Victor Villanueva

I always highly enjoy reading Dr. Villanueva's stuff and this article was no exception. He always has a way of capturing and holding the readers attention. He is a breath of fresh air because everything he discusses is still relevant today. That is not to say the other reading are not still relevant they were just much harder to relate to then Villanueva's article.

He discusses heavily the issues of race and how it hinders certain racial groups within society. A lot of what Villanueva was discussing brought me back to the Aristotle reading. In a particular part of his essay he mentions that as Americans we tend to blame inequality of particular groups on the group itself. If there is a high amount of Chicano drop outs it is because they are lazy, not because the American education system was structured to favor particular race groups over others. This reminded me a lot of Aristotle's fallacies because often they argue that humans think in terms of because B happened after A then B was caused by A. Because Chicano drop outs increased it was because they were lazy.

Often this is our society's mentality of thinking that people fail because they don't try. However, what is it like for people born into a country where the foundation wasn't built for them? The opportunities aren't present because they are not part of the dominant race. Do you think it is possible to ever live in a society that is 100% equal for everyone? I personally do not think it is possible. The sad truth is these social constructions regarding race have become to engrained in our society.

He uses personal anecdotes throughout his entire article which I feel helped keep my attention throughout.Was there a particular anecdote you connected with over another? I think I particular like that Victor included the anecdote about the principal at his daughters school. I liked this anecdote because, it makes Victor a credible source. He has seen these issues first hand and is willing to share. As we have learned from Aristotle credible sources are important in the world of rhetoric.

Burke

As always Burke still highly confuses me but I tried to pay close attention to the ideas he was trying to convey. When he mentions the five terms; act, scene, agent, agency, and purpose this made some sense to me. To me primarily all situations can be analyzed using these five characteristics. It is especially easy to analyze TV shows and movies based on these characteristics. I know this because in several of my previous COM classes we have used Burke’s dramatic pentad to analyze messages in the media, movies, and TV shows. However, in this introduction piece reader can learn about these five terms and how they explain the motives of people.

He discusses how these terms can be used to simplify a much bigger picture. He believes that these terms could be easily understood by anyone and do not require much explanation. I think he makes a very good point, for instance explaining a movie would be much easier by using the pentad to break down the plot, instead of just rambling on about the movie. He also brings up that even with how simple these five components are there is still available room for confusion to occur. He discusses how vastly different people are and that therefore situations are interpreted vastly different. For instance everyone has a different interpretation for what family means to him or her. This is caused by the fact everyone had a different experience when it comes his or her personal family.

Burke also brings up this whole notion of the symbolic. As I have learned previously Burke had this notion that man is the symbol using, symbol making, and symbol-misusing animal. I think we will read more on it but Burke is heavily into the notion of the symbolic.  He brings up the idea of the symbolic in order to Segway into his ideas regarding transformation. When talking about transformation Burke discusses that it is ambiguity that leads to transformation. This makes sense because, from what I understand transformation is when an individual changes their mind because they were influenced or persuaded to do so. Essentially rhetoric influences the motives of an individual causing him or her to change their mind. However, if a statement or an idea had no room for ambiguity then the individual would never change their mind. However, because an argument or statement has multiple interpretations and is seen to be ambiguous then a persons mind can be changed too. Do you guys think it is easy to have a term that is not ambiguous? For instance is there a term you think everyone would interpret the same?

Although I do find Kenneth Burke to be super confusing I also find him to at least be less conceited than the previous rhetoricians we have read about. He seems to try to understand people more than Plato and the other rhetoricians we have read. Burke searched to understand humans and how they think. Whereas the previous philosopher are searching for an absolute truth and do not strive to understand people because, they already feel they know everything.  Do you guys agree? Or do you see previous concepts we have learned about in Burkes work too? 

Cicero & De Oratore

After reading the article regarding Cicero it seems to me Cicero was the bridge between Roman philosophy and Greek philosophy. He was the leader in teaching the Romans the teaching of Greek philosophy. Much like many of the other figures we have read about, Cicero was known for his oratory. However, Cicero thought his political career was the most important.

Although from what I read it didn't go into great depth aboutCicero being a rhetorician, I know he was. I know this because, to be a successful lawyer or politician it is essential to engage in rhetoric. Also, after he was exiled his letter to Atticus was a complete pathos appeal.

I also thought it was interesting how the article discusses the two different sides Cicero had. One side he was considered a humanist who influenced the renaissance and on the other side he was considered a republican who inspired the Founding Fathers. Although he was considered very influential from what I gathered in the article, he wasn't very well liked. In the article it said he went against the church and against Ceasar's reforms, it even at one point quoted a philosopher calling him a scoundrel.

Cicero's written dialogue De Orator seems much like a guide of how to be a good orator, I imagine it is written much like Aristotle's regarding rhetoric. I guess this reading is where we learn more about Cicero as a rhetorician. So I guess I was right when I mentioned above the Cicero was a rhetorician.

"The power of words in the hands of a man without scruples or principles would endanger the whole community." This line reminded me of past readings we have done where we have discussed does the responsibility lie with the listener or with the orator? If a man had no principles and chose to spoke does he really have the power to cripple a community? or should it be the communities responsibility to properly interpret the message?

Another question I have regarding Cicero's De Oratore is he mentions the perfect orator would have good rhetorical qualities and a man of great knowledge. He then goes on to list of characteristics of such knowledge such as, law, history, and ethical principles. Do you think he left any aspect of knowledge out? Such as I feel cultural knowledge should be included. Much like the other rhetoricians we have read about, Cicero puts a huge emphasis on the need to be educated to be a good orator. I am not sure I exactly agree with this because, I feel there are certain people we become infatuated with their speech based on their delivery not their information. I think it also makes a different depending on how educated your audience is.