October 29, 2008, 2:42 pm by Jennifer

• Review how to access readings
• Go Over CTW 2 and tips on writing rhetorical critiques
• GTOD: Using “you”
• Discuss readings
• Work on Alternative Rhetoric Table

, 10:57 am by Ian

I found Murphy’s article on the Historiography of Rhetoric really interesting. Especially the point he brings that seems to say that rhetoric is the only art that has no accepted history in any language. One would imagine that with something as universal, something so intrinsically tied to human nature as arguing and persuading is, the history behind it would be known somewhat. Or perhaps, the opposite would be true. Being, that because the concepts behind rhetoric (be it persuading, arguing, convincing, conniving) are so intrinsic, so natural that no one really bothered to look into it until it was a fuzzy memory. I say this because of the fact that the lack of a single history of rhetoric in any language appears to be ubiquitous.

This brings me back to what Brett said about psychedelic mushrooms being a part of the root cause for language and religion. What if in some part that was true? Or even more plausible, perhaps the first speaking humans, who used primitive forms of rhetoric to convince and change the minds of their fellow hordemembers, was so surprised that their words worked as well as a club or a rock that maybe after more tenative uses the first rhetors just pushed the boundaries little by little. This piecemeal progression of using rhetoric little by little, afraid that this was the last moment their words would be useful, probably just made rhetoric intrinsic, something that was always there.

I don’t know. It sounds insane and all I have is conjecture, but the lack of a single history of the origins of rhetoric just gives way to such insane guesswork.

, 10:27 am by Robert

Hear ye. Hear ye.

Robert Manfredi’s Response for today is in podcast form. Mind you, though, I have experienced the same problem as with my first podcast concerning the name and artist. Mine appears as #37, named as “funny backwards accent symbol, lowercase o with funny mark above it, and forward slash.”

I apologize for the technical difficulty. Please listen, though, especially for the special bonus track from Morning State at the end.

, 3:51 am by Arch

YEEEEEEEEEEEEHAWWWWWWWWW!

The Five Shotguns of Redneck Rhetoric:

Yellin’:  What you do when you got to get heard                                                                                                 Eatin’:  What you do when there is food on the table                                                                                         Hearin’:  How you know you ain’t deaf                                                                                                               Asskickin’:  Sometimes it needs to be done                                                                                                     Writin’:  What I’m doing right now with these here words        

The best way for a person to be understood and felt is to scream at the top of their lungs.  Yelling

How does one sustain a suitable lifestyle is they don’t have a hot meal at the end of every day?  Eating

Comprehension and understanding depend on how the message is perceived.  Hearing  

No human civilization has ever been without physical conflict.  Ass-kicking

From smoke signals, to papyrus, to blogging, humans need to have a physical record.  Writing 

…I hope this helps.

October 28, 2008, 11:45 pm by AshleyD

We are seven days away from the biggest election of my lifetime and there are some definite unknowns. There are also some tensions boiling over and people dead set against change in America are starting to show their cards. On CNN, a correspondent referred to the problem as America being a split nation who is resistant. I am sad to say that when I first heard that Senator Barack Obama was running for president, I turned to my mother and said “they are going to try and kill that man”. Since I am a huge believer in words and their power, I quickly recanted that sentiment, said a small prayer, and spread a more positive thought—maybe, just maybe we in America finally realize that the color of our skin is not a legitimate way to determine ability. In the final week, however, it is evident that there are still some individuals who will risk everything, including their lives, to keep a black man from being seen as the head of a country in which they live. This disheartens me, but it also reminds me that nothing is new under the sun. Countless amounts of senseless crimes by humans against other humans have already occurred. Clearly, my initial thought of assassination didn’t just appear out of thin air. It came from a list of previous examples. Perhaps most popular, in the 60’s, Dr. King was killed for trying to promote equality. Also in the 60’s, Kennedy—killed for reasons we may never fully know or understand.

I don’t wish to be the one who harps on the negative but I must say my concerns run deep. Already, there are two known plots for the assassination of Senator Barack Obama and he’s only attempting to enter the White House. How much security will he need should he actually make it to the Oval Office? I guess we don’t openly discuss this political issue for this particular election because we don’t wish to spread ideas to the wrong people but I thought it was definitely worth a second thought. I can only hope that as a nation we have learned from the past and that this time we’ll take the necessary actions to ensure history doesn’t repeat itself.  

, 10:46 pm by AshleyJ

May I first pose a question: if Murphy asserts that the hundreds of scholars of rhetoric have looked to “the historical aspects of [rhetoric]“, isn’t it a bit contradictory to state that rheoric is “at long last begining to achieve its own history”? If there’s history to be looked upon, then how could it only just be starting its achievement now…..? I know that just after Murphy says that there is “lack of historical account”, but–right off the bat–all we have been looking at is dead white greek guys; that seems like historical account ot me.

The quote about “rhetoric revived” from Peter France, though, is interesting and perhaps bluntly accurate. The Greeks had a very formulaic approach to rhetoric with canons, conventions, scholarship, etc.; however the phoenix-like rhetoric now encompasses everything, which we continuously argue in class: everything is an argument. However, Dr. Bowie did challenge that notion on Monday, with little response from us… I think we might just be stubborn to admit we’re wrong or jsut really want to argue about EVERYTHING. Look out world.

Anyway, it really isn’t until the thrid paragraph of the fourth page that Murphy clearly sattes what he means about rhetoric’s history. Ah, now I see: no full history = no general concensus. I think that the preceeding comment about the lack of an established canon makes for a solid example of this, rather than saying that there is no recorded history, because clearly there is some; it’s just not enough.

I think this is genreally what we rhetoric students typically lament; no one knows what we study and sometimes we don’t even know what we study. But we know that it exists and that it’s powerful, and we love to use it. Since we can’t point to many historical or even current employers of this genre it’s difficult to ‘prove’ to someone else as a legitimate subject of study. Whatever, we’ll convince ‘em.

, 9:48 am by Angela

The Five Canons of Egyptian Rhetoric

Keeping silent

Waiting for the right to speak (Kairos)

Restraining passion

Speaking fluently and with great deliberation

Speaking the truth

Rhetorical Tools of Egyptian Rhetoric

Writing (hieroglyphics) basic building block of rhetoric

Letter writing

Persuasion with ethos, logos and pathos

Ornament and Eloquence (Proverbs and maxims)

 

October 27, 2008, 4:16 pm by Brett

The five canons of Aboriginal Australian Culture are as follows:

Creation
Organization
Magic/Dreaming
Songs
Execution

The aboriginal rhetorical technique involved a direct way of speech, or cutting to the chase, due to their lack of metaphor.

They held their dreams to hold as much rhetorical value as the happenings of the real world.

The songs preceded action. In a way they presented a kairotic opportunity for a happening.

The songs were divided into sacred and secular songs. The sacred songs were used for rites of passage and mythological applications. The secular songs were used to express feelings of volition, feeling, or desire.

, 10:58 am by Robert

Kennedy, in discussing alternative rhetorics, writes that “a basic principle in the history of rhetoric is that of challenge and response. Great oratory needs a cause and the greatest speakers have often emerged in response to some great unexpected threat to their way of life or freedom … challenge sparks mental energy that is then transmitted by a code of signs, and rhetoric is in origin a conservative force whose natural sources lie in defense of the individual, the group, and the culture” (Kennedy 87). Considering Kennedy’s words, it is my opinion that George W. Bush is one of the greatest orators, not based on an entire compilation of his work, but rather on this one speech.

The following quotes are from from President Bush’s “Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People” nine days after September 11, 2001. It can be found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html.

“On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country … Americans have known … war–but not at the center of a great city on a peaceful morning … All of this was brought upon us in a single day — and night fell on a different world, a world where freedom itself is under attack.” Here, he sets the background, demonstrating simplistically the complex transformation of our collective view of the world as the passing from day to night.

“Al Qaeda is to terror what the mafia is to crime. But its goal is not making money; its goal is remaking the world–and imposing its radical bliefs on people everywhere.” The analogy helps to define exactly what our fight is really about.

“Tonight, the United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban: Deliver to United States authorities all the leaders of al Qaeda … and hand over every terrorist” (Speech). The strong words of a its leader is exactly what the American people wanted to hear and exactly what the rest of the world needed to hear. Bush adds, “These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion … They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate” (Speech). History has proven that his words were not idle.

“Our war on terror BEGINS with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.” What is interesting here is the introduction of the concepts of the beginning and ending of this war. There was no veil over his intentions here. He was completely clear.

Speaking of the enemies, he says, “they are the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions–by abandoning every value except the will to power [See Nietzsche's "Beyond Good and Evil"]–they follow in the path of fascism, and Nazism, and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way, to where it ends: in history’s unmarked grave of discarded lies.” Herein, I feel an intellectualism. I am not sure whether someone put these ideas into his speech or not, but the subject at hand is the delivery of great speeches, not whether the speech was written by the deliverer or not. When Bush spoke these words, those with the slightest awareness of ideology and theory could not help but to perk up their ears a bit.

“We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest … Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” Defining a line is the mark of a strong country. Bush’s decisive delivery only cemented the definition.

He said that “the only way to defeat terrorism as a threat to our way of life is to stop it, eliminate it, and destroy it where it grows” (Speech). He also said that “terror, unanswered, can not only bring down buildings, it can threaten the stability of legitimate governments.” These were strong fierce words, but he balanced them with comforting words. Shortly after, he says, “Americans … live your lives … uphold the values of America … We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them … continue to support the victims.”

His conclusion, is a perfect example of the evocation of pathos: “Freedom and fear are at war … Our nation–this generation–will lift a dark threat of violence from our people and our future … We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail … Each of us will remember what happened that day … We’ll remember the moment the news came–where we were and what we were doing. Some will remember an image of a fire, or a story of rescue … And I will carry this: It is the police shield of a man named George Howard, who died at the World Trade Center trying to save others. It was given to me by his mom … as a proud memorial to her son. This is my reminder of lives that ended, and a task that does not end … I will not forget … I will not yield … I will not rest … I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people” (Speech).

He has kept his promise, whether we like it or not.

, 9:04 am by Tiana

Hello my reading response is posted in iTunes University. It is listed as Red Jacket and Rhetorical Animals.

Newer Posts »