What  would you change about your original definition on rhetoric, and why?

After spending much time discussing the works of the sophists and ancient Greek philosophers, my definition of rhetoric warrants some revision. In my post at the beginning of the year, I stated how there is no agreed upon definition of rhetoric, rather, there are some essential elements to be considered. Some key discussions we brought up in class was concerned with whether or not rhetoric required knowledge, whether it was purely eloquent use of words to persuade or was it a technical means to persuade, and whether anyone could use it or were only a certain few born with the ability to use rhetoric.

Knowing what I know now, I lean more towards Aristotle in his views on rhetoric. Rhetoric is a means to persuade, and there are techniques available to anyone. Furthermore, rhetoric requires studying those techniques in order to speak or write extemporaneously. While yes, some people seem to be better speakers naturally, that does not mean it is only allowed to be used by few people. Plato’s argument toward the sophists that they use rhetoric not for truth is a moral issue not one concerning rhetoric. Although it would require rhetoric to convince someone of which morals to value. That is because rhetoric is simply the means to persuade an audience.

My definition before did not considered the specific views of each philosopher or sophist. I did not have the background knowledge to accurately state my own opinion on rhetoric. That is why I changed from “agreed upon points”, to a more specific approach that endorses Aristotle’s view on rhetoric.

Help Received:

None

Charles Palandati

 

Help Received: Readings

Charles Palandati

What is the role of rhetoric in your discipline?

Introduction: I am a U.S. Army contracted Cadet. Even though I am majoring in Economics and Business, I am more concerned with being prepared to commission and serving my country well. However, there is a unique phenomenon that I have began to notice while taking the many liberal arts classes I am required to take. Whether it is history, English, foreign language, business, or psychology, each discipline overlaps another, but for the most part, they operate within their own sphere of influence, use their own jargon, and have their own experts. In regards to military Leadership, while yes, all the disciplines I have listed are important aspects to consider in military operations, they in themselves do not represent the specific sphere of influence, jargon or experts in the discipline of military leadership. The unique thing about the United States military is that it is one of the least democratic institutions in the United States. This is because the discipline of military science relies (pun intended) on discipline. The military operates in a very deadly sphere of influence, which requires well exercised command and control; but at a more basic level, it requires obedience. A unit’s success is not measured individually, but as a team. In fact, the military is structured as teams within a team. Fire teams make up squads, squads make up platoons, platoons make up company’s and so forth. No matter how big or small the unit is, there must be a willingness to execute and accomplish the mission by each and every soldier, sailor, airman or marine. Leader’s must cultivate this willingness and ensure their subordinates are able to carry out the mission.

 

Thesis: In regards to Military Leadership, rhetoric plays the role of commanding subordinates to accomplish the mission by providing a clear and concise task, purpose and desired end state.

Rhetoric’s domain expanded to spreading the Christian faith through preaching. Since only the elite classes benefited from education, the majority of people, who in the lower class, were not literate and could not read the bible. Therefore, it was up to a certain few to preach the word of God.

St. Augustine was influential during the years just before the collapse of the Roman Empire. During this cultural context he was able to exert his influence at the monastery in Hippo. Rhetoric in the form of the Christian faith helped produce a world in which Christianity became one of the most practiced religions to this day.

Help Received:

Augustine Reading

Charlie Palandati

What are some major changes in rhetoric from ancient Greece to Christian Europe?

Rhetoric in Christian Europe mainly took the form of Church preaching and sermons. St. Augustine was one figure in particular who was responsible for giving rhetoric a new domain. These sermons were highly persuasive and meant to explain specific texts in the bible that the lower class illiterate people could not read. Therefore, because of there ability to influence, clergy members became highly regarded figures. In addition to preaching the word of god, christian Europe also utilized letters as medium of rhetoric. However, these letters followed a specific format consisting of five different parts. Furthermore, Women were responsible for running small family business, thus had to engage in letter writing. Nonetheless, these letters were still of masculine style because male secretaries would actually write the letters. The context of Europe becoming predominantly Christian was due to the efforts of people like St. Augustine. These missionaries made it their goal to convert as many people as possible to see the absolute truth in god. They did so by using rhetoric, in fact, St. Augustine was trained in rhetoric prior to converting himself.

Help Received: Ch.6

Charles Palandati

Help Received: Readings only.

Charles Palandati

Why is vir bonus (Good man) such a concern to roman rhetoricians?

Vir bonus consists of mutiple points regarding rhetoric. Cicero and Quintilian emphasize how epidiectic rhetoric is present in all forms of rhetoric. Furthermore, epidiectic and deliberative deal with the same topics. The way the those topics are argued changes the type of rhetoric being used. They also emphasize how a rhetor is more successful when he or she appeals to the audience and considers public interest first. Essentially, the orator must follow society’s norms. Cicero believes that a good man must be able to learn and adapt, and unlike Plato, does not have arete from birth. Crassus points out how an educated man without virtue is a danger to society. Roman rhetoricians dealt with virtuous topic, either praising or blaming, they considered their audience, believed rhetoric was a skill to be learned, and most importantly, thought it was necessary to possess the vary traits they praised or blamed.

Help Received: Readings only

Charles Palandati