I though the most interesting passage
from Whately was:
There are still
many, though I believe not near so many as a few years back, - who,
if questioned on the subject, would answer that the use of Language
is to communicate our
thoughts to each other; and that it is peculiar to man: the truth
being that that use of
Language is not
peculiar to Man, though enjoyed by him in a much higher degree than
by the Brutes; while that which does distinguish Man from Brute, is
another, and quite distinct, use of Language, viz., as an instrument
of thought, - a system of
General Signs, without which the Reasoning process could not be
conducted. (1012)
I
guess this passage stuck out to me because on the first day of class
when we had to write up our own definitions of rhetoric, this is
basically what I wrote. It's a method of thinking, of arranging
thought and reason.
I like
this topic in particular because I'm drawn to the idea of language as
more than just verbal words or having signs corresponding to
meanings, and also because any time I've ever been asked to explain
how I write it's virtually impossible for me to separate it from how
I think (although going from thinking to speech is a totally
different matter for me); it's always just been a process of
thinking, a way of exploring my own ideas in thought and following
through with them on the page. Of course, I used to go through all
the steps; coming up with a thesis, organizing each paragraph in
accordance to a certain topic (like Whately suggests), but now that's
not so important. Especially after we break out of the whole
five-paragraph-essay thing, and get to determine where our paragraphs
lead us. Occasionally, if I'm not sure what I'm even doing in a
paper, I'll try to outline it, but I mostly feel as if I'm responding
to a given question.
Overall,
I don't know if Whately is really putting anything new onto the table
for us to consider. Maybe during his time his Elements of
Rhetoric would be a good tool
for students, as it is carefully sectioned out and easy to navigate
and read. His points are clear and he tells us where we're being led
to. But for me, I don't get much out of this other than I feel like
I've been taught to consider all these things in the writing classes
that I've taken. So at least it can be a sort of recognition that he
played a part in our education, because it's been seen through that
far, but that's about all, for me. Maybe I read it too fast.
The rules Whately sets forth didn't exactly feel new to me, either...although I suppose they were new to the timeline of rhetoric we've been creating in class. I don't think other authors we've examined have touched on all the points that he did.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I understand why you feel as though you didn't learn ideas or facts which were completely novel this week. I feel the same way.
I used about the same quotes in my blog post. There were a bunch of times I thought Whately was stating the obvious, having to go back and reread to make sure I didn't miss anything. I thought Whately's piece wasn't exactly new information, but it was presented in a more understandable manner. We have class discussions on some of the more incomprehensible ideas of more traditional rhetoricians in an effort to understand their philosophies, but others of the majority population might not have the same opportunity. This is not to say tons of people want to sit around and talk about rhetoric outside of the classroom, but there are probably a few who want to learn more about it in their spare time. Unless they are the intellectual snobbish type, walking along a promenade sipping espresso, I would think people would go for Whately's rhetoric over Quintilian or Locke's. I thought Whately's piece was less of an attempt to introduce new information and more of a way to make the more unclear rhetoric connect with modern understandings of it.
ReplyDelete