Week of December 1, Tuesday Blog

In reading this week’s assigned reading I decided to write my response on Stephen Toulmin’s passage. I was hoping that the idea of logic would appear sooner in this book than at the end, however it was interesting to read about Toulmin’s notes on logical reasoning of how claims and conclusions are proved and or justified. Personally, I was not able to fully comprehend all the material he provided in The Uses of Argument. Compared to other readings in this book, I would have to say that Toulmin’s writing was difficult to follow. Perhaps it was the topic of logic or the manner in which he wrote that made reading it complex, nevertheless I believe Toulmin’s writing on arguments perfectly reflects the structure of rhetoric. The way in which a person assess an argument was the main focus discussed in Toulmin’s work. One specific quote that summarized his entire passage asked, “ What things about the modes in which we asses arguments, the standards by reference to which we assess them and the manner in which we qualify our conclusions about them, are the same regardless of field and which we qualify our conclusions about them, and which of them vary as we move from arguments in one field to arguments in another?” Essentially, this is what an argument is structured from, an argument, a reference, questions that challenge your claim, a rebuttal, and ultimately a concluding factor.

Week of November 17, Tuesday Blog Post

Just after reading the introduction to the modern and postmodern rhetoric chapter in The Rhetorical Tradition, I discovered what I wanted to discuss for this post. In the introduction it is stated that at the beginning of the twentieth century rhetoric appeared to be declining, that it was no longer a promising art that displayed any sense of importance. Later on in the same introduction the argument is made that although this may have been how the twentieth century began with rhetoric it is currently grown to encomass “a theory of language as a form of social behavior, of intention and interpretation as the determinants of meaning, of the way that knowledge is created by argument, and of the way that ideology and power are extended through language.” Personally, I believe that rhetoric encompassed this idea as early as medieval rhetoric, therefore I also make the argument that rhetoric has not experienced any original philosophies during the twentieth century. If we look at university educations rhetoric, which is under the umbrella of an English degree, is no longer a popular degree that individuals try to study. Sure it can be beneficial, still it is not a developing practice that continues to be updated like the sciences. I believe rhetoric was more desired in earlier times, although today it is not a trait that people try to focus their entire lives trying to master it. The invention of rhetoric is simply not there anymore. Today, the rhetoric that is applied is differently than with past applications. Nevertheless, we seem to have lost the creators of it simply because ancient and medieval rhetors have managed to say all there is to the idea of rhetoric. The rhetoric that rhetors create today is simply a challenge of ancient or mediaval rhetoric, but nothing original.

Week of November 10, Thursday Post

It seems to me that the idea of delivery is one that is ultimately valued in the Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students. In reading the twelfth chapter, the first sentence brought up a challenging discussion question that made me ponder upon my opinion. Isocrates apparently indicated, “Ancient rhetoricians thought that spoken discourse was infinitely more powerful and persuasive than was written composition.” Personally, I agree and disagree with Isocrates belief. In the period that this quote was stated of course it was true. Spoken discourse was more powerful because of the weak methods of availability written composition had to offer. During the ancient period of rhetoric writing was seen as a luxury, not everyone was able to write let alone read. On the other hand, everyone could listen, therefore making spoken discourse more powerful than written composition. Although Isocrates could have never imagined the technological advancements the future would eventually hold, I believe the opposite of his theory can be applied today. Now, written composition is more powerful than spoken discourse simply because the education of the common person allows for the ability of written communication to extend far beyond the abilities of spoken discourse. Although there are opportunities like Youtube and television that make a strong case for spoken discourse, written composition far outweighs the abilities of persuasion.

                  I also found it interesting that the culture of rhetoric was delayed until the twelfth chapter. Personally, it seems like an important piece of information to know that rhetoric was invented with the intention to address “very small cultures, where citizens knew one another by sight, if not personally.” I think this is a reason as to why the study of rhetoric and philosophy is no longer a critical essence in today’s society, because the advancements of technology and communication have allowed us to prioritize arts that are now critical to today’s society.

Week of November 10, Tuesday Post

The imitation chapter in Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students perceived the idea of imitation in a more scholarly manner than I understood it to be. Quintilian’s quote on the rule of life to copy what one believed to be appropriate shined a unique light to imitation. One which made me wonder was the idea of myself and whether individuals are overall imitations of other people whom they find appealing enough to imitate them. Furthermore, I found the idea of copying by hand relatable to college students. Today, we either have the option of taking notes in class on paper, digitally on computers, or choose not to take notes. Until reading this chapter on imitation, I never believed there was an association with the way a person took notes, in the case of class lecture, and the ability to memorize material better. If anything I thought typing notes would help a person memorize material better. After reading Malcolm X’s anecdote on reading, writing, and memorizing words in the dictionary it was clear that copying by hand allows a person to slow down and focus on what is being imitated.

                   After reading a bit of Richard Whately’s biography and Elements of Rhetoric I noticed that as we begin to reach the nineteenth century of rhetoric originality is slowly beginning to fade away with the rhetors we are reading about. At this point in time print is steadily available and so are the writings and philosophies of ancient and medieval rhetors. Now at this point in history it seems that all rhetors are doing is agreeing with or challenging ancient and medieval rhetoric. There is no originality in the sense of their philosophy. Nineteenth century rhetors have historical rhetors to study and question. With ancient rhetors everything they argued was unique. There were no previous rhetors they could study to create their own ideas on rhetoric.

Week of November 3, Thursday post

After reading the style chapter in Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students I wondered if the style that was mentioned in this book is similar to the definition of style I believe in. When I think of style I imagine a correlation between voice, tone, and word selection not the four qualities of style followed by the ancient rhetors. I believe style can be unique for any author. When writers, rhetor or simply a writer, follow a criteria they traditionally become known for it creates a style for them, their form of writing. Today, a writer can write in a serious manner or with extreme humor. Nevertheless, I believe it to be style, something that an author is known for doing in her writing, like utilizing metaphors, but not similes in all of her writings. With this chapter style was deciphered into four qualities: correctness, clearness, appropriateness, and ornament, no of which reflect style to me personally. While the claims for each word argued how and why a rhetor should use and how to use it with rhetoric, I never found a reason as to how it is related to style, at least not a good reason that I agreed with. It is obvious that rhetors should use modern words and adhere to grammatical rules when writing, but how does this necessarily create style if every rhetor is doing it, it is not unique, but instead a requirement. Clarity is also an obvious factor when dealing with rhetoric. The wording a rhetor uses for a work piece is probably going to be different than his layman vocabulary. Vice versa, he probably would not utilize his everyday vocabulary if he is giving a formal and or professional presentation or speech. Appropriateness obviously relates to kairos and the specific timing of a rhetor. Although timing is essential to oration, it is not so much important to style, at least in my opinion. If any, ornament is the only one out of the four that can relate to style since it deals with the use of unusual or extraordinary language, language that can make a style original.

Essay Two Assignment

On The Canon of Delivery: Oral and Written

The evolution of rhetoric from traditional oration to writing and print introduced a diverse complexity to the art of persuasion that allowed classical rhetoric to expand and create new ideologies that could be applied to the new technology of written print. With the introduction of said technology, the preconceived philosophies on classic oral rhetoric were applied to the newfound method of rhetoric, writing. Although classical methods for oral rhetoric were applicable to the rhetoric that was applied to written text, it also seemed that not every traditional method of oral rhetoric had the same effect on printed rhetoric as it was intended with oral rhetoric.  Specifically, the canon of delivery is a traditional method of oral rhetoric that is utilized and perceived differently with oral delivery as compared to print delivery.

A chief focus that differentiates the canon of delivery between print rhetoric and oral rhetoric is the notion of memorization. Prior to written text memorization was a necessity. Ancient rhetors trusted the practice of memorization in order to teach and orate to the public. With the application of writing however, memorization no longer seemed as important since specific ideas can be written down. The evolution from spoken word to written communication has evidently impacted rhetoric by establishing memorization as an option instead of a necessity. As a result, rhetor’s have preferred the former and have stuck to written text.

In terms of what the audience deciphers, the delivery that both print and oral forms provide can be dissimilar. The philosopher Socrates was notoriously known for never writing any of his ideals on paper, nevertheless they still exist today. Even though his dialogues and philosophies are accounted for in Plato’s dialogues, it is unclear what Socrates actually stated, or even if he stated what Plato claims he did in the dialogues he had with Gorgias and Phaedrus for example. Yes, the ability of text allowed for the initial start of finally being able to print beliefs and values, still how accurate can we claim Socrates’ delivery is if he never wrote any of the dialogues Plato claims he did. In this case, every ‘belief’ we claim to know about Socrates is simple hearsay from his students not direct words from the man himself. So I raise the question, is ‘Socrates’’ print delivery a product of his oral delivery because, as I mentioned earlier, his students wrote his ideals down, not him.

On another note, what the audience deciphers is extremely different than the author’s intentions, and, although an author initially details her or his ideals to be presented and understood in a certain fashion, the separation of print and oral delivery ultimately takes that opportunity away from a rhetor’s work. With print, the delivery of ideas is a guarantee; still print delivery lacks a voice. Regardless of the topic, being able to listen to the author’s voice allows the audience to fully understand the author’s intentions by the way she or he speaks. Oral delivery allows for an attitude to be felt. In regards to delivery, the attitude an author demonstrates orally is one that cannot be displayed through writing. With written delivery it is up to the author to select the word choice he or she feels will deliver their intentions successfully. Along with word choice, print delivery relies heavily on grammar in order to capitalize on the intended delivery authors try to provide.

In terms of what is being addressed, I believe print delivery has strength over oral delivery in this case. With oral delivery an orator must make sure that they address every topic they intended to discuss, and although simply writing key points to speak on can be helpful oral delivery can still produce a failure of forgetting to address a specific detail that can essentially be crucial for an orator. Fortunately, with print, time allows an author to address everything on her or his agenda with precision. Unlike oral delivery, there is no forgetting to address a certain point since everything is written down in the manner the author wishes the audience to read in. 

It may seem indifferent, but the lifespan of an individual’s rhetoric can also be separated as short lived for oral delivery and long lasting for written delivery. Without the advantage of writing every oration was similar to a one-time opportunity. If no orators wrote down their speech for future references then the only manner of experiencing their rhetoric was through presence. On the contrary, written delivery has allowed for that one-time opportunity to become essentially eternal so long as the text remains written down. Today, any speech politicians’ make can be googled and within seconds anyone with an Internet connection can get a hold of their speech word for word. With oral rhetoric this wasn’t the case. Written text made the availability of rhetoric to extend beyond the requirement of attendance.

The connection the audience gets between oral and print texts is also different in the sense of what is being understood. Elaborating on the idea of voice from earlier, I believe oral delivery has a strength in the ability to demonstrate the intended way a rhetor wants the audience to understand his or her text. With oral delivery, a rhetor has a tone of voice, attitude, and an overall an appearance that can provide a sense of credibility and authority. With print delivery, the only presentation a writer has is credentials, such as a degree, and their history as a writer. While both are indeed beneficial I believe oral engages in a more successful ability to deliver. When it comes to understanding the author oral delivery gives you a live outlook that narrows the audience’s options in ways they can interpret the delivery. On the other hand, print delivery can provide an array of possibilities in which a text can be interpreted. Since the author is not present like with oral delivery the reader is left to interpret the author’s writing on her own. In doing so, it is possible for the reader to interpret the text in a fashion that the author did not intend. When the author’s intentions are disregarded it eliminates the intended delivery and allows the reader to argue what the author is stating in their text and it allows them to ultimately establish a newfound delivery.

Kairos is a specific element that creates another difference between print and oral delivery. The sense of timing indefinitely effects oral delivery. In a way oral delivery is centered upon kairos and arrangement. For oration timing is key. An orator needs to be able to arrange his speech in a manner that will give the best delivery and presentation. Unlike oral however, print delivery does not rely on kairos as much as it does with arrangement. With written text the opportunity to incorporate kairos is limited, if at all applicable. Since kairos revolves around timing the perfect moment it is an element that can be utilized more with oral than print delivery. Instead, print delivery can only rely on the audience and the way they perceive the intended delivery. 

Along with kairos the ability of conversation can produce separate outcomes between oral delivery and print delivery. When it comes to oral delivery the opportunity to question the orator is often expected. In Boethious’ An Overview of the Structure of Rhetoric, he denotes that rhetorical oration contains six parts one of which is refutation, the opportunity for the orator to defend or challenge concerns brought against his philosophy. With oral delivery, question and answers are an expectation that orators prepare for. Since the orator and audience are both present the opportunity to entertain questions is a possibility, one that ultimately adds a sense of preparation to the delivery of the orator by answering and refuting contrast perspectives. With print delivery the opportunity of conversation is minimal because the author of a text is not present when reading a printed text. Therefore, print delivery fails to provide the ability of engaging in a conversation with the author.

With a particular focus on print and oral delivery, I believe Augustine’s profession of being both a bishop and a rhetor helps in analyzing the canon of delivery overall. Although his significant text On Christian Doctrine was a series of books that ordained the most important works of Augustine’s rhetoric, he emphasized the idea of preaching through them, a skill that is commonly compared to oration.

The significance that Augustine’s text has on print delivery is an interpretation for Christian pastors on how to successfully interpret the Scriptures and how to express them to diverse audiences, a unique text of rhetoric that is originally compared to the traditional texts of rhetoric that set aside religion from rhetoric. Furthermore, the diction expressed in On Christian Doctrine narrows the audience that this text is intended for, which consequently narrows the delivery as well. In this case, Augustine utilizes a complex diction to limit the audience his book is entitled for, pastors. Furthermore, the inclusion of Scripture also adds to the intended audience he is trying to deliver his writings at.

In relation to oral delivery, On Christian Doctrine was utilized as a text to preach Christianity beliefs from. That being said, Augustine’s oral sermons encompassed a general interpretation from his book that did not detail specifics in order to expand on his audience. Along with his preconceived knowledge of Scripture and the Christian doctrine Augustine also utilized the oration of his book to improvise his philosophy in response to his audience’s reaction on his doctrine. In doing so his oral delivery expands on what his print delivery limits, his audience. Because his doctrine was notoriously known for being only for the highly literate his sermon was his method of interpretation to a more general audience. With print, Augustine’s delivery was aimed towards pastors, but with oral his delivery was aimed towards anyone.

The Canon of delivery has its similarities and differences when it comes to delivery in the forms of print and oral conveyance. While Augustine’s On Christian Doctrine is a stasis that can relate to both forms of delivery, rhetoric is normally intended for either or. Nevertheless, contrast can be seen in the memorization efforts needed for each delivery. Furthermore, what the audience can decipher and what the author’s intentions are for a text can also be argued. The relationship the audience makes in relations to the delivery can also vary between oral and print delivery. What is being addressed can also engage print and oral delivery contrarily. With elements like kairos and the ability to converse I believe both can be more applied to oral delivery than print delivery. Overall, I believe the canon of delivery has more of an impact on oral delivery than print delivery.