September 22, 2008, 10:01 am by Brett

There is a sad side of rhetoric. As much as I would like to agree with Plato and his belief that rhetoric should be used for the good, for the capitol T - Truth, and for the benefit of the people, it seems like the sophists have a more realistic view. Rhetoric is used on both sides. In the case of the Hetch Hetchy, those fighting for the Almighty Dollar prevailed over those fighting for the God of the mountain, like our man Muir. It is a sad truth, but rhetoric does not choose sides, we do.

Rhetoric is available to every argument, and that is why people are able to rationalize things like damming the Hetch Hetchy, or dropping an atomic bomb. It will be rhetoric that persuades people to either continue ravaging our planet to oblivion, or make the choice to live sustainably as a global community. The time to choose sides is now.

Regardless if man kind has an impact on this Global Warming, the climate is changing. Resources are becoming more and more scarce. Water will be the next oil. World Wars will be fought for rights to resources. We must adapt to the up coming climate change, not with an attitude that involves conquering it, but transitioning with it. We must ensure that there are people as zealous and dedicated to God of the mountain as those fighting for the Almighty Dollar.

We know they have rhetors capable of destruction, desecration, and death. Where are our rhetors capable of sustainability, adaptability, and humanity? Rachel Carson is one, as shesaid in her essay, Silent Spring, “All this is not to say there is no insect problem and no need of control. I am saying, rather, that control must be geared to realities, not to mythical situations, and that the methods employed must be such tat they do not destroy us along with the insects.” Whether the issue is pesticides, dams, climate change, or what have you, her words hold truth. We must find a sustainable course of action, one based on sound reasoning, science, and feasibility. Unfortunately, I am hardly smart enough to come up with such plans, but when the plan is discovered, I will defend and promote it with rhetoric until the end of my days.

September 3, 2008, 12:22 am by Brett

My political science teacher told me in the spring of 2007 that politics is, “about who gets what, where, and when . . . and sometimes why.” Rhetoric is a tool used by politicians not only to distribute wealth among the citizens, but in some cases to remain in power.

“Great argument doesn’t always mean elaborate speech, though. The most effective rhetoric disguises its art.” This quote cited from the Heinrichs essay, “Open Your Eyes,” sparked the attention of at least one of my classmates. Upon reading this line, I too couldn’t help but think about the art of disguising rhetoric.

For me, it goes back to Heinrichs’ dilemma with the toothpaste and his son. He conceded in order to gain what he wanted. He disguised his rhetoric in his submission by allowing his son to believe he had won the argument. Essentially, he convinced his audience that he wasn’t using rhetoric at all. I would propose that some of our politicians hope to convince the public of the same.

In the case of gaining or holding political office, the most effective way to gain votes is not to tell people to vote for a particular candidate directly, but to allow the constituency to become convinced that they have arrived at their conclusion themselves. In order to present an idea of the candidate, rhetorical arguments must be made. However, if an informed public is aware of rhetorical devices, then their vote may be harder to capture.

What better way to remain in power than to rob the citizens of their awareness of rhetorical devices by removing it from the education system? Why disguise something when you can make it disappear? Although I am no expert, I claim this may be one reason rhetoric fell out of fashion soon after the establishment of our United States. Fortunately enough, rhetoric is finding its way back to school with a new set of clothes, a Transformer’s lunch box, and an i-Pod. Regardless of whether or not rhetoric was intentionally hidden from us or not, I am happy to welcome rhetoric back into full view of the public sphere.

If you would allow me to meddle with Madonna’s words:

You know that we are living in a rhetorical world
and I am a rhetorical girl . . . or boy.

August 20, 2008, 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.