August 20, 2008, 1:01 am by AshleyD

 

In Chapter 1, the text discusses the use of facts. In particular, the text addresses the use of empirical evidence and testimony. I am especially drawn to the portion that recognizes that empirical evidence can at times be unreliable or inconclusive. If our senses are supposed to correctly identify and process information in a reliable manner, people’s perceptions have to be removed from the process. This is impossible because we all perceive things in a different way and use those perceptions to form our views. Our own interpretations often times make testimony unreliable as well.

                The text uses the National Football League’s decision to allow for instant replay but the example that came to my mind is perhaps of more importance in society. The judicial systems reliance on human testimony to prosecute individuals is a prime example of relying of facts. While on many occasions empirical evidence and testimony have assisted in justice being served, they have also been the cause of the convictions of many innocent people.

                I would think that the opportunity for testimony and empirical evidence failing in both previously mentioned examples is great. As a human being we cannot see all things at every angle and sometimes we cause ourselves to believe that we saw things a certain way. This possibly occurs either because the truth seems unrealistic or because it is what we simply choose to believe. Ultimately, I wonder to what degree our minds recollection of facts can be trusted and what other factors should be included to improve the probability that the truth is represented correctly.

, 12:03 am by Laura

I appreciate the history of most subjects I study, so in reading Crowley and Hawhee’s first chapter I was particularly drawn to the accounts of ancient rhetoricians. I found myself more enthralled in the passages about how early rhetoricians, Aristotle of course included, studied and what arguments they valued and which tactics they employed. As an extension of the historical accounts, the comparisons of ancient to modern rhetoric helped me to understand, not only how rhetoric has evolved, but how it has been arguably bastardized by this modern, western ‘democratic’ society (I use the quotation marks to allow room for argument on the subject of American’s democratic label, as Robert has already raised questions regarding such a definition). I think an important point to note is the different argumentative natures that seem to be acceptable in different modern circumstances. While not all successful argumentation employs only facts, we place considerably more emphasis on that single specific tool of rhetoric in formal discourse today than did the first practitioners of rhetoric.

Like AshleyJ, I found the passages on the importance of disagreement interesting. I took for granted the necessity of disagreement in the rhetorical equation, but I understand better the fundamental role our personal and cultural disputes play in the formation of an argument. As simple as it sounds, “If people didn’t disagree, rhetoric wouldn’t be necessary” (2). Here I would like to point out the difference between productive and rhetorically inspiring disagreements and violent argumentative punditry. The former upholds democracies while the latter clutters cable news.

August 19, 2008, 11:39 pm by Brett

I found the rhetorical exercises in Chapter One of Ancient Rhetoric, by Crowley and Hawhee to be of great interest. The practice of progymnasmata and declamation in ancient times taught students to prepare for active citizenship. As I read about the techniques and methods rhetoricians used to instruct their students, I reflected upon my own education and realized I had no similar experiences. I figure for my reading response, I will take a stab at the first level of progymnasmata, the fable. Enjoy:

There once was a cheetah named Tuma. He spent his days of youth roaming the grasslands of Africa with his mother and two brothers. Tuma and his brothers needed to learn how to hunt in order to survive. Their mother showed them how to run, lengthening their strides farther and farther. She encouraged the three to race while she hunted for the evening’s meal. 

While Tuma sat in the comfortable shade of an umbrella thorn tree, his brothers raced each other in the sweltering sun. Back and forth they ran, and in between races they approached their brother panting, ‘Come run, with us, Tuma. You must lengthen your stride!’ Tuma said, ‘No, brothers. You go on. I must see to this tree.’

The year came when the mother left the brothers to fend for themselves, so they traveled together for a while. Tuma could never catch his own meal, and his brothers only allowed him scraps of their own. Soon they needed even the scraps to store enough energy for the next hunt. Tuma was forced to leave them. He now spends his time foraging for carrion like a coyote. 

If you listen closely, you can hear Tuma’s cackle, cracking as he attempts his lonely coyote call under his umbrella thorn tree.