In the next two chapters of this “short” introduction, we delve deeper into the concept of rhetoric. Namely we look at how it is constructed when used in different contexts in Chapter 2 and the different ways that it can be applied in Chapter 3.
The main thing I want to talk about was how it was slightly surprising to hear the book state that there is no proper ‘recipe’ (as they call it) for the use of rhetoric. The way that the topic described in this text, it would seem as though it’s very possible create a apted rhetorical argument/statement/etc. to be used when addressing peers. I think what they may’ve been trying to get across was that even if you have a well done rhetorical analysis (for example) that is supposed to persuade others to agree with some view point you have, they may still disagree with you because of other factors outside of your analysis. After all, if it’s well known that the group you’re speaking to is usually against whatever you’re trying to persuade, it shouldn’t be any surprise if they don’t respond to your words. Ultimately if a rhetoric use fails, it's just as likely a failure due to outside forces as it is that the rhetorical statement itself is flawed.
As I assumed from the previous blog post, the idea of pathos, ethos, and logos was brought up and if used in tandem with the five canons, I think that a perfectly made rhetoric is possible. It’s just how this rhetoric is used that can lead to varying results.
Questions:
- Do you agree with the book or the argument here?
- Considering how similar the idea of persuasion and rhetoric are, would you argue that the two are equivalent, or are there differences between the two?
Image from: http://imgur.com/gallery/Lpvsnlk
No comments:
Post a Comment