Sometimes
this class is confusing, there are many different views and definitions of
rhetoric. One after another the rehtors build themselves up only to be
criticized and re built by another succeeding rhetor. I also feel as if Richard
Whately felt the same way that I do now. Richard Whately is sick of the
different definitions and understandings of Rhetoric. What does he do about it?
Richard first picks out Aristotle. Aristotle lays down the base for rhetoric. “Whately
goes further, making fine distinctions among the varieties of moral evidence,
examining the preconceptions of the audience, taking into account the often
irrational effects of apparently rational arguments, investigating the role of
emotions in creating convictions, and setting up a system.” (1001) This is the
basis of Whately’s overall argument and it completely resembles Aristotle’s
overall argument. Aristotle’s definition of rhetoric is finding the available
means of persuasion not based on truth, more situational. It is al about
finding out the truth and conveying it to your audience, trough logic. What I like best about this essay as
whole is that the Aristotle like Rhetorical definition sets down the
foundations for the Cicero, Quintilian, Bacon, and Campbell and Blair to
contribute to the rest of Whately’s argument. Cicero adds the thoughts of good
education to be an orator and the thoughts of philosophy in rhetoric. Quintilian
adds the ideas of teaching rhetoric. Campbell adds the thought of logic to
rhetoric. All of these rhetors add the walls and roof to the base of Aristotle to
form the house of Whately’s Rhetoric. The thing we all can learn is how he
developed his argument for rhetoric by finding a base definition and adding on
as we go trough and learn about all these different definitions of rhetoric. This
is something I believe we all could do in class.
I am curious as to what your base definition would be? Should it be defined by our entire class or by each individual? We talk about rhetoric so impersonally in class that we forget that the construction of meaning (as an audience) also affects how we are interpreting and forming a relationship with the field of rhetoric. Although, I would agree with your call for a more cohesive definition of rhetoric, it is important to look at what it means to you personally. I feel as though Whatley's argument worked effectively because it was so personal to him. As we move into more feminist theories of rhetoric, I think it will be interesting to see who gets invited into your "house" metaphor of rhetoric and ways in which women and people of other ethnicities came in through the window of the rhetorical framework.
ReplyDelete