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.

Aristotle

The second half of the Aristotle reading was very interesting. It was especially interesting to me because, in my previous rhetoric class we did not read this far into Aristotle. He starts the reading out by describing the importance of oratory. He talked about this in the first half but, seems to go into more detail in the first few pages of the second half. I really like the line when he says; “it is not enough to know what we ought to say; we must also say it as we ought.” This is so true you can be super intelligent but if you don’t know how to deliver your intelligence it is irrelevant because, no one will listen to it.

Aristotle seems to focus more on the structure of language in the second half. He discusses the use of nouns and verbs and seems to put a lot of emphasis on how language is structured. He begins to break words down and talk about language on a more technical level.

Aristotle puts a huge emphasis on metaphors in this section of the reading. Aristotle states that there are four types of metaphors but, the proportional kind is the most important. He then goes on to include a metaphor by Pericles. “The vanishing from their country of the young men who had fallen in the war ‘as if the spring were taken out of the year.’ I personally think this is a beautiful metaphor it compares death to an absence of spring. Do you think this metaphor has a deeper meaning than its surface level meaning?

I think metaphor use is very common in society, we just don’t stop to think that what we are hearing or saying is a metaphor. For instance, a lot of great movies have a lot of great metaphor in them. I think one of the most famous ones we all know about it Forrest Gump. Forrest’s famous metaphor is; “Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you’re gonna get.” Metaphors are all around us if we just pay more attention.

Aristotle brings in this entire concept regarding poetry, something I am not previously familiar with. I get slightly confused with this concept because, I have a hard time connecting poetry to rhetoric. I have a hard time with this because, in my previous rhetoric class we stopped when we got to poetry and we never talked about it beyond that. How do you guys see poetry working as a rhetorical strategy?

Aristotle # 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtjKRwI96hk

This scene in Mean Girls reminded me of when Aristotle is talking about anger. Aristotle states; "The persons with whom we feel anger, the frame of mind in which we feel it, and the reasons why we feels it, have now all been set forth. Clearly the orator will have to speak so as to bring his hearers into a frame of mind that will dispose them to anger."

That is exactly what Janis is doing in this clip. She is framing her argument in regards to Regina George in order to appeal to Damien and Cady. Janis already hates Regina George so she is fired up to persuade Cady and Damien to hate her too. This also relates to the revenge part that Aristotle discusses. Once someone wrongs us, as Regina wronged Janis and Cady, we instantly are indignant and want to wrong them back. This clip lists the steps they will take in order to seek revenge on Regina George.

Aristotle

After reading pg.1-90 it baffles me that Aristotle was ever a student of Plato’s because, Aristotle 100% supports the idea of rhetoric. Although at some points in the reading you can see Plato’s teachings shinning through Aristotle’s writing. It just surprises me that Aristotle became so fond of the idea of rhetoric.

He also strays away from everything relying on knowledge. Although he states that a court of law should surround the idea of knowledge, he recognizes that often cases are based off the use of enthymemes. Essentially, enthymemes are emotions that are often used to persuade. Although often court cases are supposed to be based solely on fact, when examined some of the greatest cases were won by the use of enthymemes. Everything Aristotle discusses in pg. 1-90 can be used to analyze lawyer’s arguments. It is pretty hard for a lawyer to win a case without appealing at least slightly to the judge’s emotions. It’s funny to me that Aristotle argues that enthymemes shouldn’t be used but, then goes on to tell people how to use them and how to spot them.

Aristotle also breaks down forensic, political, and ceremonial oratory, which we have discussed previously in class. He also discusses the greater or lesser good. This question I feels is always raised in society, is a smaller bad action justified when compared to a bigger bad action? Or is a bad action big or small just considered bad? Throughout the 90 pages Aristotle constantly compares everything as the greater or lesser good.

I could see Plato’s teachings when in the latter half of the reading Aristotle talks about virtue. He says that virtue is praiseworthy and discusses the various different forms of virtue and their importance. After though he simplifies it and says; “ it is evident that things productive of virtue are noble.” What other ways did you guys see Plato's teachings in Aristotle's book of rhetoric? 

Aristotle also talks about the power of praise and how it is usually used to encourage a course of action. This reminded me of how often we give someone a compliment before asking a favor of them. Aristotle  ends this section of his book by discussing laws and how they function. He places a large emphasis on the importance of oaths and their use in the court of law. 

Phaedrus Part Two

While reading the second part of Phaedrus I made sure to pay close attention to anywhere I could see Plato's epistemology appearing. I was able to see his views on virtue vs. pleasure throughout. For instance on pg. 41 Phaedrus states " Not, I think, for those which have to be proceeded by pain if one is to enjoy pleasure at all." One can have pleasure but, they must go through pain to obtain it, one can not just simply have a pleasurable experience.

I also noticed Plato expressing his "supposed" dislike of rhetoric through Socrates. He once again claims that rhetoric does not exist. " a genuine science of speaking neither exists nor will come into existence in the future." Plato thinks the only way to obtain power in speech is through philosophy. I thought it was kind of funny when Socrates then goes on to compare the power of making one thing appear to resemble something else. Kind of like how they are claiming their philosophy to be the cause of their power of speech when really they are engaging in rhetoric.

In the middle part of the reading Socrates says "should we not mention Hippias." This comment seemed almost to be a little bashful towards Hippias. The only reason I mention it is because, I would have thought Plato would like Hippias becuase, if I remember right Hippias was all about recollection as well. Did you see point in the reading where Socrates seemed to be agreeing or clearly disagreeing with any of the sophists?

To be honest this whole latter half of the reading seemed to be confusing to me. They bring up all these Sophists we have previously discussed. I found myself often re-reading sentences because, I couldn't tell if they were agreeing with them or not. At some points I would think they were totally against rhetoric but, at other points of the reading I really wasn't sure. Do you think in the second half Plato is leaning towards rhetoric or against it still?

I guess my answer would be that I see how Plato begins to merge the two. For instance on pg. 55 Socrates reply to how to become an expert in rhetoric is, it is naturally in you to be a good orator but, you must obtain it through knowledge. This sentence made me think Plato is acknowledging rhetoric but, he is using his epistemology as the example for how you would obtain it.

Phaedrus

I found the Phaedrus reading to be a very interesting one. I was particularly intrigued by Lysias's  long rant regarding love. It seems almost as if Lysias doesn't like love, its as if he had a bad experience with love and is now bitter towards it. He makes it seem as if no one should trust people in love because, they are just blinded by love and will do or say anything. "Moreover, you should expect to become a better person if you listen to my arguments than if you listen to a lovers." He has a complete bias to people not in love. Making claims that a man in love is much more sick than a man not in love. While I can agree with some points because I do feel people often get blinded by love, I feel the speech goes to an extreme with judging lovers. Would you agree?

As I was reading I was also thinking back to our class discussion regarding Plato and how he often views things to be either black or white with no in between. I saw Plato using Socrates as a character who thought in a very black or white mindset. I especially caught a glimpse of this when Socrates stated; "But if Love is, as indeed he is a god, or something divine, he would not be anything bad."

After they both give their speeches the mood of the reading shifts and Socrates and Phaedrus begin to feel guilty of the stuff they said regarding love. They start discussing the consequences if a god or someone of importance had over heard them talking about it. This too is common in society, we are willing to express our opinions freely but as soon as we think someone may have heard that shouldn't have our story instantly changes.

After this Socrates and Phaedrus then begin to more heavily discuss the gods and the afterlife. This was another part where Plato's black and white thinking came into play. As they are discussing the soul as immortal, they are suggesting that a soul never changes. It is the same soul in the current life as it will be in the afterlife. Do you believe that the concept of a soul can be put into a definition? Much like their discussion on love, Socrates is trying to give complicated manners such as the soul a solid definition with defining principles. I find this simply too hard to do but, he appears to think he has done it. I also, found it interesting that the soul of the philosopher had a different afterlife process than the non-philosopher. How conceited can you be?