English 5361: Week 4 Post – Aristotle and the First Assignment
As I drove into work this morning, I suddenly realized that I never posted this week's blog. So, before I present the text, I want to apologize for being late. I am generally much more reliable than this, but this semester, I am losing my mind. I think that if I knew before I registered that I would be launching a new journal, I would have taken the semester off. Again, I apologize and ask that you stick with me. Next week, I will be on time.
Despite Aristotle's early training to despise Rhetoric under the tutelage of Plato, he developed a more balanced viewpoint on the art of Rhetoric. Perhaps, since Aristotle did not have the murder of a beloved teacher clouding his vision, he could look at Rhetoric with a more detached eye than his mentor. Unlike Plato, Aristotle does see Rhetoric as a techne; he notes "Rhetoric is the counterpart of Dialectic" (p 179 of Rhetorical Tradition and 75 in The History and Theory of Rhetoric). As the counterpart of the very important art of dialectic, Rhetoric must too be important. Herrick notes that Rhetoric is more of an art for public consumption, while Dialectic is a "more private activity involving briefly stated questions and similarly brief answers" (p 75). So Aristotle elevates what his teacher sought to denigrate, terming Rhetoric an art instead of a knack.
Despite Aristotle's apparent acceptance of the art of Rhetoric, his viewpoint on the Sophists was less than positive. Herrick notes that that art of rhetoric "deserves better" than the "shallow" techniques in use by the Sophists (p 74). Therefore, it appears that Aristotle hoped both to defend the Rhetoric and to improving the quality of to-date Rhetorical works. In his approach he makes several points:
Assignment Option#1-Rhetorical Philosophy Statement. Create a piece of rhetoric, such as a philosophy statement citing key rhetors, or such as a persuasive document using tools from a specific rhetorical tradition or lens (and explaining those choices), or such as a scene from a movie or a professional situation analyzed rhetorically.
I have been struggling with the meaning of assignment 1, so much so that I forgotten what I need to do otherwise. Today, I hit upon an idea, related to something I am doing at work. The Journal of Combinatorial Chemistry is being relaunched as ACS Combinatorial Science. The statement announcing the change is, in part, a document persuading existing authors and readers that the new journal will retain all that is good about the old one, while bringing the punch and excitement of a new modern journal with an extended scope. I propose to evaluate the notice at http://pubs.acs.org/page/jcchff/acsccc.html for its Rhetorical content. I have not gotten so far as to determine if I should look at this through a particular Rhetor's eye or not. What do you think?
Despite Aristotle's early training to despise Rhetoric under the tutelage of Plato, he developed a more balanced viewpoint on the art of Rhetoric. Perhaps, since Aristotle did not have the murder of a beloved teacher clouding his vision, he could look at Rhetoric with a more detached eye than his mentor. Unlike Plato, Aristotle does see Rhetoric as a techne; he notes "Rhetoric is the counterpart of Dialectic" (p 179 of Rhetorical Tradition and 75 in The History and Theory of Rhetoric). As the counterpart of the very important art of dialectic, Rhetoric must too be important. Herrick notes that Rhetoric is more of an art for public consumption, while Dialectic is a "more private activity involving briefly stated questions and similarly brief answers" (p 75). So Aristotle elevates what his teacher sought to denigrate, terming Rhetoric an art instead of a knack.
Despite Aristotle's apparent acceptance of the art of Rhetoric, his viewpoint on the Sophists was less than positive. Herrick notes that that art of rhetoric "deserves better" than the "shallow" techniques in use by the Sophists (p 74). Therefore, it appears that Aristotle hoped both to defend the Rhetoric and to improving the quality of to-date Rhetorical works. In his approach he makes several points:
- Rhetoric is an Art (techne)
- Rhetoric is Useful
- The Enthymeme is a type of syllogism
Assignment Option#1-Rhetorical Philosophy Statement. Create a piece of rhetoric, such as a philosophy statement citing key rhetors, or such as a persuasive document using tools from a specific rhetorical tradition or lens (and explaining those choices), or such as a scene from a movie or a professional situation analyzed rhetorically.
I have been struggling with the meaning of assignment 1, so much so that I forgotten what I need to do otherwise. Today, I hit upon an idea, related to something I am doing at work. The Journal of Combinatorial Chemistry is being relaunched as ACS Combinatorial Science. The statement announcing the change is, in part, a document persuading existing authors and readers that the new journal will retain all that is good about the old one, while bringing the punch and excitement of a new modern journal with an extended scope. I propose to evaluate the notice at http://pubs.acs.org/page/jcchff/acsccc.html for its Rhetorical content. I have not gotten so far as to determine if I should look at this through a particular Rhetor's eye or not. What do you think?
posted by Jessica Badger at
4:09 PM
2 Comments:
Sounds like you have a good analysis on your hands. From what I see on the ACS notice, you could try revising the rhetoric from either a sophist or Aristotelean perspective. For example, what would a sophist say about the directness of language or the spartan/straightforward design? Or how would Aristotle justify the rhetorical choices made in the document? Rather than choosing one, I think you'd have more fun to play both sides against each other in a setting where you decide who has the best reasoning. Regardless, I'm sure your project will turn out fantastic. Good luck! :)
-merk
Hi, Jessica...
My apologies for my late comments, but here they are:
I believe that we struggle to analyze and understand how Aristotle saw rhetoric and, as you point out, we recognize his belief that rhetoric is an art instead of a knack. Probably the most significant part of this decision lies in the process of analyzing rhetoric and assigning a structure to it. We can almost equate the development of rhetoric to cooking. To take some edible objects and throw them on a fire is significantly less of a challenge than developing a process for creating an 8 course meal. And like the recipes of today, we are able to peer into them, experiment with them, and try them, but it takes a really good chef to produce an award winning meal 'fit for a king'.
My point is that we can almost see Aristotle and his feelings towards the Sophists as two different award winning kitchens battling it out for rhetorical supremacy. However, what we must recognize is that both ‘chefs’ have given the industrialized world a recipe for public and private debate.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home