Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Another Article
Another article, this time evaluating the rhetorical abilities of Barack Obama....apparently a much better orator than a debator. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/us/politics/23obama.html?th&emc=th
Monday, September 22, 2008
Bill O Again
I thought some of you may be interested in a pretty amusing article I just stumbled across about Bill O'Reilly and his use of rhetoric. http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/5535.html
Enjoy!
Enjoy!
Monday, September 15, 2008
Truth
In writing my reading response I have run into a question that maybe others can help me with. Plato mentions (according to Herrick anyway) that true (good) rhetoricians must be philosophers like himself. They must not be seeking to persuade others to their own points of view, but rather guiding others to Truth.
Does Plato/Herrick mention anywhere how Truth is to be verified? Other than that it is arrived at via much study and contemplation. Who gets to decide what Truth is?
Hitler and St. Augustine respectively did massive amounts of research in the quest for Truth. Who's version would Plato find legitimate? Who gets to be the leader of the masses, whose love of honor and appetite outweigh their love of wisdom, and therefore should voluntarily submit to the lovers of wisdom?
I think there is no answer, but perhaps I missed something in the massive amounts of reading (wink) that indicated how Plato felt about this.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
The "Mock-Macho" Situation Comedy
Reading this article I found a quote that could be likened to Socrates response to Pharedus in the Lover and Non-Lover.
On page 83, (e.g., "A man's got to know his limitations"), proverbs (e.g., "A great lover is not one who romances a different woman every night but one who romances the same woman for a lifetime")...
This is what Socrates is referring to with the last part of his response about how the lover not the non-lover should be chosen.
Now, in all of this it seems that the whole concept of morals and ideas of what is good versus bad, comes into play. The rhetoric seems more educational or teaching/counselling than dialectic. Am I close to this comparison? Its all interesting how the machoisms are so unclear to those that hang their masculinity out for everyone to see. Is it truely masculinity, because it sure comes off stupid for the guys. Poor guys, they keep taking a hit and the mocking is truely funny, however, are we not doing the same to them that we - women - have had to deal with for centuries? On Home Improvement, Wilson keeps Tim in line for Jill, and for Tim's troublesome identity, Al is there to keep him in check. However, Al has that soft side and it is portrayed as "weak" through Tim's eyes. How then can we - women - identify with these identities. We know the weaknesses and strengths of both sexes, and the relationships between, so I say have a beer and laugh a little. The Rhetoric between the characters keeps it truly entertaining and somewhat of a lesson in Machoism.
On page 83, (e.g., "A man's got to know his limitations"), proverbs (e.g., "A great lover is not one who romances a different woman every night but one who romances the same woman for a lifetime")...
This is what Socrates is referring to with the last part of his response about how the lover not the non-lover should be chosen.
Now, in all of this it seems that the whole concept of morals and ideas of what is good versus bad, comes into play. The rhetoric seems more educational or teaching/counselling than dialectic. Am I close to this comparison? Its all interesting how the machoisms are so unclear to those that hang their masculinity out for everyone to see. Is it truely masculinity, because it sure comes off stupid for the guys. Poor guys, they keep taking a hit and the mocking is truely funny, however, are we not doing the same to them that we - women - have had to deal with for centuries? On Home Improvement, Wilson keeps Tim in line for Jill, and for Tim's troublesome identity, Al is there to keep him in check. However, Al has that soft side and it is portrayed as "weak" through Tim's eyes. How then can we - women - identify with these identities. We know the weaknesses and strengths of both sexes, and the relationships between, so I say have a beer and laugh a little. The Rhetoric between the characters keeps it truly entertaining and somewhat of a lesson in Machoism.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Was Plato playing fair?
“The debate that transpires in Gorgias, one of Plato’s early dialogues, written around 387 B.C., mixes elements drawn from actual debates with imagined dialogue representing the views of Socrates, Plato, and the famous Sophist Gorgias.” (Herrick, 58)
Plato’s dialogue, Gorgias, left me asking many questions. Does anyone know which elements in particular were drawn from actual debates verses Plato’s imagined dialogue? During this time period was it common to not only challenge someone’s ideas AND write his (because really during this time period almost all were male and not female scholars) supposed responses? Were the “mistakes” made by the sophists from an actual debate’s mistakes or did Plato imagine them as ways Socrates (but really Plato) could take on three sophists at once? The whole thing seemed strange to me even for a dialogue written in 387 BC…
Plato’s dialogue, Gorgias, left me asking many questions. Does anyone know which elements in particular were drawn from actual debates verses Plato’s imagined dialogue? During this time period was it common to not only challenge someone’s ideas AND write his (because really during this time period almost all were male and not female scholars) supposed responses? Were the “mistakes” made by the sophists from an actual debate’s mistakes or did Plato imagine them as ways Socrates (but really Plato) could take on three sophists at once? The whole thing seemed strange to me even for a dialogue written in 387 BC…
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Rhetoric in Science
I've been thinking a lot lately about rhetoric in science. Science is supposed to be completely void of opinion, emotion, etc. This "fact" is driven into scientists during training - we are told countless times that the data is the data is the data.
I've noticed more and more lately that when science is mixed with business (and let's face it - when isn't it? We need funding somehow!) the data becomes less important. I'm not saying that data is not important, it's still is a large part of decision making. My point is that it's not the only part. I've attended pre-meetings where scientists and I have met to go over the "game-plan" with how best to present our data in order to persuade a larger group of decision-makers to make a particular decision. Sometimes the larger group makes the decision we want, sometimes they don't. The good thing about scientists is that they always challenge what you present to them so you do get a good discussion about the different points of an argument.
I think there is rhetoric in science, but scientists don't want to admit to it (not generally).
I've noticed more and more lately that when science is mixed with business (and let's face it - when isn't it? We need funding somehow!) the data becomes less important. I'm not saying that data is not important, it's still is a large part of decision making. My point is that it's not the only part. I've attended pre-meetings where scientists and I have met to go over the "game-plan" with how best to present our data in order to persuade a larger group of decision-makers to make a particular decision. Sometimes the larger group makes the decision we want, sometimes they don't. The good thing about scientists is that they always challenge what you present to them so you do get a good discussion about the different points of an argument.
I think there is rhetoric in science, but scientists don't want to admit to it (not generally).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)