguistics. I always knew that speak and words and writing and novels all connect, but when you think about it, they are what intertwine and weave with each other. You can't really have one without the other.
I hate to nerd out here, but in HBO's Game of Thrones, in those medieval times, there is a character in the third and fourth season named Davos Seaworth. He is the king's hand so he does majority of the talking for the king. The reason why I am connecting this to the readings is due to the fact that he is illiterate. He speaks and presents himself and the king very professionally and well mannered, yet he cannot read or write notes for the kings. So after reading this handouts, I kept thinking of him. Because it says in Wolf's readings on the very first line that humans were never born to read. We just invented it. Which of course, alters the course of how our brain functions.
But after reading these, then also reflecting back on our speeches, like Professor Condon said in class, many rhetoric's would make it up on the spot and not rely on parchments for a guide. So it is very interesting to the growth and chronological order than words and speech have taken over the years. I wonder if we have hindered ourselves from doing something great if we taught ourselves not to read? Or did we save ourselves from dying out and not know how to survive?
First off, like I said before wow. Those were really hard to comprehend. However, I found it very very cool the connections between orality and linguistics. I always knew that speak and words and writing and novels all connect, but when you think about it, they are what intertwine and weave with each other. You can't really have one without the other.
I hate to nerd out here, but in HBO's Game of Thrones, in those medieval times, there is a character in the third and fourth season named Davos Seaworth. He is the king's hand so he does majority of the talking for the king. The reason why I am connecting this to the readings is due to the fact that he is illiterate. He speaks and presents himself and the king very professionally and well mannered, yet he cannot read or write notes for the kings. So after reading this handouts, I kept thinking of him. Because it says in Wolf's readings on the very first line that humans were never born to read. We just invented it. Which of course, alters the course of how our brain functions.
But after reading these, then also reflecting back on our speeches, like Professor Condon said in class, many rhetoric's would make it up on the spot and not rely on parchments for a guide. So it is very interesting to the growth and chronological order than words and speech have taken over the years. I wonder if we have hindered ourselves from doing something great if we taught ourselves not to read? Or did we save ourselves from dying out and not know how to survive?
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
Readings for Sept. 25th
I really found chapter seven extremely interesting of the ARCS text. Using emotion and passion for to persuade your audience is intriguing to me. I categorize myself as being a more pathos type person, using emotion to logic a lot, more than using logic to logic. In another class that I am taking, I found it very interesting because the professor asked us how we find evidence and if we use logic, emotion or experience. In another universe, it would be nice if I could first use logic, then experience following by emotion; however, in reality, I am the complete opposite. I usually base evidence off of emotion, experience then logic. I am very quick to react and follow my gut instincts and then act upon that emotion instead of logically thinking about it. I find it funny, because I think gender has a huge role in that as well. Between male and female, women are always going to react emotionally, while men always want to think logically.
Watching my parents over the years and now talking to my mom and dad about my own issues, it is interesting to hear the two sides to it. My mom is always on the emotional side while my dad is always tuning me into the logical side of things. Between them, I have a great balance, however on my own, I don't have the logic in tune yet.
One part of the chapter I really enjoyed was the basis of Honorific and Pejorative Language. Context and vernacular can dictate the path of the argument. I also like what the chapter said. "That is, honorific and pejorative language conveys value judgements." (ARCS pg. 187) When speaking, someone will solely base their assumptions and judgements on what you sound like and how you present yourself. If you look scummy, you will most likely not gain the success you were looking for. If you look sharp, people will at first glance end up listening to you more.
When it comes to our giant textbook, The Rhetoric Tradition, I found it pleasing to read about Anonymous, and the way letters have formed. I think the form of a letter is very important. It can dictate a number of things, including whether its personal or formal, the importance of the letter and how official it may be. I had no idea that there were so many different types of letters, as well as, realizing there are five parts to the letter. I have grown in modern times, where it was a requirement to know how to format a letter, but I guess I never realized there were names to each part.
I really enjoyed these two chapters today. I look forward to discussion.
Watching my parents over the years and now talking to my mom and dad about my own issues, it is interesting to hear the two sides to it. My mom is always on the emotional side while my dad is always tuning me into the logical side of things. Between them, I have a great balance, however on my own, I don't have the logic in tune yet.
One part of the chapter I really enjoyed was the basis of Honorific and Pejorative Language. Context and vernacular can dictate the path of the argument. I also like what the chapter said. "That is, honorific and pejorative language conveys value judgements." (ARCS pg. 187) When speaking, someone will solely base their assumptions and judgements on what you sound like and how you present yourself. If you look scummy, you will most likely not gain the success you were looking for. If you look sharp, people will at first glance end up listening to you more.
When it comes to our giant textbook, The Rhetoric Tradition, I found it pleasing to read about Anonymous, and the way letters have formed. I think the form of a letter is very important. It can dictate a number of things, including whether its personal or formal, the importance of the letter and how official it may be. I had no idea that there were so many different types of letters, as well as, realizing there are five parts to the letter. I have grown in modern times, where it was a requirement to know how to format a letter, but I guess I never realized there were names to each part.
I really enjoyed these two chapters today. I look forward to discussion.
Monday, September 22, 2014
Readings for Sept. 23
What I found interesting about Boethius was his take on the five parts of rhetoric. Now that we are getting later into the history of rhetoric and a lot of it is no longer original, I thought it was interesting that he could break down rhetoric even more. According to Boethius, rhetoric has five parts: invention, disposition, style, memory, and delivery. Which he then amazes me again and break it down even more into species. However, he states this: "Now if rhetoric is completely present in each of its species, then all these parts must be present in each of its species. Therefore they all must be used in in treating any public business when the issues are clearly assigned to one of the above mentioned species of rhetoric. It makes no difference whether the matter is treated in a judicial manner, in a deliberative manner, or in a demonstrative manner; invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery must all be present." (RT, pg. 489)
I like his idea behind this because it is stating that all these parts must be present for it to be successful. I believe that rhetoric can be successful in the same ways that Aristotle and Cicero mentioned, however, I like Boethius because he seems to stick to his word. I also like his addition it to it by saying a tool must be required to help gain that success. Boethius says "That tool is the oration, which is sometimes a civil nature, sometimes its not. (...) When that kind of oration treats an issue of civil importance, it moves forward without a break in continuity: when it does not deal with matters of public concern, it is developed through questions and answers." (RT, pg. 489) This is also very interesting.
Bringing in the public to a debate or discussion always turns it into a popularity contest instead of choosing it for the right reasons. By not allowing the public to express themselves, the people discussing the issue are discussing for themselves, not for the concern that their decision will make them unpopular. Public belief is a huge part in rhetoric, and I believe that people will always have some concern about what other people think about them.
I like his idea behind this because it is stating that all these parts must be present for it to be successful. I believe that rhetoric can be successful in the same ways that Aristotle and Cicero mentioned, however, I like Boethius because he seems to stick to his word. I also like his addition it to it by saying a tool must be required to help gain that success. Boethius says "That tool is the oration, which is sometimes a civil nature, sometimes its not. (...) When that kind of oration treats an issue of civil importance, it moves forward without a break in continuity: when it does not deal with matters of public concern, it is developed through questions and answers." (RT, pg. 489) This is also very interesting.
Bringing in the public to a debate or discussion always turns it into a popularity contest instead of choosing it for the right reasons. By not allowing the public to express themselves, the people discussing the issue are discussing for themselves, not for the concern that their decision will make them unpopular. Public belief is a huge part in rhetoric, and I believe that people will always have some concern about what other people think about them.
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
Readings for Sept. 18th.
I really enjoyed the section about Establishing good character. I believe that Cicero had the right idea about focusing on your character and self, versus pinning your opinion about others. I really liked "Cicero encouraged rhetors to extol their 'merits or worth or virtue of some kind, particularly generosity, sense of duty, justice and good faith.'" By saying this, I think that Cicero had a good hand on the idea of how to win over an audience through your character." (pg. 157) He also suggested that rhetors weaken charges or suspicions that had been cast on their character, and to elaborate on misfortunes or difficulties that had befallen them to strengthen their audience's estimate of their ability to bear suffering." I believe that this is a very good point when it comes to persuading an audience. By sharing personal parts of your life to the audience so they can relate can help make a case for you. I believe that to connect with an audience at an emotional level comes in handy in the long run. That way they can connect with you and understand your side of things.
I also enjoyed the section on securing goodwill. Cicero hits the nail on the head with the first sentence of that paragraph. "If we refer to our own acts and services without arrogance." (pg. 159) By doing so, we avoid our audience tuning us out from the beginning. If you enter modestly with an open mind, yet determined to get your point across, you may be more successful than just going in arrogant. By understanding what the audience already knows, you can help justify your side by providing information that they don't have yet.
I really enjoyed the example of movie reviewers. Their job is to be honest, yet positive so their audience will believe their future reviews. By securing goodwill with your audience, the next time you need to persuade, you will have a more fair chance by keeping a fair reputation. Reputation is all about rhetoric as well. Having a fair and strong reputation, someone that you can rely on, and getting the job is done is very important. A reputation can hold a lot longer than people think, which can dictate how things go in the future. With comes a good reputation, can follow with power.
Overall, what I am trying to say is that being a good person, holding strong morals and values, and seeing the right in the worst possible situations will benefit you long term.
I also enjoyed the section on securing goodwill. Cicero hits the nail on the head with the first sentence of that paragraph. "If we refer to our own acts and services without arrogance." (pg. 159) By doing so, we avoid our audience tuning us out from the beginning. If you enter modestly with an open mind, yet determined to get your point across, you may be more successful than just going in arrogant. By understanding what the audience already knows, you can help justify your side by providing information that they don't have yet.
I really enjoyed the example of movie reviewers. Their job is to be honest, yet positive so their audience will believe their future reviews. By securing goodwill with your audience, the next time you need to persuade, you will have a more fair chance by keeping a fair reputation. Reputation is all about rhetoric as well. Having a fair and strong reputation, someone that you can rely on, and getting the job is done is very important. A reputation can hold a lot longer than people think, which can dictate how things go in the future. With comes a good reputation, can follow with power.
Overall, what I am trying to say is that being a good person, holding strong morals and values, and seeing the right in the worst possible situations will benefit you long term.
Monday, September 15, 2014
Response to Readings for Sept. 16
Well, I definitely thought this week was very interesting. First off, I am doing my Imitatios speech based off of one of Cicero's speeches, so I thought it was kind of cool to learn some more facts about him, however, I don't want to spoil my speech, so I will talk about that later!
However, what I found really cool this time was all the crazy reasoning in rhetoric. I am still honestly really amazed all the detail and characteristics behind rhetoric. There is just so much to think about. I really, really enjoyed Quintilian's definition of rhetoric and argument. On page 120 of ARCS book, it stated this. "Quintilian defined arguments in rhetoric and logic as methods 'of proving what is not certain by means of what is certain.' Thus, such arguments enable 'one thing to be inferred from another,'; they also confirm 'facts which are uncertain by reference to facts which are certain.' Without some way of moving from the certain to the uncertain, Quintilian argued, we'd have no way of proving anything." (pg. 120) I thought this was extremely interesting, because I do believe that he is absolutely right. It later states in the following paragraphs this: "The reason for the relative certainty of statements about probable human action is that human behavior in general is predictable to some extent." (pg. 120) This in my mind also struck a cord and made me start thinking crazily about what this means.
I started thinking about whenever I would have discussions (to put it nicely) with my family when I lived back home. It was always the same routine, my brother would want to do something, my dad would agree because he has always hated being the bad guy and my mom would do the whole mom thing and say it wasn't safe (which majority of the time, she was right). By the time I was in college and would come home during break for the holiday's, this stuff was pretty predictable and it always played out the same (I was the bystander about 90% of the time). But after reading about this, it hit me. In hindsight, there behavior is always going to be predictable. If I pointed it out, I bet they would see it too, so it probably isn't a mystery, but it is really interesting how human behavior basically throws itself onto a hamster wheel and will keep going.
Don't get me wrong, I love my family and they are all amazing people, but human behavior is one of the most predictable things. It all becomes habit, which I believe is sort of what Quintilian was saying. The three premises stated at the end of the section perfectly sum up what I was trying to say. "Quintilian regarded three sorts of statements as probable: those that involved what usually happens (children are usually loved by their parents); those that were highly likely (a person who is healthy today will be alive tomorrow); and those which in nothing worked against their probability (a household theft was committed by some resident of the household). These sorts of premises are suitable for use in rhetoric because they are statements about the probable conduct of human beings." (pg. 121).
Human behavior is crazy to me and this reading really started making my mind turn.
However, what I found really cool this time was all the crazy reasoning in rhetoric. I am still honestly really amazed all the detail and characteristics behind rhetoric. There is just so much to think about. I really, really enjoyed Quintilian's definition of rhetoric and argument. On page 120 of ARCS book, it stated this. "Quintilian defined arguments in rhetoric and logic as methods 'of proving what is not certain by means of what is certain.' Thus, such arguments enable 'one thing to be inferred from another,'; they also confirm 'facts which are uncertain by reference to facts which are certain.' Without some way of moving from the certain to the uncertain, Quintilian argued, we'd have no way of proving anything." (pg. 120) I thought this was extremely interesting, because I do believe that he is absolutely right. It later states in the following paragraphs this: "The reason for the relative certainty of statements about probable human action is that human behavior in general is predictable to some extent." (pg. 120) This in my mind also struck a cord and made me start thinking crazily about what this means.
I started thinking about whenever I would have discussions (to put it nicely) with my family when I lived back home. It was always the same routine, my brother would want to do something, my dad would agree because he has always hated being the bad guy and my mom would do the whole mom thing and say it wasn't safe (which majority of the time, she was right). By the time I was in college and would come home during break for the holiday's, this stuff was pretty predictable and it always played out the same (I was the bystander about 90% of the time). But after reading about this, it hit me. In hindsight, there behavior is always going to be predictable. If I pointed it out, I bet they would see it too, so it probably isn't a mystery, but it is really interesting how human behavior basically throws itself onto a hamster wheel and will keep going.
Don't get me wrong, I love my family and they are all amazing people, but human behavior is one of the most predictable things. It all becomes habit, which I believe is sort of what Quintilian was saying. The three premises stated at the end of the section perfectly sum up what I was trying to say. "Quintilian regarded three sorts of statements as probable: those that involved what usually happens (children are usually loved by their parents); those that were highly likely (a person who is healthy today will be alive tomorrow); and those which in nothing worked against their probability (a household theft was committed by some resident of the household). These sorts of premises are suitable for use in rhetoric because they are statements about the probable conduct of human beings." (pg. 121).
Human behavior is crazy to me and this reading really started making my mind turn.
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
Response to readings for Sept. 11th
After reading for Thursday, I decided to focus more on Aristotle's view on rhetoric and there were a few specific things that really stuck out to me. One being on page 180 of our giant, brick of a text book, Aristotle stated this: "In a political debate the man who is forming a judgement is making a decision about his own vital interests." At first, I really needed to think about that. I kept wondering well isn't someone who is in politics trying to talk for everyone in society and make the best overall decision for the citizens of those states? But then I thought, well politicians have the art of Rhetoric down to a T. Rhetorics is what they do. They persuade and manipulate to get what they want. (Not saying that's what rhetorics is, but its what politicians are). The politics that take place in the US are more or less, not the best. I fear that politicians are in it just for what Aristotle said, to get what they want for their own interests. If a politician has never experienced something dramatic, they may not fight for it as much as someone who has. In this, I am saying, like what we have discussed before in class, if it benefits the rhetoric's side, there are far more willing to fight for it.
Another very interesting thing I say on page 182 was the three means of effecting persuasion. "The man who is to be in command of them must, it is clear, be able (1) to reason logically, (2) to understand human character and goodness in their various forms, and (3) to understand the emotions- - that is, to name them and describe them, to know their causes and the way in which they are excited." I would agree with this. To win over and persuade someone, it is essential to understand their side of things. If you don't understand the emotion behind it all, the personal connection will be lacking, giving the sense that you don't get how they feel. I especially like reason 2. The human character has so many senses behind it, there are various forms of human kindness, generosity, and humility that it can go on for ages.
One last thing that stood out to me was on page 194. The entire first column produces the opposites of every last thing you can think of and produce a goods reason for why the opposite is a better way to go. This column stood out to me, because it made me really think. I know this reading is deep, and to be honest, a lot of it is hard to process, however, it did stick with me. My favorite part was earlier in the column and it states, "Positive goodness and badness are more important than the mere absence of goodness and badness: for positive goodness and badness are ends, which the mere absence of them cannot be." I believe what it is trying to interpret that regardless of the situation, the good and bad will always be there. And it's better to have it than to not have it at all. If we did not have it, we may never know what good and bad are and never be able to interpret the difference between the two.
Another very interesting thing I say on page 182 was the three means of effecting persuasion. "The man who is to be in command of them must, it is clear, be able (1) to reason logically, (2) to understand human character and goodness in their various forms, and (3) to understand the emotions- - that is, to name them and describe them, to know their causes and the way in which they are excited." I would agree with this. To win over and persuade someone, it is essential to understand their side of things. If you don't understand the emotion behind it all, the personal connection will be lacking, giving the sense that you don't get how they feel. I especially like reason 2. The human character has so many senses behind it, there are various forms of human kindness, generosity, and humility that it can go on for ages.
One last thing that stood out to me was on page 194. The entire first column produces the opposites of every last thing you can think of and produce a goods reason for why the opposite is a better way to go. This column stood out to me, because it made me really think. I know this reading is deep, and to be honest, a lot of it is hard to process, however, it did stick with me. My favorite part was earlier in the column and it states, "Positive goodness and badness are more important than the mere absence of goodness and badness: for positive goodness and badness are ends, which the mere absence of them cannot be." I believe what it is trying to interpret that regardless of the situation, the good and bad will always be there. And it's better to have it than to not have it at all. If we did not have it, we may never know what good and bad are and never be able to interpret the difference between the two.
Monday, September 8, 2014
Readings for Sept. 9th
Cicero and Quintilian's Four Questions is a great basis to a Rhetorician's argument. I feel as though using a guided, step by step process is an efficient way to cover an argument and hit all the key points. On page 64, Cicero suggests that readers and writer's use these questions and answer them in order, which I couldn't agree more. The advantages according to Cicero are: "the process of working through questions of conjecture, definition, and quality, in order, will help rhetors to find the points from which they must begin the argument - the point where they disagree." Using this four step is extremely helpful due to the ways it can also break down into more sub-like categories. By asking more detailed questions in each category gives better evidence and more of a backup to a fight.
Using these stases are still useful for beating a path through the thicket of issues that often surround a controversy. By doing these things, a rheotoric can successfully prove an argument using valid points and make their opponent look weak.
I thought the sample that used to show how to correctly use the four stases about abortion was a very interesting choice. It is very obvious that this has been a topic of discussion for years around the United States. However, what is the right choice and what should we do legally for abortion? Personally, I am a pro choice type of person. Personally, after watching many people I have known through school and watching them have kids while they are still kids themselves, scares me. I don't think its fair that children are born into a world when their parents aren't even ready. However, there are boundaries that should be followed. If a girl gets raped and becomes pregnant and doesn't want the baby, I believe it is absolutely exceptable to have an abortion. If there are young kids that are having sex and not using and/or proper protection, and become pregnant, I believe that an abortion is not the right answer, however is it fair to bring a child into a world with young, dumb parents? After debating with myself, I can see why abortion is still an issue in the states. I don't believe there is a right answer to abortion due to all the situations that can occur. The sample brings up many other questions as well, but I believe that a ten page paper could be written about this as well... but that is for another time. :)
Using these stases are still useful for beating a path through the thicket of issues that often surround a controversy. By doing these things, a rheotoric can successfully prove an argument using valid points and make their opponent look weak.
I thought the sample that used to show how to correctly use the four stases about abortion was a very interesting choice. It is very obvious that this has been a topic of discussion for years around the United States. However, what is the right choice and what should we do legally for abortion? Personally, I am a pro choice type of person. Personally, after watching many people I have known through school and watching them have kids while they are still kids themselves, scares me. I don't think its fair that children are born into a world when their parents aren't even ready. However, there are boundaries that should be followed. If a girl gets raped and becomes pregnant and doesn't want the baby, I believe it is absolutely exceptable to have an abortion. If there are young kids that are having sex and not using and/or proper protection, and become pregnant, I believe that an abortion is not the right answer, however is it fair to bring a child into a world with young, dumb parents? After debating with myself, I can see why abortion is still an issue in the states. I don't believe there is a right answer to abortion due to all the situations that can occur. The sample brings up many other questions as well, but I believe that a ten page paper could be written about this as well... but that is for another time. :)
Monday, September 1, 2014
Readings for Tuesday, Sept. 2nd
After completing the readings for Tuesday, the most interesting detail that stuck with me the most was in our book ARCS about karios. When debating over a certain topic, it never really struck me until after that reading is that sometimes, there may be a more opportune moment. The sentence, "Karios is not about duration, but rather about a certain kind or quality of time, a period during which opportunities appear to those who are prepared to take advantage of them," (ARCS, pg. 38) really just struck a light in my head. It really does make sense. There is always a time for opportunity and I believe that may separate the great from the weak. The patience behind waiting to seize a moment of power can unravel your opponent. The book's example of Wall Street was a perfect example because it put Karios into a relatable perspective for me at least, because there is always a better time to sell than to buy. When it comes to rhetoric, there is always a better, more auspicious time to argue a point.
Another prominent point was made on page 41 of ARCS. It said: "Karios also points to the situatedness of arguments in time and place, and an arguments suitability depends on the particulars of a given rhetorical situation. The particulars of a rhetorical situation includes the rhetor, of course: her opinions and beliefs, her past experiences, as well as her position on an issue at the time she composes a discourse about it. But the rhetorical situation also includes the opinions and beliefs of her audience at that time and in that place, as well as the history of the issue within the communities with which they identify." This paragraph was also very powerful and also extremely truthful in my eyes. Along with the ideal time, also comes along with the idea that every argument needs to have the correct characteristics to create the most compelling argument. If a rhetor is arguing a point to an audience with a biased personality and no desire to change their minds, the rhetor may not have a winning chance. However, don't get me wrong, with valid points, factual information and a touching personal experience that drags out the emotion from the audience, the rhetor could win, however, it does dwindle back down to the situation.
During chapter two of ARCS, gun control was touched on. It is obviously known that this has been an issue in the US for years. The examples given in the book are just a few of many occurrences that we have seen in the past few decades. After every attack, more and more questions come up about gun control and what we can do about it. I am every bit in favor of being in control of guns and who has them, however one question that I will always have is this: If people didn't have control of guns, what would be next? I believe that there is a balance to most everything, so why doesn't the government find the balance on this? If not guns, then what would other people find to kill others? It's not the guns we should be worried about, it's the people who have them that should be the bigger concern.
Another prominent point was made on page 41 of ARCS. It said: "Karios also points to the situatedness of arguments in time and place, and an arguments suitability depends on the particulars of a given rhetorical situation. The particulars of a rhetorical situation includes the rhetor, of course: her opinions and beliefs, her past experiences, as well as her position on an issue at the time she composes a discourse about it. But the rhetorical situation also includes the opinions and beliefs of her audience at that time and in that place, as well as the history of the issue within the communities with which they identify." This paragraph was also very powerful and also extremely truthful in my eyes. Along with the ideal time, also comes along with the idea that every argument needs to have the correct characteristics to create the most compelling argument. If a rhetor is arguing a point to an audience with a biased personality and no desire to change their minds, the rhetor may not have a winning chance. However, don't get me wrong, with valid points, factual information and a touching personal experience that drags out the emotion from the audience, the rhetor could win, however, it does dwindle back down to the situation.
During chapter two of ARCS, gun control was touched on. It is obviously known that this has been an issue in the US for years. The examples given in the book are just a few of many occurrences that we have seen in the past few decades. After every attack, more and more questions come up about gun control and what we can do about it. I am every bit in favor of being in control of guns and who has them, however one question that I will always have is this: If people didn't have control of guns, what would be next? I believe that there is a balance to most everything, so why doesn't the government find the balance on this? If not guns, then what would other people find to kill others? It's not the guns we should be worried about, it's the people who have them that should be the bigger concern.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)