toulmin

The section on Toulmin was pretty interesting because in one of my classes we are covering toulmin arguments and writing essays using his rhetoric style. It's interesting how today most people only care about arguments and reasoning instead of the quality of the information quality. The style Toulmin uses leans towards logos appeals. It makes sense though because if you make an argument seem reasonable people will accept it and support it whether the information is right or wrong. I think you see a lot of arguments made in this style primarily among politicians and political candidates.  

Modern and Post-Modern Rhetoric intro

 `In RT the introduction to Modern and Post-Modern Rhetoric covers the twentieth century and the decline of rhetoric as an academic discipline. However rhetoric was also revived in the form of discourse which involves acceptance of language as a social behavior. One of the ways this change affected learning institutions was the change in focus from literature rhetoric to speech. The use of oral rhetoric to gain recognition and to have your voice heard became the focus. The chapter also covers the use of philosophy in order to understand rhetoric. I feel like this use is especially apparent in arguments that use the reasoning, “If a is b and b is c then a is c.”. One type of philosophy that has a strong influence on rhetoric is semantics. If using semantics you have to analyze the mental behavior of the audience to realize whether they will take something you say in the way it is meant or not. If a rhetor chose to make a sarcastic comment or a joke to the wrong sort of audience it could cause he/she to lose support from that group of people. One of the biggest differences between early rhetoric and this new twentieth century form is that the old form is considered mainly a use of persuasion, whereas in the new form rhetoric is a foundation of knowledge that persuades on its own.  

Chapter 12

 Chapter 12 is all about oral discourse and the delivery of a written rhetoric as well as the history of one. The author gives a brief introduction about how oral delivery was a common method in the days of Aristotle due to the fact that most people were unable to write. This led to the oral delivery being crucial in an argument. The problem with this was that whoever was reading the rhetoric could completely alter the piece just by adjusting the delivery which angered many rhetors such as Aristotle because it detracted from their work.

Ethos is a valuable part of oral delivery because everything you do physically affects the ethos. If you raise your voice you could be considered angry or excited whereas if you avoid eye contact the audience might find you distrustful. Hand gestures are another important piece, a lot of people say they talk with their hands and this is no exaggeration. The types of movements you make and the speed can tell the audience what your tone is and how they should be responding to your delivery. One of the ways that rhetors were able to preserve their voice in writing was in the creation of punctuation which was non-existent in early years. By putting a period or exclamation mark in the writing the rhetor could dictate how the piece was read keeping the delivery how it was intended by the writer.

Another important piece of literary rhetoric is the imagery in the writing. By using certain words that are descriptive and vivid you can put the reader in the shoes of the writer and make it feel like they are almost there. This type of relation can be extremely useful because of the strong ethos effect it has on the audience in helping them relate.  

Chapter 11

 In the beginning of chapter 11 the author tells the story of Simonides and relates it to Kairos. The gods Castor and Pollux are used as an example of Kairos because they sent a message for Simonides to come outside at the opportune moment which saved the mans life from the building falling in. However the main purpose of the chapter is to demonstrate how memory is related to the concept of Kairos. The chapter relates how Kairos and memory are alike in many ways, both require an attunment with the audience, they can make or break an argument, and the are the solid foundation for oral arguments.

Another concept discussed is the difference between and artificial memory and a natural memory. Even today this is a very applicable concept of learning and memory. A natural memory is what we use every day to recall certain situations or things people have said. An artificial memory is how we train our brain to remember things, for example associating a memory with a song would be an artificial memory. In a way artificial memory is the equivalent of studying. The most famous practitioners of artificial memory were the sophists and one in particular by the name of Hippias. He was known for his amazing ability to recollect extensive information and names. One type of memory is cultural memory which is a communal memory such as family stories or poems created to pass down memories through generations. Another type of memory is organizational memory in which we use a sequence to remember information, such as counting or the alphabet and associating that sequence with a memory such as fingers or food with the same first letter. Lastly we use literacy to remember things by recording them in books, electronicly, and paraphrasing so that we can return to the idea and recall it from our memory.  

Chapter 10

 Chapter 10 of ARCS discusses the third cannon of rhetoric known as style. One of the important figures in the history of rhetoric and style is Gorgia's who was credited with the discovery that extra ordinary uses of language were useful in not only poetry but prose. This ornament of language is useful in exciting emotion the audience and creating a mental sketch of the argument instead of explaining it. The main purpose of the chapter is to discuss the many ways that rhetors enhanced their ethos. By enhancing that ethos the rhetors were able to become closer to the audience which make it easier for the audience to support the argument if they take a personal stance in it. Another tool used by the rhetors is the trick of reasoning by question and answer. This trick allows the speaker to repeat their position more than once as well as state an opposing view or question the audience may have. You hear much of this in politics today and religious speeches especially where the speaker is trying to move the audience into an emotional frenzy. The question and answer trick is also commonly used in inspirational speeches such as pre game by coaches. I know I personally have heard my coaches ask us if we are going to lose and then answer his own question with a loud “No!” in order to get us all riled up and the truth is it works.  

RT Enlightenment

 In this reading the author discusses how rhetoric developed from the 17^th to 19^th centuries and how the conception of rhetoric evolved during that period. One concept that was discussed was the theory presented by Francis Bacon on how the brain is divided into three faculties of memory, imagination, and reasoning. The author talks about how his theory that reasoning could move imagination which in turn would move will. The author states that this is not true which I agree with seeing how we tell people everyday things are bad for them such as smoking and yet people still do it, even with the imagination producing images of what can happen if they continue to smoke.

Also brought into discussion was the 18^th century Elocution movement during which there was a heavy focus on correctness in language pronunciation. I think that this is visible in many older movies that I have watched. Like the book said it was also a sign of class whereas it isn't so much today. If you were of a certain class you were expected to speak gentlemanly with your pronunciation. Today there are many people of high-class that have terrible pronunciation and grammar. For example many hip hop artists speak and pronounce words so badly that it could almost be considered another language.  

Essay 2

Travis Porter

Engl 360

10/20/2011

Essay 2

The Printing Press and Rhetoric

Elizabeth Eisenstein was an American historian during the early 19^th century and was known for her historical study of print, writing, and the first study of the transition between manuscript to print. She took a particular interest in one important factor of this transition, the printing press. The first printing press was developed by a German named Johannes Gutenberg around 1450. This machine was probably the most influential tool of rhetoric ever created.

Before the creation of the printing press all text and print was hand written as manuscripts by hired individuals. If copies of this manuscript were wanted the author had to have it re written each time which led to discrepancies and errors between texts. This process was also slow and a highly inefficient way to spread any kind of knowledge or rhetoric among the population. The Renaissance printing press on the other hand, could produce three thousand and six hundred pages a day. Each of these pages being written the same exact way with the same exact text. As you can imagine this had a great deal of influence on rhetoric and the rate it could be used to bombard an audience. The book written by Elizabeth called “The Printing Press as an Agent of Change”, analyzes these effects cause by the printing press and shows how it led to the advancement of rhetoric.

In Elizabeth Eisenstein's book “The Printing Press as an Agent of Change”, she talks about how much study has been done on the developments that led to the printing press and how it has become such a successful tool today.(Eisenstein 4) However she states that her main focus in her book is to explain the consequences of such a device. There is even a cited passage in her text from a writer stating that “The Immense and revolutionary change which it (the invention of printing) brought about can be summarized in one sentence: Until that time every book was a manuscript.”. This statement alone is a statement of ignorance. I personally have not spent much time in the study of rhetoric or history of the printing press for that matter, but even I can say this is a bullshit statement. The printing press gave those skilled rhetors a very powerful tool that allowed them to reach farther and be accessible longer than ever before.

One of the ways this revolutionary machine affected rhetoric was that it allowed a piece of writing to reach anywhere in the world in a short amount of time. Manuscripts had to be handwritten which was their drawback, a printing press could kick out many exact copies at a rapid pace. This meant that hundreds of copies could be made and distributed in a short amount of time allowing a writer to reach an enormous amount of the public over a widespread area without much work. In regards to rhetoric it meant sharing a viewpoint and gaining mass support quickly. Another interesting way the printing press affected rhetoric is in the way we perceive that information. When somebody is speaking we can tell what kind of mood they are in, the importance of the information, whether or not they are telling the truth, and much, much more. When you read a book you really don't have any idea of the feeling behind the words. Sure you can choose certain types of words and use punctuation to get some of it across, but you can't tell if what your reading is the truth, sarcasm, or emotional. For example you could read about someone asking another person “What the fuck are you doing?”, and this statement could be serious, angry, confused, or joking. It could even mean something completely different from what is written such as “Why are you doing that”. This meant that when writing the author had to had separate identifiers in the text stating that it was a “joke” or “serious” or the reader may take it the wrong way.

The printing press also gave rhetors a way to give more depth to their work without detracting from the piece. In “Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students” the author talks about a concept known as “copia”, meaning paraphrasing or compressed information.(Sharon 392) The invention of the printing press allowed for significantly more of this during the 15^th century. Before the press if an argument was made orally the speaker had to be concise and give only the most prevalent and moving information he/she could or it was possible that the audience would be lost and pay less attention as time goes on. I had a teacher tell me once that the more information that is given, the less information is comprehended. If you try to give a person too much information in too little time odds are they will burn out and stop listening. Now this same theory applies to reading, if a person is given too much information to read in too little of a time they will give up or resort to “skimming” and note taking. However one of the advantages of the printing press was that if a writer took enough time to cram as much copia into his/her writing then it could be reproduced with little work through a printing press. Once the book was produced and picked up by a person then that person could read to their hearts desire and set the book down to come back to later when it became too much. The result of something like this in a speech would be the audience walking out, which is bad for the speaker. The press allowed the writer to only have to create this large amount of information once lessening the creation burden of the manuscript writer and putting it on the machine, and from there the information became available to retention at the consumers leisure.

Not only did the printing press allow for a better delivery method of more information, but it also allowed for new and improved knowledge of both subject and rhetoric in the world. This unrelenting hailstorm of literary material allowed for the market to be saturated with educational material, novels, studies, and any other genre of information that one might come up with. When you add all of this together you can come up with one sure reality, competition. The large amount of material that represented the same area of study or the same genre of story caused writers to compete with one another to create a better work, whereas before the printing press there wasn't much competition. It took so long to accumulate material to write about and get it written that not many people got their work out. This new competition allowed people to take information from one side and combine it with the other to create new knowledge that would have never been discovered before. The competition also cause the writers to work harder increasing the quality of what was produced. This also meant that it revolutionized knowledge in a way that discredited what was once true. For example one may have read a manuscript about how the world was flat and believed it because there was no refutable work or there was no access to such a thing in the area that person lived. After the printing press that same person may encounter one of many copies of a different book that said the world was round and that book could change that person's mind, upon which the person would spread the information that would ultimately lead to the “flat world' theory being discredited.

Not many people would think a machine could affect things such as freedoms or creditability, but it does. Up until not long ago in the grand scheme of things people were discriminated against for sex, age, and even color. These factor could lead to even the best rhetor being discredited and even put in physical harm. Writing changed this by creating an anonymity that could keep such things from readers and therefore not drawing the attention away from the work. The problem is few of these people could write and even fewer could do it well enough to reproduce any number of manuscripts. The printing press changed all of that, if you could make one copy you could make thousands. It did not matter if you were white, black, twelve, female, or were born with three legs. As long as you could produce something that could be edited and then used in a printing press you could some day be a famous writer. The machine gave those few who had to be anonymous their chance to stand out and be heard all over the world.

Despite all of these important reasons the printing press revolutionized rhetoric and literature I believe the most important change it brought was in religion. One of the most powerful books ever written was the bible. From the bible has stemmed, war, happiness, genocide, and the unification of many different kinds of people under one particular belief. The printing press allowed for the many different kinds of religions to spread their word and educate their pupils. It's common knowledge that every religious text whether it be the bible or Qur’an are not small texts. Each one of these could take a writer weeks to make just one copy meaning that religion had to be spread orally. This also meant that what one group of people might hear about a religion in one area could be completely different in another. Once the churches were able to mass produce their writings they were able to unify the teachings by giving everyone a book so that each person received the exact same religious knowledge. It also made expansion of the religion much easier because of how quickly literature could be spread. The printing press brought many things from knowledge, freedom, and even power and completely revolutionized rhetoric from the moment it was discovered.

Works Cited

Sharon, Crowley. Ancient Rhetoric for Contemporary Students. 4th. New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2009. 392. Print.

Eisenstein, Elizabeth. The printing press as an agent of change: communications and cultural transformations in early-modern Europe. 1st. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. 4. Web. <http://books.google.com/books?id=WR1eajpBG9cC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0 

Chapter 9

 In ARCS chapter 9 covers arrangement and its effective use in rhetorical argument. The author makes a good point in saying that it is one of the most important factors. I know from my personal experience you organize your argument so that you give your strongest most effective point first and then build on that. The chapter also covered the different kinds of cases such as Honorable, difficult, mean, ambiguous, and obscure. Each of these different categories are a way of describing an argument that is being presented. The way this connects to arrangement is if your arrangement is good then you may have an honorable case and therefore gaining immediate support. If your arrangement is bad your case may be defined as one of the other 4 cases where the audience responds meekly or not at all. The author also describes how to organize a good argument and explain to the audience why they should care about this topic or why it is of any importance of them. There is also a good section on how to argue your point in such a way that it brings the other rhetor into a negative light. The four important steps to capture your audience are to show importance of the issue, show how it affects the audience, show how it affects everyone, and then show how it affects the general good of the community.

Margaret Fell

The reading about Margaret Fell takes an interesting stance on women and their history of literacy. I had no idea that religion was the main reason that women were taught to read and right or that it led to their oral rhetoric. In a way Fell is portrayed as a Martin Luther King for women. She was to literacy among women as he was to freedom for African-Americans. In the section about her it describes that she was deeply religious and that she used that religion to speak publicly and write. This was severely frowned upon in her time and women were seen as people who should not be heard. At least this is one instance where I can say religion led to something good. It's impressive that she continued to still write and speak while being ridiculed and harassed by the public. The last thing that would be on my mind if someone was trying to take my home and land is writing religious works. In short what I learned was women were severely illiterate before the spread of Christianity. After the religion spread the fact that women had to read the bible lead to them ultimately being educated and the number of women that could sign their name jumped way up. The text also says that the spreading of religion by women is what gave them the opportunity to use their rhetoric publicly while debating religion or teaching.

Ramus

 The reading about Peter Ramus was actually an interesting piece and good example of karma if you ask me. He was obviously a very smart student being that he went to college at the age of twelve but it sounds to me like he let it go to his head. The man was smart but ambitious and the fact that he attacked many famous and renowned rhetors ultimately led to his demise. He was obviously very big-headed to think that a university should just dump their methods of teaching and do things his way. In a way I think he got what he deserved in the end for being overtly cocky and full of himself. Even the way that Ramus debated as is described in the book shows him to be the self-absorbed ass that he is. Throughout the chapter the book discusses how in the majority of Ramus's debates such as against Quintilian, he not only puts down the opposition in a demeaning way but recommends that his own ways replace that of the previous rhetoric. I feel like if Ramus had a motto it would be “my way or the highway”.   

Speech

Condemnation Speech

You will not gain much WSU parking, you are assholes and those who hear you gave me a ticket will know you as such....assholes. If you had waited a little longer I would have been gone and your desire of me to vacate my parking space would have been fulfilled. I am only talking about you who have written me this ticket and chose not to dismiss it. You think you are doing right because I did not explain myself well, but this is not the case. I did not come in crying and begging throwing a little tantrum like you have come to expect. But I would rather have stood up to you than given you what you want. A man should not be a brown nose, even if it gets you out of your situation, stand up for yourself. And now I leave you, condemned to pay your outrageous ticket but you too leave to deal with karma. I must suffer my consequences but you too have it coming.

And now I must pay my ticket I will tell you your fate. For this is the time students are granted this power. You who have been assholes will have bad bad things happen to you after I have paid my fine. For there will be far more people that will hate you now that I have kept at bay. Because they are younger they will do far worse things to you and you will be far more upset at them. If you think that handing out tickets makes you the good guy, you are an idiot. That is not the way to make you a better person. This is the fate I see for you who have condemned me.

My friends that were on my side I would like to discuss what happened with you while the assholes talk before I must go empty my wallet into their pockets. You are my friends and I would like explain why this happened. You are judges because you truly judge me. On my shoulder is a little man that tell me if what I am doing is right or wrong but now I have done something considered to be wrong but my little man kept silent and has stayed that way. I interpret this as a sign that what happened to me is good and those who think getting tickets are bad are wrong. Because if getting a ticket were bad then my little man would have told me, which proves it is good.

Source

Plato: The Apology

(http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/plato_apology.htm )

Not much time will be gained, O Athenians, in return for the evil name which you will get from the detractors of the city, who will say that you killed Socrates, a wise man; for they will call me wise even although I am not wise whe n they want to reproach you. If you had waited a little while, your desire would have been fulfilled in the course of nature. For I am far advanced in years, as you may perceive, and not far from death. I am speaking now only to those of you who have condemned me to death. And I have another thing to say to them: You think that I was convicted through deficiency of words -- I mean, that if I had thought fit to leave nothing undone, nothing unsaid, I might have gained an acquittal. Not so; the deficiency wh ich led to my conviction was not of words -- certainly not. But I had not the boldness or impudence or inclination to address you as you would have liked me to address you, weeping and wailing and lamenting, and saying and doing many things which you have been accustomed to hear from others, and which, as I say, are unworthy of me. But I thought that I ought not to do anything common or mean in the hour of danger: nor do I now repent of the manner of my defence, and I would rather die having spoken after m y manner, than speak in your manner and live. For neither in war nor yet at law ought any man to use every way of escaping death. For often in battle there is no doubt that if a man will throw away his arms, and fall on his knees before his pursuers, he m ay escape death; and in other dangers there are other ways of escaping death, if a man is willing to say and do anything. The difficulty, my friends, is not in avoiding death, but in avoiding unrighteousness; for that runs faster than death. I am old and move slowly, and the slower runner has overtaken me, and my accusers are keen and quick, and the faster runner, who is unrighteousness, has overtaken them. And now I depart hence condemned by you to suffer the penalty of death, and they, too, go their ways condemned by the truth to suffer the penalty of villainy and wrong; and I must abide by my award -- let them abide by theirs. I suppose that these things may be regarded as fated and I think that they are well.

And now, O men who have condemned me, I would fain prophesy to you; for I am about to die, and that is the hour in which men are gifted with prophetic power. And I prophesy to you who are my murderers, that immediately after my death punishment far heavier than you have inflicted on me will surely await you. Me you have killed because you wanted to escape the accuser, and not to give an account of your lives. But that will not be as you suppose: far otherwise. For I say that there w ill be more accusers of you than there are now; accusers whom hitherto I have restrained: and as they are younger they will be more severe with you, and you will be more offended at them. For if you think that by killing men you can avoid the accuser censuring your lives, you are mistaken; that is not a way of escape which is either possible or honorable; the easiest and noblest way is not to be crushing others, but to be improving yourselves. This is the prophecy which I utter before my departure, to the judges who have condemned me.

Friends, who would have acquitted me, I would like also to talk with you about this thing which has happened, while the magistrates are busy, and before I go to the place at which I must die. Stay then awhile, for we may as well tal k with one another while there is time. You are my friends, and I should like to show you the meaning of this event which has happened to me. O my judges -- for you I may truly call judges -- I should like to tell you of a wonderful circumstance. Hitherto to the familiar oracle within me has constantly been in the habit of opposing me even about trifles, if I was going to make a slip or error about anything; and now as you see there has come upon me that which may be thought, and is generally believed to be, to the last and worst evil. But the oracle made no sign of opposition, either as I was leaving my house and going out in the morning, or when I was going up into this court, or while I was speaking, at anything which I was going to say; and yet I have often b een stopped in the middle of a speech; but now in nothing I either said or did touching this matter has the oracle opposed me. What do I take to be the explanation of this? I will tell you. I regard this as a proof that what has happened to me is a good, and that those of us who think that death is an evil are in error. This is a great proof to me of what I am saying, for the customary sign would surely have opposed me had I been going to evil and not to good.

Reflection

Overall I didn't find this assignment too hard but there were some issues that I came up against during the process. I wrote my speech on “The Apology” by Plato which is about Socrates giving an apology and defending himself while he is condemned to death. It was a little difficult to capture his theme and transfer it into my own words because the way we speak today compared to how we spoke back in the day of Plato is much different. The first thing I had to do was figure out which portion of the article was usable since the whole piece is too long to replicate. I chose this portion because he tries to convince the public and the council that he is innocent which I could relate to any hearing that would happen in the present. Then after that I had to decipher exactly what it was Plato was saying since you cannot simply read and understand what he says due to the grammar that was used back in those days. The ending was particularly hard to figure out because he tried to connect the fact that his conscience hadn't said anything about what had happened with why what he did was right.

I decided that for my topic I would use a hearing from the parking department because it fit in nicely with the original topic of Socrates on trial. One thing in particular that I felt was largely appropriate was the fact that many people feel that the parking departments judgment is wrong just like Socrates believed that the council was wrong. I tried to make it comical while at the same time keeping the same style of argument as Plato used. What I found helped best was to go through and read the speech again and as I went through the speech I picked out the main focus and general ideas that are presented. Once I had gathered enough information I took these general ideas and made up my story using the same guidelines.

What I found difficult in making this speech was more the memorization of it after I had written it. I have always found myself to be a good speaker because I research a topic and then go completely impromptu and just start talking instead of writing it out before hand. In this case I didn't have a hard time coming up with the speech but it definitely took awhile to get it memorized. Finding the right speech was also kind of an interesting task in that it was hard to take something so old and portray its style in a modern topic. I had to search for quite a long time to find this speech and then read through it to pick out the paragraphs that I would use for my analysis. However reading much of the actual speech and not just the section that I was doing helped the process along faster and I feel made a better overall project. Having more background on the argument then was just in the paragraphs I chose helped my understand what was being referred to and what ideas were being presented.

Some things I felt that I could have improved on was making my speech a little longer. The problem was that I picked a long section of a speech but once the content and style was pulled from it my speech was far more condensed. I think that the reason for this was that today we don't speak the same way and the grammar that was used in the past made for a longer way of saying something then it would take today. I also would have left more time for memorization of my material because as I mentioned earlier that was a hard thing for me to do and not something that I am used to. What I liked about my speech was that I felt I presented it well and tried to change up the ways I was talking when at certain parts of the speech such as when I called the parking department “assholes” I tried to give a dramatic pause at the beginning. Also I felt that I spoke loudly and clear enough for everyone to hear but kept a pace that made it easy to understand as well. Overall the project was interesting to me because I got to analyze something that was so old, whereas in most of my classes we analyze modern topics and political speech's which I find significantly less interesting than these speeches. I also like how we got to take the piece of work and re-write it and change it into what we wanted it to be versus just memorizing and old speech which is what I thought we might be doing. I felt that this was a fun project and the fact that I could take something serious and ancient and make it modern and comical made it fun while I learned about ancient rhetoric.

Chapter 7 Reading

 In Chapter 7 of Ancient Rhetorics the author discuses Pathos and its uses in rhetorical arguments. Pathos is a valuable asset because of the decisions it pushes us towards that we may not make in another situation. The book uses a good example of this from the film Troy where the king is trying to persuade Achilles to help him by using different pathos appeals such as to his greed and empathy. A common example of this found in Pullman, WA is fighting where many people would not commit assault against another if the right pathos is used ones choice can be swayed an example of this might be “talking shit” about a certain person or group of people. Pathos is also useful in sports when motivating a team the coach will apply pathos to get the players pumped up through applying this kind of argument to subjects of school or personal pride.

The power of pathos is demonstrated in the authors story about how the 9/11 attacks motivated the decision to support the war on terror whereas now that the shock and grief of the even has worn down the support is significantly less. I feel that it is the most important of the the three appeals when concerning politcs. You can only sway so many people with ethos or logos but the concept of pathos applies to everyone of all ages. We all have emotion from the day we are born and there are concepts that are common to everyone that incite those emotions, for example murder is a concept that incites emotion of the masses because the majority of us share the same response to murder due to our culture. This is why I think pathos is the most important political tool because instead of aiming at a particular group of people it stirs up everyone.

RT Borthius Reading

This reading contained a short biography about Anicius Manlinus Severinus Boethius. I'm going to start this blog out by saying that I thought his name was pretty funny and that I'm going to name my first born child Manlinus, however on another not it was interesting that this man considered himself to be a philosopher that accepted rhetoric as an addition to is work but not the focus and yet he produced famous rhetorical work. It even stated in the reading that one of his most important rhetorical books known as book IV of Topica Boetii was used as a textbook on rhetoric. However it was unfortunate that this scholar was unable to continue his work due to a suspected plot he was involved in that led to his execution by Theodoric the Great.

After the bibliography the author goes into a discussion of rhetoric and breaks down the different parts almost in the way one would break down a species of animal by dividing it into three different kinds of species judicial, demonstrative, and deliberative. Then the topic is broken down even further and it is described how if all of the parts are not met then it is no longer rhetoric and it is also explained how rhetoric must seek to argue. If one was simply giving a question and answer argument it would be an unbroken oration in which the adversary and judge are the same person. Overall it was mildly entertaining reading even though the last few pages seemed to be dressed up a little too much instead of just presenting the information we were asked to learn. The breakdown of rhetoric was very useful though because it gives you all the parts of a rhetoric argument that is needed to make it successful and accurate.

Chapter 5 reading response

 In chapter five of Ancient Rhetoric’s the author starts to discuss the idea of logos. He explains that logos is the rational truth that is found through examining issues. One of the factors involved in finding logos is the premise or the statement made before the argument commences on a topic. Then he makes a connection with the fact that in order to make a premise true it must follow with one of the many types of reasoning such as dialectical reasoning in which the arguer is less certain of the truth of the premise but is accepted because those who have previously accepted it are deemed to have been wise therefore making it true. This theory however makes very little sense to me considering the fact that just because someone is smart doesn't mean they are always right. For example teachers are deemed to be wise individuals and I got in a argument with a teacher in high school about student rights involving bathroom privileges. Most people believed her to be right because she was “wise” but I proved her wrong by showing her the law. A good point the author makes about rhetorical reason involving probability is that the human mind makes connections that seem reasonable and what should happen but aren't always right. He goes on to use the example that a small weak person will not attack a large strong person which we know is not always true. His examples of deduction are quite interesting as well and make much more sense than the way the last chapter was explained. He talks about how if A is B and B is C then C is A which isn't always true. An amusing example of this was how he used the apple slogan to explain how silly this theory is. Overall the chapter laid down a much better explanation then the last about its topic. I was able to retain much more information and felt like I was wasting a lot less of my time.

Chapter3 After Class Response

So I'm just going to write this response to my post because I can't find anyone with posts up about the readings. I felt that after class and listening to everyone else I had a much firmer grasp on what the reading was about. Going over individual parts of the book and what people discussed helped me see some of the stuff I missed in the book. I still feel like I had a basic grasp on the subject before class. I like how all of the other students applied their thoughts in direct relation to the abortion story in the story because it is something I can easily relate to and by putting it in terms of that argument I was able to follow without getting lost. One thing I noticed though is that the book really puts things in a more complex way than is necessary its like calling a fork a three pronged utensil for spearing substance and transporting to the mouth. If you simply put it as fork we would understand better and the book really made things hard to understand by blowing the concept of staseis out of proportion.

Chapter 3 Reading Response

 In this weeks reading assignment of ARCS the book goes into a very in depth discussion which is actually difficult to follow about staseis. However once I figured out what the hell they were even talking about I found that there was a lot of information on the topic. It seems like the author is basicaly discussing that anyone can have an opinion but when you find the staseis you can create a solid argument instead of just an opinion that you throw at the opposition. It talks about how once you understand both sides of the argument you can build your argument using the four questions. You can ask yourself the conjecture, the definition, the quality, and the policy which will give you the solid basis from which you can defend your side of the argument. Another good strategy discussed was about examining the article and how you can defend both sides without taking an immediate stance on which side you're on. The topic of abortion was a good example of this because it is such a commonly used argument and easy to relate to what the author was trying to say in regards to the argument.

On the other hand what I didn't like about the chapter was how boring it was to read. I really thought that the author took the long way to explain things instead of simply saying it. More or less I just felt that he made the material more complicated then is necessary. When the four questions are explained in relation to abortion the author gives a multitude of examples but to an extent that is not necessary. He seems to bludgeon the information into the reader instead of simply saying what is needed and then moving on. Overall I found the chapter more of a pain in the ass to read than the information was worth but that’s just my take.