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?
No comments:
Post a Comment