Reading over chapter one of "Ancient Rhetoric’s for Contemporary Students" the discussion was mostly based on pointing out the difference between ancient rhetoric and modern rhetoric. While many of the points discussed in the chapter were valid I found that ancient rhetoric and modern rhetoric are still very similar. Whether people realize it or not rhetoric has been and is a part of life. As humans we almost can't help but engage in rhetoric.
One of the differences pointed out between ancient and modern rhetoric was that ancient rhetors did not value factual proof or testimony, while modern rhetoric relies heavily on facts to win an argument. Ancients rhetors were said to "invent" their arguments versus searching for them the way modern rhetors do. Ancient rhetors also believed that opinions were held by entire communities, not independent people and that facts are experienced based. Now, while modern rhetoric does rely heavily on facts, do people’s opinions not become their own facts? Personally I still believe opinions are community based (at least in smaller communities). People from the same place will not have the same opinion one-hundred percent of the time, but often their values are very similar. So it is difficult to say that ancient and modern rhetoric are that different.
An important topic discussed in the text was the use of “ethos, pathos, and logos”, meaning “ethical, practical, and logical” thought/argumentation. This factor of rhetoric is something that cannot be denied is used in both ancient and modern rhetoric. Another way to think of “ethical, practical, and logical” proofs is as “opinions (values), judgment, and fact”. Aristotle discriminated against these kinds of rhetorical proofs, but I believe they are a crucial factor to a persons rhetoric. A persons values affect how they perceive others and situations, “a person’s logos is their identity” (pg. 22). I don’t think people can help but include their values, known facts and perceptions into their rhetorical arguments.
Another discussion included in the chapter was the power of language. The book pointed out that ancient rhetors were skeptical of language, and thought of it as “transparent”. The ancients respected that power of words on how they could bring people together and force action. The power of words is still true in modern rhetoric. It is true that modern rhetors don’t generally question if. For example is a tree is actually a “tree” just because we call it a tree? Modern rhetors understand the way ancient rhetors do, that words are an invention by humans to make it easier to communicate with one another, and to give meaning to things. Language is one of the bases of human life and its impact is relatively the same between ancient and modern rhetoric. One thing the chapter agreed was similar between ancient and modern rhetoric was to practice. Ancients didn’t believe in the product of rhetoric but in the activity of doing it. Modern rhetoric practice tends to look more like “busy-work” because today’s society thinks of writing as a product. Modern rhetoric that doesn’t end in a product could be considered “babbling”. Despite the difference of how rhetoric is practiced the bottom line is that to study rhetoric practicing is the key.
It is true that there are large differences between ancient and modern rhetoric. It is difficult to say how an ancient rhetor and a modern rhetor would act if they were presented in a situation together. Despite the large difference, I believe there are still similarities between the two rhetoric’s.
No comments:
Post a Comment