last post

Overall the last chapter of Royster seems to beopen ended. It also answers the question the class asked all semester; what is the definition of rhetoric? Royster basically says that rhetoric has been forever changing, and it will continue to do so. It will continue to do so as long as we are continuing to work at it. This would be the main reason for the first class goal, understanding rhetoricians from past to present. When you relate this back to Royster, we have to understand all the classic and modern rhetoricians so we can improve, and morph rhetoric. Royster also answers the question, if the classical rhetoricians don’t relate to my rhetoric then why should I study them? The answer is so that you can find the reasons you disagree then change it to relate to modern day, with the end goal of putting down a blueprint for the future.

             “We claim also that when we take a more critical view of this work in the larger context of the field itself… it is past time to reach for more ambiguous goals, as indeed, colleagues across rhetoric studies are now doing.” (Royster 149) Royster relates to the second-class goal, exploring the active, ethical, and productive prospects of rhetoric. Rhetoric is active according to Royster because it is ever changing. Rhetoric has to change according to Royster because it is not ambiguous enough. In my opinion this goes hand in hand with active rhetoric. There is no way to define it because it is changing so much that you cant catch up to define it. This is a positive thing because society is ever changing as well. This raises the question for me what about ethical rhetoric?

            Society seems to be stepping further and further away from ethics. Ethics, like rhetoric, are ever changing. Ethics also vary from culture to culture. What about con-men, kidnappers, and thieves? They use rhetoric to get what they want. A con-man could convince someone to give them money to invest, then just invest it in their own wallet. Is this ethical? I would think not but it cold be ethical to the con-man. It could be his only means to get money and food. So how can anyone say rhetoric is ethical? I think that you have to look at the 1st goal of the class to answer this question. You have to learn about rhetoric from past to present, right and wrong, good and bad. Once you learn you can hopefully be aware of the ethical aspects of rhetoric.