Time's Blog

08.07.06 - Final Paper Abstract

2006-08-04T02:45:00.000-07:00

Structuring New Media with Ancient Tools:
Podcasting and the Rhetorical Canon of Delivery

Podcasting is an example of new media that has gained immense popularity and exposure over the last four years. One of the largest reasons for its success is the fact that virtually anyone with a computer and an Internet connection can create and publish a podcast. However, this situation can produce some rather low quality podcasts unless the author follows some type of guidelines in the development of the product. The five canons of rhetoric - invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery - provide a way for rhetors to effectively build, structure, and present their arguments. While originating in ancient Greek rhetoric, the canons have many applications in contemporary culture, for example in new media forms, such as podcasting. This article presents a close, in-depth study of the fifth canon - delivery - through a discourse on delivery’s importance, establishing ethos in the delivery of a podcast, factors that influence delivery, and how to apply it to the effective podcast presentation.

08.07.06 – What’s Important ‘Bout Canons, Kairos, and Isegoooooria

2006-08-04T02:26:00.000-07:00

What are the three most significant things you've learned in this course, and how will you make use of them in your studies and/or work?

The most significant idea I learned in this course was the five canons. I find them inordinately (yes) useful as a model to develop both oral and written discourse. In some ways, the concepts presented within the canons are practices that we already use or practices that are pretty much common sense. However, to have them detailed as they are is of great worth. As to how I will use this concept, colour me inspired - I am seriously considering doing something with ancient rhetoric and new media (yes, podcasting) for my dissertation. In such, I would definitely address all of the canons.

Another significant concept I learned was that of the isegoria. Again, putting this in the realm of podcasting, I have long wanted to write a paper that discusses the egalitarian nature of podcasting, including both positive and negative outcomes of this condition (actual and potential). Under the guise that I wish to write on the application of ancient rhetoric in new media, this would be an excellent tie-in.

A third significant concept learned this semester is Kairos. Prior to the summer, I had a very cursor knowledge of the concept. The May workshop bulked that understanding a bit, but this course (and our readings) delved deeper into the actual theory, as well as how it applies to various other ideas.

07.31.06 – Videos that Killed the Rhetoric Star

2006-08-04T02:10:00.000-07:00

Peer Reviews

Commonplaces
(Cynthia)
What Works: I liked the more “live” visuals, it was a very different approach that the rest of us provided
What Could Improve: It would have helped for you to have been “mic-ed” a bit more. The audio quality was very low through the different scenes.
Extra Hmnnn: This could just be me (and I’m in no place to talk about technical difficulties on this assignment), but the video kept hangining on me. The audio would remain but the visual would give one still about every 20 seconds.

logos
(Gillian)
What Works: Great illustrative visuals. The added to your argument and assisted with the presenation (as opposed to detracting or being irrelevant).
What Could Improve: Was this in video form and I missed it? Even as a straight PPT, it would have been good to have audio.
Extra Hmnnn: Some of the images, such as the Dragga/Napolean images were not legible. For some, I think it if fine, and we get the idea. For that one, I felt I was missing something by not being able to see the image in detail.

ethos
(Barbara)
What Works: You thoroughly covered the material and kept it engaging with short slides. Very nice
What Could Improve:
Extra Hmnnn: I definitely like the CEO assignment – that it extends through multiple assignments.

delivery
(Time)
What Works: Many aspects covered in a short period
What Could Improve: Two of the slides were rather long with nothing happening on-screen.
Extra Hmnnn: Definitely needed to cite the sources.

enthymeme
(Alec)
What Works: The short slides with nice spacing and the bi-colored texts that help organize the concepts.
What Could Improve: While not essential, I would have like to have had some sound.
Extra Hmnnn: It was interesting that it was told first person perspective of Aris.

commonplaces
(Glenn)
What Works: Very nice explanation of commonplaces, particularly tying it into contemporary use
What Could Improve: To be honest, he interspersed music actually became annoying.
Extra Hmnnn: I like the use of recent ads and images to support your points.

Blogging
(Fawn)
What Works: Excellet point in tying the agora to common uses, such as virtual marketplaces and Blogs
What Could Improve: While I liked the inclusion of “Floyd” running throughout, I find that music with lyrics can be distracting when trying to read.
Extra Hmnnn: Hmnnnn

Audience
(Janie)
What Works: I liked the simple, direct presentation – easy for students to follow.
What Could Improve: At some points, there were, perhaps, too many images flashing w/o any text. Images are great, especially when they’re illustrative. However, sometimes, selected stock imagry w/o text is non-specific and not as helpful, visually, as intended.
Extra Hmnnn: Breaking down thicker ideas with common concepts (who, what, where, etc.) is very effective.

canons
(Joel)
What Works: Very nice pace and vocal delivery.
What Could Improve: Perhaps some more images to keep the audience interested (breaking up the text). However, you keep your slides so short, it keeps the audience engaged, so the additional of more images is really not essential.
Extra Hmnnn: The intro w/your mug had a sort of intimidating angle.
Shoofly Pie?

phronesis
(Lennie)
What Works: Very nice pace and smooth, calm, consistent voice.
What Could Improve: Some of the video flashes were so fast, I could not make out what it was … short of knowign it had the professor fellow in it.
Extra Hmnnn: I know I will be a sheep and part of the obvious question – but do tell of the little scientist fellow.

Imitatio
(Allison)
What Works: Very nice, clear definition of imitatio. You voice remained calm and even throughout.
What Could Improve: I few of the slides seemed to stay on-screen too long w/o much going on.However, I am Very guilty of that in my presentation, as well.
Extra Hmnnn: I am interested and will look up Patchwork writing.

07.31.06 - From Here to Delivery

2006-08-02T02:38:00.000-07:00

What is your favorite canon? That is, which canon do you find yourself most interested in and why?

Having just put together my paper on Delivery, that does seem like the most obvious answer. And, in truth, it probably is my favorite, as I do like those final stages of a project. That is, the formatting and polishing of a written piece or the oral delivery of a speech, including how I speak, what unexpected tangents I go on or the audience (which might just be a class) takes me on. I must say I do like the process of arrangement, as well, especially arrangement that comes after the piece is, essentially, complete. I like having all of the pieces there (invention) and then organizing them in the way that best fits the argument. In some cases, it seems rather fun, not unlike a puzzle. At times, it can even become somewhat chaotic in the sense that I shuffle the pieces and ideas so much it is difficult to keep track of everything, but eventually the pieces come together and the clearest discourse can be presented.

07.24.06 – Augustine: Patron Saint of Plagiarism

2006-07-24T02:40:00.000-07:00

Trace 3 elements of St. Augustine's rhetoric back to earlier rhetors. Also, relate how your 3 to 10 minute "video" project for next week is coming along. You might list key definitions here of the concepts you're relating, as well as the context in which you see yourself using this "video." That is, it's useful for our class, but can it help you in your final paper, in your teaching, in your workplace?

Okay, my title is a bit harsh, and in truth, I don’t particularly buy it – I just wanted to get your attention ☺. But, given our Blog topic this week and looking around on the Internet, I was surprised by how many people make this accusation the St. Augustine plagiarized the ancient rhetors.

St. Augustine clearly uses ideas of earlier rhetors to strengthen, define, and even make his own points. In books I and II of On Christian Doctrine, he discusses the idea of things vs. signs. His discussion hearkens back to Plato’s concept of forms and that one item (a “sign” for Augustine) can represent a “thing” but that it is not the thing itself. For Plato, the individual cow was a sign, representing the cowness of the ultimate and single true cow.

In book IV, he writes, “… wisdom without eloquence is of small avail to a country, but that eloquence without wisdom is generally a great hindrance, and never a help.” (B/H 458). This reminded me of the point that Cynthia made last week in her discussion of the Rhetorica ad Herennium – that we can get so caught up in the eloquence, the style, that we can lose sight of the content. This concept also hearkens back to the discussion of the five canons. Basically, one can have great content (wisdom/invention) but no eloquence/style; in this way, the message will get across, but will be weak. Conversely, one could have brilliant, eloquent style (and delivery), but without decent content as a foundation, it is of little good to anyone.

St. Augustine also notes that the authors of the Holy Scriptures are the best models of eloquence, far excelling all others in the combination of eloquence with wisdom. In this way, it is not unlike what Cicero (I think it was) discussed about imitation and modeling existing expert rhetors to become an expert.

My video:
At the moment, it has really yet to happen. I have been focusing on writing the larger paper and was going to condense down for my video. In truth, my paper was to address all five canons (and podcasting) and my video was going to just address one canon for you all (delivery). However, when I began to write the paper, beginning with Delivery for the sake of the video, I quickly realized that addressing all five canons would either make for a nice 87-page paper or a painfully shallow 20 pager. Ergo, I have changed my paper topic to focus largely on the canon of delivery and podcasting. I have yet to decide if the video will focus on one portion of that or briefly address the whole paper, to give you an idea of many of the points I make.

In regard to the video being useful to me in some way beyond this course, I am not sure. I must acknowledge that my topic is on a form of new media and Delivery and that my video is certainly an example that. However, I doubt that point will make into this project, especially, as my paper is solely about the audio aspect of delivery. It also remains to be seen if the video will assist me with my paper. This point is, in part, due to the fact that I am trying to finish a first draft of may paper in the next couple nights and the video content will likely come from that.

However, the process of creating a video, which is pretty new to me, will definitely help me in the future. I have no doubts that I will use this tool as a means to deliver certain kinds of content in my class (not unlike the way that Rich does for us). I am somewhat intimidated to manufacture the video, since I have waited to the last minute to learn the process (will mostly get constructed next weekend), but I am extremely excited to do so, so that I may begin to use the tool for other purposes.

07.17.06 - The Impact of Cicero

2006-07-17T00:12:00.000-07:00

If you had to provide a brief account of the impact of Cicero on technical communication today, how would you do it? What would that impact be? Also, what messages have you learned from the Rhetorica ad Herennium?

Cicero:
While this point relates to technical communication, I am not sure how this impacts the field, but Cicero discusses the often-raised question of whether a technical writer must be intimately familiar with the subject on which he or she is writing. Basically, a technical communicator (orator) is expert in knowledge of style, arrangement, rhetoric, delivery, and perhaps language, in general. This individual’s expertise, then, is in the communication of the information, not of the actual topic.

In Book II, Cicero discusses the effective ways to copy style (and whom to copy). I think the strength of certain types of technical communication is in the familiar structure of the communication (arrangement). For example, instructions are best comprehended and easiest to follow when they are chunked into small sections with clear headings and tasks are ordered logically and placed in an ordered list. In this example, language is most often imperative, in 2nd person, and applies simplistic terms and diction. The effectiveness of this structure is two fold. First, it is a logical design, which is easily followed by the reader. Second, it is the style with which we are familiar; thus, it was copied from a familiar model. Other more flowing examples of technical communication, such as reports, also have a particular style and structure that is effective both due to its logic and to its familiar design.

Rhetorica ad Herennium
In the middle of writing the section of my final paper on the canon of delivery, I took a break and read the Rhetorica ad Herennium. Therefore, being that was my frame of mind, I think what I took from this text relates largely to delivery. For example, the author weighs in on the power and importance of delivery (a canon oft overshadowed by the others:

“For skillful invention, elegant style, the artistic arrangements of the parts comprising the case, and the careful memory of all these will be of no more value without delivery.” (III ix 19). Note: this section is not in our readings, it is in Book III, which I read for the purpose of supporting my paper’s argument.

For the sake of making a reference to a point that was in our reading (Book IV), I’ll note that, having written this posting, I am reminded of the author’s discussion about the three levels of style (grand, middle, and plain). It is the p[lain language that is used in the type of writing I discussed above (writing instructions).

07.10.06 - It's the Enthymeme World, as We Know It

2006-07-13T02:10:00.000-07:00

In what ways do you think Jesse Jackson's speech makes use of topoi and concepts from Aristotle's Rhetoric? What are the key differences between Aris and Plastico? Which are you--Aristotelian or Platonic--in your teaching and/or work?

Jesse Jackson’s 1988 speech is filled with uses of rhetorical concepts. For example, he uses an enthymeme in his statement, “Young America, hold your head high now. We can win. We must not lose you to drugs and violence, premature pregnancy, suicide, cynicism, pessimism and despair.” In this statement, it is assumed that we have lost children in the past to these causes and that such a loss is common knowledge.

He uses nonartistic proof in such statements as references to past events to support his argument. For example, “The only time that we win is when we come together. In 1960, John Kennedy, the late John Kennedy, beat Richard Nixon by only a hundred and twelve thousand votes - less than one vote per precinct.”

He uses all three examples of artistic proofs, as well. Actually, while I was going to give three separate examples, I found this line that uses Logos, Ethos, AND, Pathos (sprinkled with a dash of metaphor: “Providence has enabled our paths to intersect. His foreparents came to America on immigrant ships. My foreparents came to America on slave ships. But whatever the original ships, we're in the same boat tonight.”

One of the key differences between Aristotle and Plato is in Aristotle’s rejection of Plato’s concept of forms. The two are really on opposite ends on this topic. For Plato, the forms were the only thing that is real; however, they were somewhat unknowable (or at least ineffable) since they were the absolute truth of any item (such as the absolute armadillo form to which all armadillos refer). However, Plato was not able to know that absolute armadillo form – only experience the armadilloness of specific examples (copies) of the form. For Aristotle, it was the individual armadillo that was the only truth: the physical, tangible item that was an armadillo. There was no ultimate mold from which all armadillos are cast.

This debate over which plane was the reality (physical vs. non-physical) is a good example of the differences in their thinking. Plato tended to be more intuitive in his thinking, allowing for more faith-based beliefs to form some of his understanding. Conversely, Aristotle was more scientific and practical, desiring set classifications and organization to form his understanding and explanation of the world.

Me? I am pretty Aristotelian in that I like a bit of order, classification, etc. to help in understanding certain types of concepts. And my closet is inordinately Aristotelian – that is to say, it is anally organized (perhaps obsessively so). My statement does not suggest that it is filled with Greek robes. However, I can also be Plasticotian in that I make many decisions instinctually and with a certain intuitiveness.

I think most teaching is more Aristotelian in that it must be organized, have set rules and formats to follow, etc. However, instructors must also have certain level of Plasticotian intuition or sensing about them to glean when students are not getting a certain concept or knowing when to go in a slightly different direction than as planned.

07.03.06 - Holiday in the Topics

2006-07-03T01:28:00.000-07:00

What are the topoi, basically, and why are they important in what you teach or where you work?

The topoi were the commonplaces in which rhetoricians could find support, that is existing arguments or proofs, for the arguments they made in their own speeches. Originally referring to an actual place in which papyrus scrolls were stored, the term came to simply mean the more conceptual place where a rhetorician would obtain the proof. Basically, these topoi are stock proofs that can be used repeatedly as sources, actually re-sources.

The way in which topoi are important to where I work and/or teach is really twofold. First, I think of the way that we use existing writings to support our arguments. When a scholar writes a piece that others find relevant and useful to their own arguments, these other writers cite sections of the work. The stronger a certain piece is, the more it can be applied to other theories and used again and again. For example, Carolyn Miller’s “A Humanistic Rationale for Technical Writing” is one of the more common topoi used in the technical communication fields. It is an article that I seem to find cited almost as often as it is not cited in important articles. Miller’s article presents a strong argument (proof) that many technical communicators can apply to their own arguments.

The way in which topoi are important to where I/we teach and work is that they can be used as a sort of set of heuristics to help us consistently model projects, assignments, writings, etc. In this way, we can ask certain questions of a situation in order to help us create the item.

When one goes to create a document for a client, or for in-house purposes, there are certain questions that are asked:
• Who is the audience?
• What is the purpose?
• What is the delivery method?

When we, as instructors, create assignments for students there are certain questions that are asked:
• What is the goal of the assignment?
• similarly, What is the learning objective?
• What resources will be available to the students?
• What content should be delivered to the students to prepare them for the assignment?

While not all questions may apply to every situation, if there is a set list of questions (topoi), it is likely that many of the questions will apply and, in answering them, the writer/instructor can create a stronger argument and more consistent document.

06.26.06 - Truth Decay

2006-06-25T23:15:00.000-07:00

This week (as well as last week) we looked at True and False Rhetoric. What is it, according to Plato and Isocrates, and how have you seen it in your program? Do not disclose anything that might get you into trouble. But, what is the value of true and false rhetoric in our programs?

According to Plato, true rhetoric is discourse prompted by the love of wisdom/philosophy, as opposed to speeches based merely on delivering content. (form vs. content). Also, true rhetoric is the art of communicating the truth
(277e5-278b4). True rhetoric benefits both the speaker and the individual for whom the speech is intended. False rhetoric includes persuasive speech that benefits the speaker but not the audience (although they are lead to believe that it will). Actually, that (belief) is a major point in Plato’s true/false rhetoric. If it leads one to believe something, it is false. True rhetoric produces knowledge.

For Isocrates, true rhetoric would be practical rhetoric, which helps determine the best course of action in a given situation. Also, it should not be self-serving, but rather should benefit the community/society. In this way, false rhetoric is self-serving and is generally manipulative. While I do attribute these points to Isocrates, I doubt Plato would disagree with these aspects of Isocrates’ concept of true/false rhetoric.

I am not sure if the question above refers to our TTU Ph.D. program or the programs in which we teach. However, I’ll note a few general points that could be applied to either “program” and TC programs, in general.

Following Plato’s concept of true rhetoric, I’d like to think that many/most instructors are motivated by a love of wisdom and philosophy (perhaps I am just the eternal optimist). In this way, instructors would strive to deliver knowledge to their students. However, too often I image instructors are teaching merely to satisfy a requirement of their position (thought would rather be performing their own research), and so merely deliver content without regard for real engaging discourse with students. In this scenario, the discourse is not of huge benefit to either speaker or audience.

06.19.06 - The Plato Fun Factory

2006-06-17T02:01:00.000-07:00

List out as many things about Plato that you know. What does he suggest about finding the Truth, about oral persuasion, about writing, about the value of rhetoric?

Finding the Truth
Plato noted that a philosopher must be disinterested seeker of moral truth. He thought that truth lies in the alternative world, and that on the attainment of the knowledge of real truth, it could not fully be shared, as real knowledge is ineffable. He thought that truth could only go to those with a propensity for understanding it.

Much of his belief about truths was based in his theory of forms. Essentially, all particular items, such all dogs, are representatives of a larger, universal form that is the essence of dog. This is largely what his allegory of the cave was about – people see a misleading display of shadows and copies, but do not see the original form(s).

Oral persuasion
Plato felt only the aristocracy should be taught to argue and debate with skill. He considered true philosophy to be the collective search for wisdom, not the teaching of smart and persuasive linguistic trick to ambitious young men. This opinion was another point of contempt toward the sophists. In other words, he attacked the sophists’ techniques of oral persuasion because they focused on skill of truth/ethics.

Writing
Plato did not like writing; he thought it was an approximation of orality (and that orality was an approximation of thinking). He considered writing an unnatural method of recording knowledge. Additionally, he thought that writing would bring forgetfulness (kill memory) – it was a recipe for reminder, not for memory.

“If men learn this, it will implant forgetfulness in their souls; they will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks. What you have discovered is a recipe not for memory, but for reminder. And it is no true wisdom that you offer your disciples, but only its semblance, for by telling them of many things without teaching them you will make them seem to know much, while for the most part they know nothing, and as men filled, not with wisdom, but with the conceit of wisdom, they will be a burden to their fellows.” (Phaedrus 275 a-b)

Therefore, it is ironic that Plato defined himself in his writing.

Value of Rhetoric
Plato was hostile to the Sophists, thinking they were a threat to the old world order. He discounted virtually all sophists (not Isocrates) and their rhetoric as inferior, since they practiced rhetoric for money. Plato believed there is a great link between rhetoric and poetry, which are both in opposition to philosophy. Additionally, he thought true rhetoric is without context, but that true rhetoric could be transcended through dialectic.

Interesting note here: he considered much of his writings to be dialectics, which somehow justified them as being in written form. In other words, he did not consider his writings to be writings, thus remaining against writing.

Plato’s definition of rhetoric from Gorgias: "Rhetoric is the art of persuading an ignorant multitude about the justice or injustice of a matter, without imparting any real instruction."

Plato’s definition of rhetoric from Phaedrus: "Rhetoric is an art which leads the soul by means of words, not only in the law courts, but in private companies as well."

Plato's true art of rhetoric, or ideal rhetoric: (http://spot.colorado.edu/~hauserg/Gkrhetoric.htm)

know truth
be knowledgeable in subject
result of dialectic = discovers agon, tension
know nature of souls and how each type acts
audience analysis
know various sorts of speeches
genres
know relationship of speeches to souls (so you can speak in fashion appropriate to soul)
know relationship of speeches to situations so that "rhetor will know when to speak and when to be silent, when to say some things and not others"

1-5 = true art of rhetoric, based on dialectic

Important – Plato doesn't restrict rhetoric to public or formal situations. The defining factor is instead the WAY words are used. Rhetoric is concerned with the orientation of the communicator toward the use of words.

5364 Final Paper

2006-06-12T15:53:00.000-07:00

What are you thinking about for your 20-page paper/project thus far?

In regard to my paper, I have not solidified a topic as of yet. However, in keeping with my larger research interest of podcasting (sorry already to those who are getting tired of this topic), I am currently thinking about either looking at:
• The 5th century “isegoria” right of citizens to have their voice compared to the egalitarian nature of podcasting, blogging, websites; or
• A more applicable paper, discussing the podcast process according to the five canons of rhetoric. This one would be more applicable in that I would layout a sort of heuristic of creating a podcast or blog (probably just the former) based on the theory.

Again, I have not particularly decided what the topic will be. I am not set on either of the two mentioned above, but they are both under consideration.

06.12.06 - Gorgias' Emphasis in the Encomium of Helen

2006-06-12T15:47:00.000-07:00

What does Gorgias emphasize? Why is this significant to both classical rhetoric and contemporary teaching?

In considering what Gorgias emphasized in the “Encomium of Helen,” there are two ways that I can interpret the question: what he is emphasizing in content (meaning) and what he is emphasizing in style. I will address both of these points, individually.

What Gorgias seems to be emphasizing in his message is that truth is not always (or never) one-sided. This is to say that there are perceived truths. Specific to the story of Helen, she was blamed for beginning the Trojan War by leaving her husband, King Menalaus, to be with Paris, Prince of Troy. Gorgias’ argument is that she is not solely to blame for this action; Paris may have forced her or persuaded her, she was wooed by love, even the gods had a part in making her go to Paris … errr Troy, With Paris.

The significance of Gorgias’ argument in contemporary teaching is in the message, almost a moral: to not immediately take a given truth as the ultimate truth. “There are two sides to every story,” is the phrase that comes to mind. While one should speak the truth, there can be different versions of the truth from different people involved in a situation, especially when there is blame involved (as in the tale of Helen).

Quick example: if I say my car is in the garage and it has since been stolen, I am not lying. Admittedly, there IS a more ultimate truth that my car is not in the garage. However, when one enters blame into the argument, such as I am to blame for my car being stolen, since I left the keys in it or I left the garage open, there could be certain other truths that are being denied. The thief might have used tools that allowed entry into the car/garage, I may have had all locked but the thief had a forged key from some previous interaction with me (neighbor, mechanic, friend?). Also, there should be something said about the expectation of safety of ownership when it is my car in my garage. Perhaps I am stretching with this on-the-fly analogy, as I already see flaws in it; but, I hope the point of my example is understood.

Gorgias, who compared the power of language to that of magic and drugs (B/H 43), puts this idea into action in the Encomium of Helen. What Gorgias emphasizes in style is a very flowing poetic language. He entrances and even intoxicates the reader by his use of such poetic captivating prose. Consider the following lines:
• … it is an equal error and mistake to blame the praisable and praise the blamable. (Line 1)
• Who it was and how and why he sailed away, taking Helen as his love, I cannot say. To tell the knowing what they know shows it is right but brings no delight. (Line 5)
• … or by force reduced or by words seduced (or by love possessed}

These lines, so flowing, poetic, and beautiful (pathos) are also very strong and insightful in meaning (logos). Throughout the Encomuim, Gorgias seems to largely be emphasizing the power of language to persuade. There is an interesting duality of this point in the Encomuim, as he is using highly persuasive language to show that Helen was strongly persuaded.

The power of language to persuade is generally one of the points attributed to rhetoric. In this way, it is an important concept to apply to teaching. Doing so will help students learn to shape their own arguments to capture and direct the power of their language.

Couldn’t resist a little Gorgiasian closure:
From Time to the wise and sure, Gorgias’ , you truly impart a sword to us. And to the naysayers, critics, and bettors, we 5364 sophists are Rhetors. So, we graciously accept your gift sword and acknowledge that “Speech is a powerful lord.”

06.05.06 - Classical Rhetoric in the Contomporary World

2006-06-11T19:08:00.000-07:00

What is the value of classical rhetoric in today's contemporary world? In your profession?

In considering the value of classical rhetoric in the contemporary world, there are a number ways in which we can see such value. One valuable, contemporary use of rhetoric is in academia. The fact that we are in a classical rhetoric course suggests that there is still value in learning and discussing this topic. Such classical theories form the foundation of more current philosophical and rhetorical theories (as I’m sure we will learn this semester).

Additionally, classical theories on rhetoric can help us to understand the rhetoric that we experience (and use) daily. We witness and experience rhetoric daily in the news, advertising, and in interactions with coworkers, peers, family members, et cetera. To whatever extent these individuals are aware of the rhetoric that they are using, there is a style and, generally, a rhetorical method to the way in which they are communication information.

Although such theories are deemed “ancient” does not mean that they hold no value today for shaping our own rhetorical abilities. We get into discussions and debates, we compose oral and written arguments as letters or articles, and we even resolve disputes. Of course, there are various roles in our society, such as attorney or politician (no large change from classical rhetoric there) that perform these tasks more than others. But knowing how to effectively construct an argument toward any of these goals is a benefit to anyone. This is so because, in building an effective argument, it is still essential to find the best language, style, and approach to suit a given situation.

Therefore, the final value I will note here is that classical rhetorical theories are still relevant to provide us with heuristic models that we can apply to building our arguments. For example, the application of the five basic canons of rhetoric: invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery, is a fully valid and excellent way to structure the building process of a presentation, article, report, etc.

The value of classical rhetoric in my profession essentially mirrors the points I have raised above. As a collegiate instructor, a detailed understating of classical rhetoric would place me in an excellent position to use those theories within a technical communication course or as a stand-alone course on rhetoric. Additionally, the study of classical rhetoric can assist me in understanding the rhetoric in the world around me and use insights there in my class(es). Finally, I can follow more applicable guides (such as the five cannons of rhetoric) to build my own presentations within a course.

The points I have addressed above do seem to merely brush the surface of contemporary applications. As I read additional texts of classical rhetoric, I continually associate point made there to current/recent events in the news, in my own life, or in other areas, such as advertising. I am thoroughly looking forward to the rest of this semester and to further reading of the texts on our list.

On June 26, I will be presenting on Plato’s Phaedrus.

Welcome

2006-05-25T16:17:00.000-07:00

Welcome all - I will be updating this quite soon!