After reading the little biography
of Peter Ramus I can finally say that I am thankful that at least this rhetor
did not believe in the same ideologies as cliché philosophers like Cicero and
Aristotle. In fact, I appreciated the fact that he wrote entire books attacking
the rhetorics of both Aristotle and Cicero. What surprised me most about Ramus’
biography was that he was banned from teaching his own books and basically his
own rhetorical opinion altogether. I assumed that the populace like in today’s
society would at least welcome diverse opinions. I understand not everyone
agrees on certain topics today, but at the least we allow and acknowledge
different perspectives when it comes to debatable topics. That is another
interesting factor about Ramus situation; he was not able to defend his works.
Instead his works become illegal to read and is not allowed an opportunity to
present a contradictory perspective and challenge Aristotle and Cicero’s theories.
In the
analysis of Ramus’ analysis of one of Quintilian’s arguments I am able to
understand the type of rhetor Ramus is. Personally, I perceive him to be an
arrogant rhetor, which is amusing to read about. He simply disagrees with
Quintilian’s ideology and corrects his ‘mistake,’ like he is some sort of teacher
correcting a student’s paper. I will add that I agree with his contradiction to
Quintilian’s concept of the ideal rhetor. There are in fact certain limitations
in which an orator can be defined as; and those limitations are outlined by the
qualities of the art in which they perceive. An example is given by denoting
that “Rhetoric gives no precepts on virtue; therefore the orator cannot be
defined as virtuous.” Conclusively, I
appreciate a new opinion that is different and even contradicts that of
Aristotle and Cicero’s ideas.
No comments:
Post a Comment