“Rhetoric may be defined as the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion.” -Aristotle
I’ve thought a lot about the article “What is Rhetoric.” Something stung me when I read it, but I did not identify it immediately. My first impression was it attempted to narrow the definition of rhetoric by discussing the canons and means of persuasion, but the end of the article only widened that definition for me.
I prefer to stick with Aristotle’s definition of rhetoric, if for no other reason than its narrowing affect on the subject. In the subtitle Audience, Covino and Joliffe write about three drawbacks with the traditional view of rhetoric; one of those being that it ignores the shared, dialectical nature of communication. Aristotle insists that rhetoric is a counterpart of dialectic. I prefer to think that the two work together; first that truth is found through dialectic, and second that the rhetor may persuade his audience by the accuracy of his statements.
Misplaced Idea, perhaps for future writing:
Ironically, blogs may be a new age of dialectic. On the internet, information is exchanged. It is two-dimensional. Maybe “rhetoric” as we now know it (the big time news anchor telling us what to believe, persuading our thoughts with emotions and images) will come to an end; fall dead at the feet of two-dimensional blogging. But, would America know what to do if no one told us what to believe? Are the masses intelligent enough to cipher through information and find truth? Should we save this type of mind-bending work for philosophers?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
i'm anxious that i finally get to read aristotle's "on rhetoric" this semester. it's silly how certain (seminal) texts can escape a student's attention for so long.
i tend to disagree with the assertion that "the rhetor may persuade his audience by the ACCURACY of his/her statements," though i appreciate the inclusion of the word "may." [don't mean this to sound sarcastic. it's impossible to control tone of voice through an e-mail, you know.] to me, the rhetor creates a frame for the audience, that is, something (pertinent information) is always left out. a single statement could be accurate, even factual, but as several statements are sequenced, the biases of the rhetor are exposed as the argument takes shape. i'm not quite sure what it is, but there's something else that creates trust between speaker and listener. [ex. i believed this person at the time merely because i wanted to believe them.] too many intervening variables, perhaps.
[oh, and i just responded to your question on my page. looking forward to more blogging/comment/response/reading/discourse in the future.]
Leah--Second attempt to comment on this entry. I think I forgot to type in the magic word before. I'm most interest in your misplaced idea. I think Web 2.0 technologies have the potential to become (or maybe already are) multi-dimensional. I'm finding in reading all your blogs that there are 3-way conversations going on. Also interesting to think about democracy in the light of your question about trusting the masses. I don't like the alternatives, but I also don't like the way our democracy is working. I notice that you've added news links to your blog, and I'm sure that's no accident. More soon. Dr. L
Post a Comment