12/1//11

The idea of will to truth states that, in every presentation of a new perspective, we try to seek some kind of truth or understanding as to why someone would believe that contrasting truth. If only it was that innocent and easy to do.

Yes, we all would like to fully accept our tendency to look for truth, but a lot of the time, that truth isn’t accepted. Often, we hear the truth and before the offender can explain themselves, some people are like “Fuck you, that’s wrong” and then pull out their shotgun and shoot the bastard. That’s how wars start.

But that’s just the cynical view of the world. Some people do legitimately try to seek understanding. Humans are very curious creatures. It wouldn’t be in our nature to not question something that wasn’t in line with what we believe.

Most students here fall into the latter category. We’re all here to learn. Hopefully, if we’re all fully engaged in our learning as we should be, we are asking questions if we don’t understand something. A lot of the times, things we learned in high school are almost lies compared to what we learn here at university. We continue our education to do just that and part of that is learning the truth about things our previous teachers merely touched on.

11/15/11

What is dialectic in the modern era?

Modern day dialectic is very different than dialectic of the ancient days and even of the classical times.

Today we have Facebook, Twitter, email and a myriad of other social networks all focused on what we consider to be important to share with the world in that moment but will probably not matter even five minutes later. Most of us probably don’t even remember our last update to our favorite social network.

Modern dialectic is more focused on the now, kairos being the most important thing. Our state of mind now will be different in five minutes, so the kairos changes.

I guess we’re just more ADD today than the Ancients were. Quality in dialectics is suffering for it.

11/10/11

Because today’s reading had to deal with Frederick Douglass, the question of how class effects rhetoric has come up.

Since ethos is a huge part of rhetoric, your class standing is definitely a major part of your effectiveness as a rhetorician. In the days of Frederick Douglass, because of his race, he wasn’t well respected, despite his intelligence and education (though that education was not realized in the traditional ways). Douglass really had to work to get any point of his across to his audience, something he was successful in doing because he was such badass. We talk about him today, after all.

Today, anyone with a computer and a connection to the internet can spout their words of wisdom, rants, and raves for everyone or no one to read. Class standings are somewhat non-existent, though if your name is well-known, you tend to get more re-tweets than your average 14 year old does.

11/8/11

Today we address the question: Is the decline of natural memory a bad thing?

I say no, because memorizing stuff like the Ancient Rhetoricians did would be impossible.

Back then, it was possible to read everything that was out there and remember it. These days, you couldn’t read everything that was written today, let alone everything written ever.

So, today, we do rely on artificial and external memory storage, depending on our natural memory for only necessary day to day things such as driving, instinctual reactions and very distinct memories. Things like telephone numbers, books, and our Angry Birds high score are all stored externally. Artificial memory comes into play when we enact things such as mnemonics and summaries in order to temporarily memorize something.

Things to be permanently memorized that are forever necessary are written down to be remembered.

The Ancients would also perform their speeches this way, going strictly from memory using a more spatial system of memorization rather than the linear memorization we use today. Their speeches were different every time they were given, but still had the same basic points because the house or other object the used for key points was the same every time.

Today, our speeches will be pretty close to the same every time they are given because they are written in full first. If they are memorized, they are memorized from a previously written thing, called secondary oration.

Because we think so linearly today, I think it would be really hard to go back to the way things were in the Ancient times, unless someone was brought up to think that way.

I don’t think the loss of natural memory is necessarily a bad thing, simply because the amount of information out there today would be impossible to remember.

On the other hand, I don’t even have my parents’ cell phone numbers memorized, which might be a bad thing.

11/3/11

Every day we as humans must find the balance between order and chaos. Some people are more comfortable when things are ordered while others of us like our chaos, though it is an organized chaos.

In rhetoric, this is also the case, as definitions of what was rhetoric and what wasn’t fell into place.

In the old world, order reigned, incorporating science, classical rhetoric, a quest for certainty, and acknowledgement that there could be a god out there, but we haven’t found him yet.

In the modern world, chaos was the preferred mode, focusing on human concerns, modern rhetoric, and an acknowledgement of uncertainty, taking more sophistic approaches.

Finding a balance between the two today is a task.

Of course, we must define “order” and “chaos.” There are 7 billion people on this earth and you would get 7 billion different definitions of those words. Order and chaos are both relative. As mentioned before, yes, my room looks like a tornado hit it, but I know exactly where everything is and that is an order to me. A neat freak, however, would see this as a disaster area and be so overwhelmed that finding anything would be impossible. Meanwhile I have a hard time finding something in a too-organized space.

Order and chaos are two concepts that will never truly be defined, since there are so many perceptions, much like many other vague words in the English language. Oh well.

10/25/11

As literacy became more and more present, society became more and more centered around intelligent conversation, especially as the middle class grew and upward mobility was an available option. This prompted the emergence of Salon Societies, wherein those in a similar class standing would get together and discuss anything and everything. You were expected to participate, and even women could partake, upping a woman’s place in society.

Sure, she was still considered lower, but she was now seen as an intelligent being, rather than some fragile thing that was only good for reproduction.

In Salon Society, there was a constant flow and movement of ideas, a throwback to the Sophists.

These were also a many to many kind of communication model. This was a change from the previous typical one-to-one or one-to-many communication models. That model is still very apparent today, through our social media in Facebook and blogging.

Salon Societies were the early online chat rooms and also broke down class barriers even further.

10/18/2011

When we write papers, we’re told to never express our own opinions unless they are backed up by solid facts and evidence. We turn to the library, inhaling every that contains our usually vague key word, searching frantically for anything that agrees with our point.

These, however, include other authors’ opinions, renamed “testimony” to sound like a more reliable source. True, some support their opinion of why they think Elizabeth Bennet is actually in love with Mr. Darcy with actual factual evidence, later re-quoted in our own papers.

But, really, a lot of the time, we will take what another author has said and use it to support our point, using borrowed ethos to make our papers and arguments sound more reliable and trustworthy.

But is this borrowed ethos really a reliable resource? Well, in a way, yes. Not every resource is going to be a very detailed scatter plot graph of the number of times Elizabeth mentions love in relation to Darcy for each chapter and then charting the path to their eternal love, no. Yes, this person agrees with us, yes, we may take their argument a little out of context to make it fit into ours, but by using borrowed ethos we can make our papers and arguments stronger.

The authors of these essays and texts are experts in their field. They know their shit. Now, if someone wanted to quote one of my papers, I feel that their paper wouldn’t be as accurate or reliable. But testimony from an expert is a reliable resource.

10/13/11

So, basically, the development of the printing press changed everything. Too bad poor Gutenberg wasn’t able to reap the benefits of his perfected combination invention since copyright or patents weren’t around then. Nevertheless, it’s impossible to ignore the huge impact the printing press had on the world.

When the first printed books hit the shelves in 1450 and the availability of the written word exploded, so did literacy. Before, just the elite and the clerical could read, and even then the test for literacy was the ability to write your name. But as more and more books were mass produced and there was more and more to be read beyond the Bible and sermons, the ability to read soon dripped down to the middle class and, eventually, the lowest class.

Literacy meant an increase in upward mobility, increased communication channels, and made the Protestant movement entirely possible. The class system, rather than being a pyramid, became more bulbous as the middle class expanded. A primarily oral culture became a written culture, ancient stories finally written down and posterity possible. People were learning much more and education became a priority.

Of course, true universal literacy didn’t really happen until the early 1900s.

Imitatio Reflection: A Plea to Mr. President

As with all speeches, this one put me a little bit on edge. Usually with a speech, I can whip up a bit of research, write an outline, and call it a day. But this one was different. I didn’t even know where to begin. While the examples given in class were helpful, more than a few people shared my initial idea of doing an encomium of some recently shamed celebrity. Also, it would seem that an outline wouldn’t suffice for this speech. As it was an imitation, it had to follow its original a little more closely than word vomit prompted by a key word or phrase. No, this task would definitely prove to be a worthy adversary to my education, causing me to question my reasons for being here and whether it would be worth it to call in sick on whichever day I would end up performing. Somehow, I made it through (to be honest, it really wasn’t that bad; the questioning of myself only lasted about five minutes).

The first challenge faced was figuring out what I wanted to do. On my first read-throughs of the ancient rhetoricians, more of it went over my head than got caught in it, simply because I was out of practice with the language. Because I didn’t want to try to imitate something I didn’t fully understand, these were out of the question. This and I have quite a bit of respect for the ancient literature, more so than the speeches of the aforementioned ancient rhetoricians. I knew I wanted to do something fictional.

As much of my high school years were spent studying The Iliad, The Odyssey, Jason and Medea, and the like, I figured I would pick something from their milieu of monologues and soliloquies. At first I settled on something from Jason and Medea, my thinking following Medea’s tendency for anger and imitating an angry woman wouldn’t be hard for someone like myself who is similarly inflicted. Unfortunately, there wasn’t anything in my personal life or the outside world that was stirring my pot enough for me to match Medea’s wrath or, really, that any of my fellow students would want to hear me rant about.

I had hit another road block and the questioning of myself resumed. It was not until I was doing the reading on pathos that I came across a segment from The Iliad where Priam is begging for Achilles to return Hector’s now much mangled body. This launched images of our own troops overseas, they’re original purpose and why they’re still there an unresolved issue. “Of course!” I exclaimed, getting a look from my pre-med roommate. I had found my speech to imitate.

In writing the speech, I tried to stick to the original as closely as possible, really only substituting words so alterations were minimal but effective. I also switched the direction of pathos. In Priam’s plea to Achilles, he remind him of his father, claiming that the two of them (Priam and Peleus, Achilles’ father) weren’t that different. In my adaptation, I connected myself and the troops overseas to President Obama’s daughters, trying to make the point that we are all someone’s child appealing to his paternal instincts the emotional response that it would provoke.

In the actual performance, I knew emotion really drove the piece. It conveyed passion, anger, sadness, and desperation, all in attempts to retrieve what had been grievously lost. I can only hope that I was able to convey these as well, though I’m sure I was also showing off how red I could make my face with the nerves that come with giving any speech. While I don’t particularly mind public speaking, the elephants in my stomach still made their usual appearance.

I learned some about ancient rhetoric and how their ways “translate into modern times,” quoting the prompt. Ancient rhetoric set the stage for the rhetoric of today. We still use most of their methods, we might just call them different things. Back in the day, they had the need to defend those charged (forensic rhetoric), to make laws and policies to govern the people (deliberative rhetoric), and the need to praise or blame someone in a ceremonial fashion (epideictic rhetoric); three kinds of persuasive speeches that we use today. Rhetoric also provides an alternative to war, though that’s something we haven’t quite grasped yet, one of the reasons behind my choice in imitation. Much of their teaching is applicable today, even if they wrote and spoke thousands of years ago.

All in all, the imitatio was a good experience. I appreciate its value as a teaching tool and really was able to get more out of the reading because I was doing it myself. Of all the speeches I’ve given, this one was definitely unique. It was fun, also, to see others’ imitatios and get an idea of their interpretation of the texts. It was a good way to see some insight into my classmates. I feel, given the chance, I would do this again but perhaps prepare a little better. I did end up reading my speech and, if I were to do this again, I would like to try to do as the Romans did. On the other hand, I may be so stuck in my linear thinking that there’s no hope for me. But it’s worth a try. This speech challenged me, but the challenge was accepted and, for the most part, defeated.

9/22/2011

Despite what we like to think, our emotions guide most of our decisions, big or small. Humans are so emotionally driven that we cannot think without emotion, no matter how objective we try to be. Every single experience we face in our lives impacts all future experiences and choices, even if we don’t consciously realize it.

In rhetoric, the appeal to the emotions (or pathos, if you want the technical term) can be used to your advantage. Often emotional appeals are more influential than spouting off statistics, unless the way your state your statistics has an emotional connotation. Saying “number of dead babies” is infinitely more emotionally loaded than saying “infant mortality rate,” though you might want to consider your context and your audience when using such words. Appeals to the emotion can be useful, but careful that you’re also keeping a professional ethos so your argument are actually taken seriously rather than your audience being disgusted with you.

So hand in hand with pathos is the consideration of kairos. Your context, your audience and their maturity level all go into what kind of emotional appeals you can make, or if you can make explicit emotional appeals at all.

But keep in mind that emotions drive everything we do, even the smallest bit. The right placed word can be the difference between effective persuasion and having your argument be completely dismissed or ignored.

Emotions are powerful things, never to be forgotten.

9/20/11

On the trend of religion in the Medieval period of rhetoric, there was a belief in the separation of the soul and flesh. You are essentially a spirit occupying a body until you die, your earthly bonds released and you’re left to either float up to Heaven or be sucked down into Hell. Your destination post-mortem was determined by your earthly acts while you were still alive, of course following the rules of the Bible as said by the only person who could read and be trusted to give an “honest” interpretation of said Bible.

This brings in homiletics and hermeneutics again. Because those preaching in the Church were really the only ones who could read and they were essentially the governing and law-making force of the people (they were even above the royals), what they preached was what was believed to be in the Bible and it was followed like law. The Church took every advantage of everyone’s concern for the afterlives of their spiritual selves, even at one point claiming that, if you paid a certain sum for certain sins, you would be forgiven and be allowed into Heaven.

This of course led Martin Luther to stepping in and nailing his 95 Theses to the door, starting the Protestant movement (though that wasn’t his goal) and the loss of the trust of the Church.

Homiletics, through this, showed that it is in fact rhetoric. In its simplest definition, rhetoric is the art of persuasion. The Church was able to persuade, through their teachings, that their interpretation and exaggerations of the Bible were correct.

For September 15, 2011

Today’s reading marks the beginning of the Medieval period of rhetoric. At this time in world history, at least in the western world, the Church was really coming into being and was starting to really –ahem- show its power over the people. There was a big push for all to stop doing as the pagans do, and this included certain types of rhetoric.

In its place, hermeneutics and homiletics came into play, both pertaining to the interpretation and teaching –respectively – of the Bible. Both fall into rhetoric, arguably somewhere between didactic and ceremonial types.

Hermeneutics in the context of homiletics, that is, interpreting something scriptural so that is can be taught is much different than interpreting for your own understanding.

When you are teaching, you must always keep your audience in mind; their beliefs, values, and expectations, all go into consideration not only when you’re delivering your sermon, but also when you’re writing it.

This was seen in the movie Chocolat where the pastor, young and new to the trade, had to face the conflict between his love for Elvis and other things not so acceptable and what the Count and the rest of the town expected from him. As it was Lent and some woman had just opened a chocolate shop, one of the biggest temptations in a time for severe moderation and sacrifice, his sermons needed to shame the loveliness, severely advising against partaking or they’d all go to Hell. He didn’t preach how he personally interpreted the text, but rather how he interpreted the text in terms of his audiences expectations.

"As a Rule" - 09/13/11

Last night's reading discussed the importance of the use of "Logos" in your argument. Along with Pathos and Ethos, Aristotle proposed that it is one of the three kind of arguments or proofs that are convincing in rhetoric, as arguments found in the issue itself.

Aristotle mentioned that "as a rule" there is a higher chance your significant other is going to be upset about you coming home late than there is that you're going to get a winning hand at your poker night. However, the odds you get a winning hand can be mathematically predicted, whereas your significant other's emotional reactions cannot.

I just thought this was interesting. I know it's not the most important concept in the chapter, but it intrigued me that emotional odds are heavier than mathematical odds, even if they can't be equally or exactly predicted.

Commonplaces and Ideologies depend on the culture - For 09/08/11

Again, we touch on Kairos, but in a different way. Yes, there is a specific time and place for everything and you must seize the moment to have you argument be the most effective, but this time we're talking more about the literal setting of where you're rhetor-ing.

Commonplaces are like social norms, rules set for a society by those in the society and enforced, sometimes harshly. Go against the status quo and you might end up pretty sad and possibly shunned, in the harshest of punishments.

So, if you're an outsider and want to make an effective impact, you must take into account your audience and where your audience is coming from. While each person is different, every person in a society lives by the same basic principles and value systems. A little research can pay off.

This especially is important if you are running for a political office. You want your constituents to feel that you relate to them and you are the person they want representing them. By you knowing some of their particularities, they get more of a feeling that you're one of them and that you know them.

People like people who are like them.

There are two sides to every story: for September 6, 2011

I've lately been struggling with the idea that there are two sides to every story in my personal life, so it was fitting that this weekend's reading involved this hard-to-accept concept.

The Older Sophists, as it mentioned on page 73 in Ancient Rhetorics, held the belief that every argument had an equal and opposite counter argument, the idea of "dissoi logoi;" thus, two sides to every story.

The book went on to mention some ancient rhetor who discussed "that good and bad are the same, depending on circumstance and point of view" (73). This also stuck with me. We all have different moral compasses, acting in a way that we feel is best for us and coincides with that moral compass. Sometimes this lines up with others', but often it does not, hence disagreement, on all levels.

I don't mean to get heavy and controversial, but this where we get terrorist attacks. The terrorists acted in their evil ways because they believed that flying planes in the Twin Towers, killing thousands, and leaving a nation distraught was the best course of action. To them, it was a good thing. On the other side of the coin, there's the victims of this heinous act, victims who call it heinous and their actions evil. Our bad is their good.

The rhetor also mentioned that good and bad are different. "Things that are good for some people cannot be bad for them, too" (74). If you morally believe something is wrong, you're not going to do it, at least not in good conscience, unless you've convinced yourself that it is the right thing to do and have rationalized your actions.

However, ultimately, in this case, you will realize what you did was wrong because that is what you believed first.

I'm not entirely sure where I was going with that, but there you have it.

For August 30, 2011

Today's reading focused on Kairos and how we must seize the moment to get the most reactive and effective response from our rhetoric. You must act now, while the topic is hot, or it will quickly become yesterday's news and will no longer be taken as seriously, even if it was on everyone's mind the day before.

Everyone knows the importance of timing. If you act too soon, it means you're too hasty and could come off as desperate. If you act too late, you're behind the game and have completely missed your chance. Never late than never doesn't always apply. If you time it just right, your argument could have your desired effect and then some. On the other hand, if you act at the same time everyone else does, your argument could get lost in the fray.

There's no right way to judge timing. More often than not you don't realize what the right moment was until its passed. But then any attempt to get that moment back is futile and is only met with confusion, disappointment, and ineffectiveness.

In the reading, they discussed how, after the shooting at Virginia Tech, talks of stricter gun laws popped up, inviting all sorts of opinions. Congress discussed harsher laws, people put in their two cents about how guns don't kill people, people kill people, and how enforcing gun-free zones is pointless because then the good guys won't be able to defend themselves.

However, it appears as if nothing has been done. The moment passed. Rather, it became a issue to add to Presidential campaigns among many many other topics and got lost. If they tried to do something now, people would wonder where it was coming from.

On page 56, the book mentions that "while these issues are all urgently important to the nation, they seldom remain in the news for long after some event has brought them to our attention."

We are a people of moments, moving from one news worthy thing to the next. In the moment, we might be worked up, but only until the dust settles and something most exciting has come up.