Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Paper 4: Reflection

Reflection

Before this class I was aware of what rhetoric was and its use, but I was not aware of the present extent it has in our everyday lives. This class has pushed me to think in new ways and has greatly improved my writing. From learning the methods of ancient rhetoricians such as Aristotle’s ethos, pathos, and logos I now am able to better acknowledge my audience to meet there needs and better explain my argument. The exploration style of this class has allowed me to acquire a better knowledge of rhetoric and to discover my own communicating and writing rhetoric approach. From the readings, class discussions, blog entries and essays I have found that I am an analyzing learner who communicates by subtly proving my point with factual evidence, forcing my audience to question their own opinions in regards to my own.
            Through the course of this class I found that doing the readings was crucial to fully understanding rhetoric. I found this to be especially true when comparing traditional and modern rhetoric. To understand the components of modern rhetoric one must understand the mechanisms of traditional rhetoric. The methods and techniques of traditional rhetoricians are still greatly used among modern rhetoricians. The readings opened me up to the presence of rhetoric in everyday life, such as advertisements, and helped to shape my opinion of rhetoric. The more I read further into the semester, the more I began to realize that I have a fondness for more traditional rhetorical methods such as Aristotle’s ethos, pathos, and logos. I discovered that I am more of a passionate learner then a factual one, which can be seen from my blog entries and essays. For example in the third essay assigned, I argued that the modern use of scientific proof is not always the most affective. This can be seen from when I said, “Sometimes all the scientific facts in the world cannot convince someone to do something or believe something. Scientific proofs have been deemed the most reasonable and logical, but people still have to believe it is true.” I attempted here to show that dialectic or rhetorical reasoning can be as persuasive as scientific demonstration showing my preference towards traditional methods of rhetoric.
            Along with the readings, the class discussions helped to form my own rhetorical methods and opinions. Although I did not participate often I found it helpful to listen to others opinions and observations to fully develop my own and later apply to my writing. Often I found that many of my classmates had the same views and observations from the readings as me. I found this reassuring to know that I was understanding certain rhetorical topics such as kairos or stasis theory correctly. However, there were times that my classmates pointed out new ways of considering a rhetorical concept. In regards to my writing this was the most helpful. Hearing others interpretations helped me go beyond my own thoughts and apply them to my writing. This is evident from the second assigned essay where I first went over the negative aspects of print on rhetoric before explaining the benefits. Before the class discussion on the effects of print on rhetoric, I only considered the benefits. Hearing others voice their concerns over the negative effects made me want to acknowledge them in my writing. I believe that the class discussions were one of the more important components of this class. Rhetoric is the art of persuasion and part of rhetoric is acknowledging all sides to an argument. Without the class discussions I believe my writing would have been very single minded. 
            The blogs were another way for me to explore my opinion of rhetorical concepts and a way for me to discover my strengths as a rhetorical writer. The freedom of the blogs allowed me to voice my thoughts without methodically trying to support myself as I had to in the essays. When writing the blogs I would skim the readings until I found a point that I found particularly interesting. I tended to focus on more traditional concepts and techniques, especially ones that are still presently used by modern rhetoricians. For instance in my blog discussing the rhetorical use of memory I argued that memory is still used by modern rhetoricians despite the technological advancements that have allowed rhetoricians to not rely heavily on memory. This can be seen from when I said, “It has been argued that this has created a decrease in the need for memory. However, this is not true. Although modern rhetoricians are able to write down what they want to remember, they still have to remember from pure memory how to write and how to use electronic devises.” My present favoritism towards traditional methods of rhetoric in my blog helped me to develop my writing style. From my writing style in my blogs I found that I like to give my audience information from all sides of an argument and then make my point. Also I discovered that I like Aristotle’s method of ethos, pathos and logos, which I attempted to use in my writing. Overall I found the blogs very useful to developing my writing style. The blogs were a way for me to explore my rhetorical writing style before applying it to the assigned essays.
            In the beginning of this class I found writing rhetorically difficult, as it did not follow the standard writing components I had been taught in the past. From the readings, class discussions, and blogs I found that rhetorical writing was much more effective than traditional explanatory writing. In developing my essays, I would gather all the information and research needed, and then write a well thought out outline that followed a methodical plan. In my essays I would try and apply the five canons of writing: invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery. I would also try and apply ethos, pathos, and logos. Despite the methods and techniques of other rhetoricians I found that I always returned to Aristotle’s proofs of ethos, pathos, and logos. Whether people are aware of it or not this is how we generally communicate. When making an argument we generally address who our audience is, try and establish our credibility and provide sufficient evidence to prove our point. The essays were challenging at times but I found them to be the most important element of this class. In writing the essays I incorporated what I had learned from the readings, class discussions and blog entries. I was able to improve my strengths as a writer and acquire the skills needed to write sufficiently in a rhetorical manner.
            Overall I feel that I have learned a lot from this course both about rhetoric and myself as a writer. From this class I discovered the presence of rhetoric in everyday life, the influence of traditional rhetoric on modern rhetoric, and most importantly my rhetorical writing style. The required activities of assigned readings, class discussions, blog entries and essays helped to develop my opinion of rhetoric and the methods I found the most useful to my writing. I feel that the skills I have acquired from this course are important both for my academic life and everyday life, and for my future professional life.

Monday, November 28, 2011

Essay 3

Presence of Traditional Rhetoric in Modern Rhetoric

“Rhetoric is the art of ruling the minds of men”-Plato (“Rhetoric Quotes”). Rhetoric has been a part of man’s life for centuries, and as a result has changed with time. It is true that modern rhetoric and traditional rhetoric differ greatly. However, traditional rhetoric is the foundation of modern rhetoric, and therefore still present. The basic devices and techniques of traditional rhetoric are still used by many modern rhetoricians, such as John F. Kennedy in his Inaugural Address. Using affective delivery and pacing, Kennedy demonstrates how modern rhetoric is still largely influenced by traditional rhetoric and has the same effectiveness in persuading and bring together a crowd. Kennedy follows Aristotle’s rhetoric devises of ethos, pathos, and logos by using the rhetorical techniques of anaphora, antimetabole, parallelism and metaphor in an attempt to unify the American public.
            In the beginning of the twentieth century rhetoric was in a decline (Bizzell & Herzberg 1181). This decline was due greatly to a change in people’s way of interpreting and thinking. Factual scientific proofs became more important than inventive arguments, which led to a rejection of the study of invention; a key component of traditional rhetoric. It was at the turn of the twentieth century that rhetoric began to emerge again (Bizzel & Herzberg 1183). For the United States it returned in the form of public speaking (Bizzell & Herzberg 1183). Public speaking classes began to emerge, returning to the traditional categories of invention, arrangement, style, memory and delivery (Bizzell & Herzberg 1184). The rhetorical teachings of public speaking became useful for those pursuing political positions, such as John F. Kennedy, who in his Inaugural Address exemplifies modern rhetoric and its similarities to traditional rhetoric.  This can be seen from his use of delivery. Kennedy attempts to rally the American people, reminding them of their oneness, their duty to society, and the fact that they represent a new generation. In his delivery, Kennedy uses pacing as a way to allow the audience to consider what he has said on their own terms. This is evident from when he says, “to our sister republics south of the border, we offer a special pledge-to convert our good words into good deeds-in a new alliance for progress-to assist free men and free governments in casting off the chains of poverty” (Kennedy). Between each dash Kennedy pauses, a pacing technique that makes his delivery more effective as it allows the audience to consider each individual thought.  In his delivery, Kennedy establishes his creditability through ethos, his emotional appeals through pathos and his reasoning through logos. He uses Aristotle’s rhetorical devices in his delivery in a modern fashion that appeals to his public.
            The first thing Kennedy does in his speech is establish his creditability, or ethos.  Ethos is the character or reputation of a rhetorician, an essential device to gaining the trust of an audience (Crowley & Hawhee 195). Similar to traditional rhetoric, modern rhetoric can establish ethos by referring to a specific person, or the work of a specific person. Kennedy shows his creditability by opening with the line, “Vice President Johnson, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, President Eisenhower, Vice President Nixon, President Truman, reverend clergy, fellow citizens, we observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom” (Kennedy). Kennedy also specifically mentions “fellow citizens,” a modern rhetorical technique that shows that he is humble and relatable. He further shows his creditability by addressing all those in the world, both from the past and the present. This is done through the use of the rhetorical devise anaphora, which is when repetition occurs at the beginning of each subsequent thought, phrase, clause or sentence (Crowley & Hawhee 428). Kennedy’s use of an anaphora can be seen from when he begins six paragraphs with, “to those old allies,” “to those new states,” “to those people,” “to our sister republics,” “to that world,” and “finally, to those nations” (Kennedy). By using an anaphora, Kennedy is able to fairly address all sides of the situation, which institutes his creditability as a fair and honest person. Establishing his ethos is important for gaining the trust of his audience, but is also useful for showing that he is knowledgeable.
            Another essential part of ethos for a rhetorician is demonstrating ones character (Crowley & Hawee 202). Aristotle said that if we believe that a speaker has “good sense, good moral character, and goodwill,” we are inclined more to believe what the speaker says to us (Edlund). Kennedy was aware of this and demonstrated his good character by showing that he was informed of the United States situation with the Soviet Union and the world. This is apparent from when he says, “The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all form of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still as issue around the globe” (Kennedy). Here he acknowledges that there are currently problems in the world, but that man, America has the power to resolve them.
            Along with showing that he is knowledgeable, Kennedy also establishes his good character by referring to the bible. A traditional rhetoric technique for establishing good character is to refer to the work of someone famous. Kennedy uses a reference to the modern religion of Christianity as a way to speak to multiple people. He uses the line, “and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside” (Kennedy). He also refers to God multiple times throughout his speech, such as when he said, “The belief that the right of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hands of God” (Kennedy). Kennedy uses religion as a way to relate to the American public and remind them that they have many of the same hopes and beliefs. His references to God also secure his goodwill, the third essential part of ethos.
            The famous rhetorician Cicero said that goodwill can be won if we refer to our own acts and services without arrogance and by acting humbly (Edlund). Kennedy shows his modesty when he says, “All this cannot be finished in the first 100 days. Nor will it be finished in the first 1,000 days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin” (Kennedy). He shows that he is no different from any individual American citizen, and can only try his best to achieve his goal. This modestly makes him more relatable to the American public and secures his good will as a president. Through establishing his creditability, demonstrating his good character, and securing his good will, Kennedy inhabits the function of the traditional device ethos, with the use of modern references and gestures.
            After creating his ethos, Kennedy continues his use of Aristotle’s rhetorical devices by generating pathos, the appeal to human emotions and passions. Modern rhetoric states that we make decisions on rational thought, but in his work Aristotle pointed out the influential powers of emotions such as anger, pity, fear, envy, joy and so on (Crowley & Hawhee 247). I agree with Aristotle that emotions are our way of “knowing,” influencing our rational thought, and that it is important to know the emotional states of the audience in order to persuade them. Kennedy was aware of the effective use of pathos and used the fear and anger American citizens felt towards the Soviet Union to unify them. He played on the words “we,” “us,” and “our” in an encouraging attitude towards his audience’s patriotism. This can be seen from when he says, “the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans-born in this century, tempted by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage-and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world” (Kennedy). Here Kennedy creates a common enemy by playing on his audience’s emotions, and then unifies them together by stating that it is “our” duty to work together.
            Kennedy further appeals to the emotions of his audience through the modern rhetorical techniques of parallelism and antimetabole. Parallelism is a figure wherein similar grammatical constructions house different words (Crowley & Hawhee 434). Parallelism is used in the sentence, “if a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich” (Kennedy). Kennedy uses parallelism to make his audience acknowledge that money is not the most important thing, but that people are. This is an emotional appeal to the shame people feel from behaving greedily. Kenney also appeals to the emotion of hope by using an antimetabole, which is a figure that expresses contrasting ideas in juxtaposed structures (Crowley & Hawhee 428). This can be seen from when he says, “let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate” (Kennedy). He uses the word fear to encourage his audience to take action boldly and bravely. By affectively appealing to his audiences emotions Kennedy is able to more easily persuade them.
            After achieving his creditability and appealing to his audience’s emotions, Kennedy shows his reasoning, or logos. In modern society, logic and rationality are highly valued over the appeals to the speaker or the emotions of the audience (Edlund). Kennedy follows a more traditional method of logos, using dialectic reasoning over scientific. He uses a call to action to persuade the American public that it is their duty to help their own less fortunate citizens and to help those who are less fortunate around the world. He does this through the use of an antimetabole, which can be seen from when he says, “and so my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you-ask what you can do for your country” (Kennedy). He also uses the literary device of metaphor, which is a trope wherein one word is substituted for another to add emphasis (Crowley & Hawhee 433). Kennedy uses a metaphor in the sentence, “the energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it-and the glow from that fire can truly light the world” (Kennedy). Kennedy refers to America’s passion as fire and light in an attempt to rally the American public to take action.
            Although Kennedy does not exemplify modern logos, I believe that his use of logos is still effective. Sometimes all the scientific facts in the world cannot convince someone to do something or believe something. Scientific proofs have been deemed the most reasonable and logical, but people still have to believe it is true. Kennedy uses Aristotle’s method of dialectic reasoning by referring to the acts of God and reminding his audience of their duty to society. This can be seen from when he says, “with a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead this land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own” (Kennedy). This biblical reference is a deductive reasoning technique that Kennedy uses effectively to persuade his audience to consider their duty to society and acknowledge the influence they have on the world.
            While it is true that rhetoric has changed overtime, modern rhetoric still uses many of the same devices and techniques as traditional rhetoric. This is evident from President John F. Kennedy’s Inaugural Address where he uses Aristotle’s rhetorical devices of ethos, pathos and logos through the rhetorical techniques of anaphora, antimetabole, parallelism and metaphor. Modern rhetoric relies heavily on scientific proofs and rational thought, but Kennedy’s speech demonstrates how effective establishment of creditability, appeal to emotions and reference to shared beliefs can persuade an audience to take action. Overall Kennedys Inaugural Address shows the similarities between traditional and modern rhetoric, and how traditional rhetorical devises can still be effective through the use of modern appeals, beliefs, and references.

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Modern and Postmodern Rhetoric

At the beginning of the twentieth century rhetoric was in a decline. The teaching of rhetoric became dismissed until it was reinvented as “discourse” or “dialogism”. The teaching of rhetoric had greatly changed from its traditional teachings. Invention, an essential part of traditional rhetoric was rarely studied because it was believed that knowledge came from the sciences and careful observation. Rhetoric’s new job therefore was to record and transmit knowledge with a minimum of distortion. At the turn of the twentieth century however, rhetoric took a new form of being taught, which was through public speaking classes. This new department that focused on speech gained rhetoric a new popularity, as public speaking became dominated by the traditional categories of invention, arrangement, style, memory and delivery.
While it is true that modern rhetoric differs greatly from traditional rhetoric the presence of rhetoric has never faltered. Rhetoric has changed to fit the modern world. Traditional rhetoric is more obvious, and so people are not usually aware that rhetoric is used in our everyday lives. An advertisement, a lecture, or an academic essay are all examples of rhetoric in the modern world. Modern rhetoric relies heavily on scientific or proven evidence, but it is through the use of delivery and arrangement, key traditional rhetoric techniques, that rhetoric can be used as a convincing argumentum devise. Whether we are aware of it or not rhetoric is a part of our everyday lives and an important skill to possess. This is evident from how many universities require all of their students to take a public speaking class. The ability to speak rhetorically is essential to being successful in life. Although rhetoric has changed greatly overtime, it is still holds the essential uses that traditional rhetoric did. Rhetoric will continue to change as society changes.

Monday, November 7, 2011

Memorys use in Rhetoric

Before the invention of print, memory was a key component of rhetoric and was regarded by ancient rhetoricians as one of the cannons of rhetoric. The rhetorician Cicero regarded memory as important for the retaining or recalling of information, arrangement of speech and recalling other arguments. For ancient rhetors, memory went hand in hand with karios. The rhetorician Quintilian suggested thinking of memory as a “tappable”, a system of signs and symbols that can be used to trigger a name, argument or image. This was also known as a “memory-ready” conditions, where the brain has been trained and organized to recall past memories and information.
The training and practicing of memory was known as artificial memory, which is memory that has been carefully trained and organized to remember things. Ancient rhetors advised their students to think of memory as a literal place and to try and visual what you want to remember when recalling memory. This was extremely important for ancient rhetors since they did not have the accessibility of being able to write down what they wanted to remember.
Modern rhetors are able to rely on writing and electronic storage systems to create artificial memory. It has been argued that this has created a decrease in the need for memory. However, this is not true. Although modern rhetors are able to write down what they want to remember, they still have to remember from pure memory how to write and how to use electronic devises. Writing has given modern rhetors accessibility to literate memory systems such as books, periodicals and libraries. Electronic memory systems have vastly improved both artificial memory and literate storage facilities.
Although modern rhetors may not rely as heavily on memory for their rhetorical arguments, memory is still a key component of rhetoric and used by modern rhetoricians.

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Giambattista Vico

During the Enlightenment era many rhetoricians argued what was truly knowledge and the means of understanding and finding truth. Many such as Descartes argued that mathematics and science were the only legitimate sources of knowledge. The rhetorician Giambattista Vico criticized Descartes idea, insisting that language is a crucial part of knowledge. Vico sought to reconcile the humanism views of the Renaissance but with a modern non-Cartesian science approach. Vico believed that without language humans would be lost because language reveals the process of reason, passion, imagination, social conventions and historical circumstances. What humans believe to be true is what they have stated is true overtime. Therefore history is crucial to understanding what is true. Through history, human nature and language give shape to the social relations and institutions of our world. Vico created three stages through which human history evolves: the poetic, the heroic, and the human. The poetic generates knowledge by metaphor. The heroic is developed through nations by a system of laws to preserve organization of society. The human through a self-conscious study of human knowledge leads to a greater equity in law and democracy in politics.
Personally I agree with Vico’s ideas. Withough language, knowledge is not truly possible. Language is needed to create ideas and thoroughly work them out. I also agree with Vico that history has determined what we know to be true. Language is crucial to the development of humans and overall knowledge. As Vico said, without language humans would be lost.

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

Enlightenment Rhetoric

The Enlightenment era during the seventeenth and eighteenth century was a time of great change for Europe. During the Enlightenment era the focus was primarily on science and religion and finding truth. In this search for truth, rhetoric under went many changes. During the Renaissance, rhetoric focused on style and delivery. Peter Ramus’s ideas were among the most popular during the Renaissance. The Enlightenment era threw away Ramus’s ideas and returned to the Ciceronian traditional conception of rhetoric that focuses on the five cannon’s of rhetoric.  With this return to Cicero’s ideas of rhetoric, rhetoric became closely associated with genres of history, poetry and literary criticism. Those who focuses their rhetorical arguments on literary judgment were known as belletrists.
Since Ramus’s stylistic approaches to rhetoric were dismissed, a new style was called for. Science attacked rhetoric, saying that rhetoric obscured the truth. This notion was popular during the Enlightenment era, which caused rhetoric to form a plainer, simpler style. This was known as the elocution movement, that offered many instructions including correct pronunciation.
The Enlightenment era searched for truth primarily within the government and the church. Since science deemed traditional rhetoric has an obscurity from the truth many began to think of rhetoric differently. John Locke was one rhetor who explored new philosophies of rhetoric. Locke attempted to search for truth in the physical world and understand knowledge as a psychological phenomenon. Locke focused on the idea of reflection, which means to relate ideas together. He also focused on the power of words, thinking of them as arbitrary signs for our sensations and ideas.
The Enlightenment era was a great time of change for rhetoric. The primarily fact based rhetoric we have today began during the Enlightenment era as people attempted to understand how things worked scientifically.

Saturday, October 29, 2011

Essay 2: How print has affected rhetoric

The Beneficial Effects of Print on Rhetoric
Francis Bacon said, “We should not force, effect, and consequences of inventions which are nowhere more conspicuous then in those three which were unknown to the ancients, namely, printing, gunpowder, and the compass. For these three have changed the appearance and state of the whole world…” (Eisenstein 43). It is apparent from Francis Bacon’s statement that he considered there to be consequences to advancements in technologies, one of these being print. This can be more closely examined in regards to the effects of print on rhetoric. Now, while there have been negative effects to the invention of print on rhetoric, the benefits greatly outweigh them. The invention of print was able to expand rhetoric to the masses, gave availability for the formation of new opinions of rhetoric, and created a larger shared network of cultural definitions of logos, ethos, and pathos. These benefits have overtime formed the modern rhetoric that is widely available to those who wish to study it.
            To fully understand the beneficial effect of print on rhetoric the negatives must first be addressed. One downfall of the effects of print on rhetoric was the change of delivery by the rhetoricians. Before the invention of print, or even writing, a rhetorician often created their speeches in the moment of delivery. This gave opportunity for the rhetorician to play on the emotional appeals of the audience and to expose their passion in the topic. With print, rhetoricians lost their passion in their argument, making for deliveries that can sometimes seem dry or boring.  However, the availability of print has allowed rhetoricians to examine their audience more closely; focusing on the audience environment, opinions, and culture definitions. By doing this a rhetorician is able to gather evidence that will seem relevant to their audience and better persuade the audience to the rhetorician’s argument.
            Another unfortunate negative effect from print on rhetoric is the concept of product over activity. Ancient rhetoricians were not focused on the product of their rhetorical speeches but the activity itself (Crowley and Hawhee 19). Before the invention of print, rhetors believed highly in the power of language and the situations which allow rhetorical arguments to arise (Crowley and Hawhee 21). Rhetoric was a way to achieve knowledge and also a past time.
The invention of print changed the focus of rhetoric to the overall product. This was due heavily on prints need to create a profit. Elizabeth Eisenstein stated in her book The Printing Press as an Agent of Change that there was a satisfaction for printers in making money for themselves while enhancing the reputation of the author (Eisenstein 17). This is another aspect of the idea of profit over activity. Print allowed rhetoricians to be able to sell their work, something ancient rhetoricians were unable to do. This changed the view of rhetoric largely, because many rhetoricians wrote arguments that agreed with the large opinions of society in order to make a profit. This is an unfortunate cost of the invention of print, but in a capitalist society it was bound to occur eventually, whether through print or by other means. Despite this negative, there are many benefits given to rhetoric from the invention of print.
            One of the largest advantages of print was the availability of expansion it gave to rhetoric. Print allowed people from all parts of the world to be exposed to rhetoric. This increased literacy and education (Kreis). Before the invention of print, rhetoric was limited to being taught to lawyers, medical professionals, and politicians (Bizzell and Herzberg 556). The rapid availability print gave to rhetoric allowed people of all classes and professions to have the opportunity to study rhetoric. The expansion of rhetoric allowed more people to have understanding of the practices of rhetoric, which led to questions against the church and government (Bizzell and Herzberg 557). The more people understood rhetorical techniques, the less people were manipulated by politicians and religion. 
Eisenstein states in her text that, “the more printed materials accumulate, the more we are inclined to overlook them in favor of more recent, less familiar media” (Eisenstein 17). I however do not believe this is true. The expansion of rhetoric led to an increased interest in the studies of ancient rhetoricians. Especially in the Renaissance era, that was known as the “information revolution” (Kreis).   This is evident from the famous Renaissance rhetorician Francesco Petrarch who advocated Cicero’s concepts of humanitas (674). Petrarch admired Cicero for his statement that “all men should combine literary art, moral philosophy and civic responsibility to rhetoric” (Bizzell and Herzberg 566). This was a concept that was adopted by many including the rhetorician Peter Ramus who created a simplified version of rhetoric to be taught more easily. Ramus separated rhetoric, that he referred to as philosophy, into ten spheres of topics, and created an arrangement that followed a structure of syllogism (Bizzell and Herzberg 674). This allowed many to easily adopt rhetoric techniques into their everyday lives as Ramus’s methods “simplified as it universalized”(Bizzell and Herzberg 675), which further expanded rhetoric.
With the increased expansion of rhetoric, the opportunity for new rhetorical techniques and opinions emerged from print. As mention previously, the renaissance rhetorician Peter Ramus created a simplified form of rhetoric that was meant for the use of the common person, not for the highly educated aristocrats it had been previously secluded to. Many adopted Ramus rhetorical style and were able to apply it to their own rhetorical ideas. Printing also prevented the further corruption of texts that occurs from hand copying (Kreis). Before the invention of print it was common for a rhetoricians work to be altered by the person copying it, either by purpose or accident. Changes in a rhetor’s work from hand copying could be departmental to the rhetorician as it could alter their opinions perceived by their audience. Printing made it possible for a rhetorician’s original work to be available to all.
 Comparisons were then able to be made, as all scholars examined the same piece of work. This opportunity to share opinions and create new rhetorical techniques opened the door for many individuals striving to pursue knowledge of rhetoric’s, including women.  Before the invention of print, rhetoric was primarily secluded to men. Female rhetoricians such as Aspasia, Diotima, or Hortensia existed, but their work was often overlooked in favor of male rhetoricians. The expansion of rhetoric brought by print opened the doors for female rhetoricians, which brought about new views of rhetoric that had not been explored before. One example is Laura Cereta, an Italian humanist of the 15th century who fought for women’s right to education and against the oppression of married women (Haraguchi). Cereta attacked her male counter-parts by composing Latin letters in the form of orations and invectives, which forced both men and women to consider the role of the women in society (Haraguchi). This called attention to long standing cultural norms. Like many other rhetoricians after the emergence of print, Cereta forced society to create new cultural definitions of logos, ethos, and pathos that has led to the current modern version of rhetoric we have today.
Overtime cultural definitions change to fit the current needs and opinions of the people. Print escalated the need to create a large scale network of shared cultural norms, which include norms in regards to rhetoric of logos, ethos, and pathos. Logos, or logical proofs referring to reason. In thinking of logos, one must acknowledge the premise of the argument, a premise being a statement supposed or assumed before the argument (Crowley and Hawhee 159). If the premise is widely shared, which can be done through the use of print, than it is easier for the rhetorician to make their argument. For instance if a rhetorician uses the premise all cats are mammals, then the rhetorician would be able to argue that a jaguar is part of the feline family because feline’s are mammals. This is similar for ethos, or ethical proofs and pathos, or pathetic proofs. Through the use of print, society at large can share cultural norms that rhetoricians can use as evidence for their arguments. This can be useful especially when trying to unify an organization or even a country.
It is true the invention of print brought about negative aspects to rhetoric such as style delivery and the concept of product over activity. However, the benefits print has brought to rhetoric greatly outweigh the negatives. Print has expanded the availability of rhetoric, which has led to the formation of new opinions, and led to a shared network of rhetorical cultural norms. This has greatly advanced the literacy and education of society. Rhetoric before the invention of print was limited to primarily male aristocrats. The invention of print has allowed rhetoric to be available to all classes, genders and professions, which can clearly only be beneficial.

Monday, October 17, 2011

Extrinsic Proofs

In chapter eight of Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students the focus of the chapter was on extrinsic proofs. It was first explained that Aristotle had divided proofs into two categories: intrinsic, meaning invented by the rhetor, and extrinsic, meaning found in rhetorical situations. The bases of a extrinsic proof was further explained as the chapter continued. Extrinsic proofs are classified as laws, rumors, maxims, documents, oaths and testimonies of authorities or witnesses. The ancient rhetor Quintilian believed extrinsic proofs are “situated”, which Cicero believed all extrinsic proofs rely chiefly on the authority granted by the community to those who make them. All ancient rhetor’s however had concerns on the reliability of extrinsic proofs. This was mainly focused on written documents. The issue with the reliability of written documents for ancient rhetor’s was that it was not always clear who the author was. Also a written document is central to cultures definitions. This distrust of the written document made ancient rhetor’s find evidence primarily in testimonies, which was categorized in to two types: community authorities and proximate authorities. Community authorities are those whose words or actions have earned them respect within a given community; or in other words an expert on a certain subject. Proximate authorities are those who statements are considered reliable because the person was physically present for the event. The reliability of the proximate authority is not about the persons wisdom the way community authorities is, but about their presence to the event. Therefore the proximate authority witness must pass four tests to determine the worth of their testimony. The first test is to note if the witness is in a position to observe the events in question. The second is to inspect the conditions such that the witness can adequately perceive the event. The third is to examine the witness state of mind, making sure the witness it conducive to accurate observation and reporting. The final test is to understand that the testimony offered by the proximate witness is more valuable than evidence offered by someone who was not present at the event. Along with using testimonies as evidence for extrinsic proofs, data, thesis and laws can also be used, but the information collected from these categories of evidence must be examined closely for their reliability. Overall ancient rhetor’s believed that extrinsic proofs were situated to a argument or event. They believed in many forms of evidence of extrinsic proofs that are still used today by modern rhetor’s.

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Renaissance Rhetoric

The Renaissance was a time of new culture and knowledge. Known as the time of “rebirth”, many at the time of the Renaissance strived to broaden their horizons by learning more. Before it was mainly the aristocrats and courtiers who would study rhetoric but during the Renaissance the common person was able to study rhetoric. This was due greatly to the invention of the printing press which allowed rhetorical teachings to be available to everyone. Rhetoricians of the Renaissance interestingly focused on Cicero’s humanitas teaching and dismissed many other ancient rhetoricians work such as Aristotle. Famous Renaissance Rhetorician Petrarch admired Cicero for his concept that man should be able to combine literary art, moral philosophy and civic responsibility to writing and oratory. This concept was adopted by many and the expanded to northern countries in the 1400 and 1500s. In England Sir Thomas More attempted to adapt the humanist concept of rhetoric to educational purposes beyond the clergy, law and medicine. The idea of rhetoric teachings during this era was that any man or women can learn rhetoric and apply it to their daily life. Rhetoric was therefore simplified to make it easier for the common person to adopt.
            This concept of simplification was most adopted by Peter Ramus. Ramus ideas were threatening during the 1500s, especially for monarchs. Ramus attached Aristotle and Scholasticism thinking, which took an overtone of religious reform towards the Roman Catholic Church. Ramus dominant idea was that the ability to reason is innate in every normal human being and one did not learn it from Aristotle or classical sources. He stated that it was pointless to excessively study classical language and ancient texts. Ramus believed in a simplified rhetoric. He separated philosophy, or dialectic in to ten spheres which consists of: causes, effects, subjects, adjuncts, opposites, comparisons, names, divisions, definitions, and witnesses. He focused on the arrangement of the rhetorical arguments as a structure of syllogism where the argument begins general and then gets more specific. Overall Ramus method simplifies as it universalizes.
            Rhetoric in the Renaissance was the beginning of modern rhetoric. The idea that rhetoric should be available for all is something that is still believed today. Although modern rhetoric does pay more attention ancient rhetoricians ideas, the rhetoric practiced in the Renaissance still impacted modern rhetoric.

Monday, October 10, 2011

Reflection Essay

The Art of Speech Making

“Speech was given to man to disguise his thoughts”- Charles M. De Talleyrand (“Speech Quotes” 2011). In the process of studying ancient rhetor’s speeches and constructing my own I came to find that speech writing is an art that makes personal opinions sound wise. From studying the ancient rhetor Isocrates speech Against the Sophists I was able to acquire valuable rhetoric techniques that helped me to develop my own speech, which I choose to mirror similar to Isocrates by arguing against University of Washington’s education system. 
            For this assignment I choose to imitate Isocrates Against the Sophists because in this speech Isocrates took something that was purely his own opinion and made it sound logical, something that I found both interesting and appealing. From studying Isocrates speech, I observed that he used a variety of techniques to make his argument believable to the audience. In my examination, I found that Isocrates used eight rhetorical techniques. He began the speech with his main argument, and then gave a personal statement that he proved with the opinion of someone famous. Following, Isocrates listed the benefits that the Sophists offered. For instance, Isocrates states that the Sophists promise, “to persuade our young men that if they will only study under them they will know what to do in life and through this knowledge will become happy and prosperous” (Bizzel and Herzberg 72). After listing the benefits the Sophist offer, Isocrates asks the audience to question if the benefits our worth the costs, by stating that, “they set so insignificant a price on the whole stock of virtue and happiness” (Bizzel and Herzberg 73),  proving that the Sophists teaching is not worth the cost. Isocrates then goes on to tell the audience to not follow what society has deemed normal, but to trust in your own self will to become knowledgeable and successful. With this idea that it is the individual’s choice in the audiences mind, Isocrates directs the speech towards how society is also to blame in the Sophists dominance over education. He then begins to further list the negatives of the Sophists teaching. Here Isocrates is giving his personal opinion but proves his views with examples that make the Sophists appear negative to seem more convincing to his audience. Finally, Isocrates concludes his speech by repeating that it is the individual’s choice to decide what is right for them, and finishes with a statement that explains that although he is not an expert on the subject, he believes that he has provided enough evidence in his argument to convince the audience that he is right. Ultimately, Isocrates leaves it up to the audience to decide if they are for Sophist teaching or against it; something that I tried to possess in my own speech.
            Following Isocrates theme on arguing against an education system, I decided to make my speech an argument against the University of Washington’s education system. I attempted to follow Isocrates rhetorical techniques in the same order that he used in Against the Sophists. This is evident from my opening argument that follows the same sentence structure as Isocrates beginning statement. Another example of my imitation on Isocrates speech is the statement I made addressing the audience to decide for themselves what kind of education is right for them.  This can be seen from when I say, “ultimately it is up to the individual to decide what they believe to be true. To do this though, people must be willing to open their eyes and to see all sides.” I wanted to evoke the same passion in my speech as Isocrates had in his. In my effort to appear passionate about my topic, I tried to use formal language as Isocrates had done. I personally found the process of speech writing to be difficult. Although I followed the same rhetorical techniques as Isocrates, I don’t believe my speech was as convincing as his. I found it hard to find evidence to support my opinion on University of Washington’s education system. If I had provided more solid proof to support my opinion I believe my speech would have been much stronger and more convincing. In the future, if I write another speech arguing against an institution I would spend more time researching factual examples to support my argument.
            Along with trying to evoke passion into my speech, I attempted to seem enthusiastic in my presentation and voice.  It is my observation that the technique of presentation was one that the majority of ancient rhetor’s used. Through the use of their body movement, voice volume and pronunciation ancient rhetor’s were able to generate specific emotions in their audience. When giving my speech I tried to speak at a fairly loud volume to show that I was serious about what I was arguing. I also made an effort to sound clear and concise to make my audience understand my main point, and to also sound knowledgeable and convincing. Unfortunately, speeches are not my strong suit and I found that I lost my place or stumbled over my words multiple times. On the one hand, this made my speech more authentic, since ancient rhetor’s did not usually memorize their speeches completely or have their speech written in front of them when they presented. On the other hand, I believe that my displacement of thought only brought to attention the serious lack of experience I have in presenting speeches. Overall, I found this assignment rewarding but challenging, and realized the process of speech writing and presenting is an art that can only be done well through excessive practice.
            Speech writing and presenting is a talent that must be done with enthusiasm and creativity. One can only become excellent at the art of rhetorical speech by practicing overtime. Through studying Isocrates speech Against the Sophists, I was able grasp an idea of the techniques needed to make a speech organized and appealing to an audience. I imitated Isocrates speech by constructing a speech against the education system of the University of Washington.  I followed Isocrates order of rhetorical techniques and attempted to use voice and body movement methods in my presentation.  Speeches are a way for people to make their personal thoughts sound right and logical. Through this assignment I discovered this and am able to appreciate the experience that it taught me.

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Pathetic Proofs: Passionate Appeals

The first thing I found interesting while reading chapter 7 of Ancient Rhetoric’s for Contemporary Students was that the chapter title was called “pathetic proof: passionate appeals”. By this does the book mean that appeals of emotion are actually pathetic?
Reading further into the chapter it was explained that ancient rhetor’s such as Aristotle and Cicero described pathos as the appeal to human emotion, having to do with experience, suffering and emotions. Aristotle and Cicero discussed a variety of emotions possible for the use of a rhetorical argument; for example love/hate or fear/confidence. What I found intriguing was that ancient rhetor’s believed emotions must be distinguished from pleasure, pain and values. But aren’t these three things the foundation for emotions? It was also explained that ancient rhetor’s treated emotion as a way of “knowing”, associating them with the intellectual process or a means of reasoning. In regards I suppose I have to agree more with modern rhetor’s that being too emotional, especially in an argument can make a person seem irrational not passionate.
The useful tactics of pathos described in the chapter was enargeia, honorific language and pejorative language. Enargeia is a rhetorical device used when the audience is uninterested in what the rhetor is saying. It is used by the rhetor to make a picture of an event to the audience so vividly that the audience can actually picture what is being said. Honorific language is treating people or things with respect; while pejorative language is treating people or things with disparages or downplaying (belittling). Both forms of language are meant to convey a value judgment on the person or thing. I found these rhetorical devises manipulating. They seemed to suggest to the rhetor to act and have the emotion that will appear best to the audience, which perhaps is what rhetoric is somewhat about. This chapter made me question the ethicalness of rhetoric’s and how much of it is truth and how much is acting.

Monday, September 19, 2011

Boethius

The Rhetorical Tradition on Boethius begins by giving a brief description of Boethius life; making sure to highlight on his interest in Aristotle and Cicero’s work. The description mentions the Boethius was aware of the danger of losing Greco-Roman culture and tried to preserve what he could. Unfortunately, Boethius was unable to fully translate the work of Plato and Aristotle into Latin before his death. Knowing that Boethius was particularly interested in Aristotle’s work I couldn’t help but notice how he repeated some of Aristotle’s main ideas on rhetoric. For instance, in his An Overview of the Structure of Rhetoric, Boethius states that rhetoric can be three types of argument: judicial, demonstrative, and deliberative. Similarly Aristotle said there were three types of speech: forensic, deliberative, and ceremonial. Another idea that Boethius mentioned of Aristotle’s was that rhetoric had five parts: invention, disposition, style, memory and delivery. It cannot be said that Boethius was trying to pass Aristotle’s ideas as his own or if in his effort to preserve ancient rhetoric he simply found it necessary to have these ideas in his work.
Later however, Boethius steers slightly away from Aristotle’s ideas and begins to explain his own. Boethius writes about the “oration” referring to it as a civil nature. He explains that the oration has six parts: the introduction, the argument, the participation, the proof, the refutation, and the peroration. Boethius six parts of rhetoric is similar to ancient rhetoric’s ideas but because the information was new to him and many others at his time it is possible that he found the six parts of rhetoric theory to be a revelation and something new to contribute. Boethius concludes An Overview of the Structures of Rhetoric by stating that it is the goal of the orator (the rhetor) to teach and move, to speak well, and to ultimately persuade the audience.

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Tricks of Persuasion

Chapter six of Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students centered on ethical proofs and there usefulness to rhetors. Reading through the chapter I found it interesting that way verb tense, word size, grammar and punctuation could be used to help a rhetor prove their point in an argument.
 In the book verb tense was the most notably useful form of persuasion in regards to ethical proofs. The different types of verb tense discussed in the book were past, present and active. I found it interesting but couldn’t help but agree that present tense verb tense makes the listener feel more involved, or intimate, while past verb tense distances the listener from the rhetor and makes them feel more of an observer to the situation.
The effectiveness of word size was also explained in this chapter. Particularly for the American culture the size and amount of syllables in a person speech can either make the person seem more or less intelligent. Generally the more syllables of the word the more educated the person seems. I found this interesting, because I myself will use larger words when I want to appear smarter, whether in a conversation or an essay.
The third persuasion technique that was explained was grammar. The technique of grammar was broken into three types of persons: first, second and third. First and second person grammar was explained to usually be used in speeches or conversations of small groups where the conversations are more intimate. While third person grammar is used when the rhetor wants to establish authority, which then puts a distance between the rhetor and his or her audience.
The final ethical influence technique I found interesting was the use of punctuation. A more subtle technique that is limited to writing, but none the less useful. Examples such as dashes, parentheses, exclamation points, quotations, and underlining/bolding/capitalization were given. Dashes can mean breathlessness or hurry; while parentheses can be used to decrease distance. Exclamation points can be used to show strong emotion and quotations can be used for emphasis. Underlining/bolding/capitalization in writing can be used by a rhetor to show importance on a specific sentence, point or word.
All of these techniques of persuasion are used daily whether people realize it or not. After reading this chapter I only came to this realization. It personally now makes me more aware of how I speak and write, especially when I am trying to prove a point.

Monday, September 12, 2011

Logical Proofs/Rhetorical Views of Cicero and Quintilian

The first part of the writing in Ancient Rhetoric’s for Contemporary Students focuses on the idea of logical proofs, “logos”, particularly Aristotle’s classification of them. Aristotle breaks logical proofs into four categories: scientific demonstration, dialectic, rhetoric, and false or contentious reasoning. Reading further about Aristotle’s categories of logical proofs I found that they still made sense in term of modern rhetorics. Scientific demonstration reasoning is defined as coming from premises that are true or that experts believe to be true. Dialetic reasoning defined as coming from premises that are accepted by people who are suppose to be wise; less certain premises. Rhetorical reasoning defined as being drawn from premises of belief that are accepted by all or most members of a community. False/contentious reasoning is defined as coming from premises that only appear to be widely accepted or that are mistakes/lies. All of these ancient categories of logical proofs can still be used in modern rhetoric’s. This chapter of the book was helpful when thinking of how to construct and argument logically.
The second reading in The Rhetorical Tradition was interesting because it talked about more modern rhetor’s: Cicero and Quintilian. Both rhetor’s were regarded as coming from families of money of high class and money and have similar training, yet Quintilian’s rhetoric did not seem to match up to Cicero. In fact Quintilian from the reading appeared to be an amateur rhetor who merrily repeated other rhetor’s idea in a slightly different context. Cicero was credited for setting the standards of the modern categories of speech (deliberative, forensic, ceremonial) and the five canons of rhetorical composing process (invention, arrangement, style, memory, delivery). But Quintilian was only credited for arguing that a good speaker needs to be a good man, an idea that was originally suggested by Plato anyways. Quintilian’s style even focused mainly on other rhetor’s ideas. In a rhetorical argument his known style was to approach a subject with the view of an ancient rhetor and then align his own opinion with that of the ancient author. Personally I did not find Quintilian to be a great asset to rhetoric. I found only his advice of “presence of mind” meaning to keep grace under pressure to be useful in term of rhetoric.

Wednesday, September 7, 2011

The Common Topics and the Common places: Finding the Available Means

Would ancient rhetor's divied topics of conversation into "common" and "special" topics if they were aware

of how people would think, act and speak in the future?

While reading chapter four of Ancient Rhetoric’s for Contemporary Students I found it interesting that ancient rhetor’s, specifically Aristotle, divided topics of conversation into “common” topics and “special” topics. Common topics were defined as suited to any argument while special topics were exclusive to specific fields of argument. What I found interesting about this was that common topics for past rhetor’s seem like special topics for present rhetor’s. Special topics were ones about art, or science. Personally I feel that “common” topics of rhetoric in the present are generally ones about art, philosophy, science and so on.  Which in contrast then, “common” topics for past rhetor’s would be “special” topics for present rhetor’s. “Common” topics for past rhetoric’s were broken into three categories: conjecture, degree and possibility. Conjecture common topics are concerned with what people, the world and society are like both in the past, future, and present. Examples of conjecture topics would be “what exists” or “what does not exist”. Degree common topics ask questions of what is greater or lesser; such as, “what is greater than the mean or norm” or “what is lesser than the mean or norm”. Possibility common topics are ones that ask what is possible or impossible; such as, “what is possible in the future” or “what is impossible in the future”. Ancient categories of common topics of rhetoric are unspecific, and therefore more broad and “special”. I’m curious to know if ancient rhetor’s would divide topics of rhetoric the same way if they lived in the present. The way rhetor’s and people in general speak and think has greatly changed overtime. It is difficult to say if topics of rhetoric would be divided into “common” and “special” topics if ancient rhetor’s were aware of how the people would act/speak in the future. The question is then, how should topics of conversation be divided appropriately?