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.