1. In Chapter 11 of Hauser's "Introduction to Rhetorical Theory", there is a discussion upon the terms action and motion. Hauser uses the example of the moon as something in the realm of motion, because "it is what it is" and continues to orbit and move, whether or not humans were here to observe it. When humans do take the moon and give it symbolic significance, however, it enters the realm of action, and "it is what we make of it" and the once basic object becomes something that "goes beyond" its physical properties. Hauser then proposes that there can be no action without motion, but there CAN be motion without action. I wonder if there ARE any instances when there can be action without motion. Can humans make up folklore, art, and other symbols and attitudes about something that is not an "it is what it is" object in nature, like the moon? What about spontaneous ideas of the human imagination, which are created out of thin air and unlike anything we can find on earth in motion? Are those ideas or works of art simply in the realm of action already, therefore proving to be action without motion? OR are they motion as a symbolic piece of evidence from the human psyche that we then put into action?
2. On page 203, Hauser discusses a school of thinkers idea on humans "engaged in acts of communal joining when they speak". The example is that when humans pass each other on the street, to somone you know you will ask how they are doing, not necessarily for a detailed response to the question, but as a gesture of greeting, friendliness and an "act of recognition". If the person responds with a full answer to your intended greeting, then "behind this mask your mind is racing to find a graceful exit". This led me to think about how I do this all the time, and how as a human being I do this out of friendliness but honestly with no intention of making more small talk than that. This makes me ask myself, and us as humans, do we ask "how ya doin' ?" to genuinely be nice, or to simply seem nice in other peoples eyes? Since it is a greeting more than a real question, do we greet each other out of sincerity or to fit into society as a "friendly" person in the eyes of others? What do you think?
3. In this chapter, the topic of rhetoric and motives is discussed. According to Kenneth Burke, in the application of rhetoric, it is an "essential function of language" and that language cannot exist without rhetoric is some way. I took language to mean all symbols, spoken speeches, written words or documents, and everyday verbalization. Burke goes further to say that "all language... has bias in it". Is this statement true? Is everything we say or write bias? Or are some things, like dictionaries, totally without bias? If not, is any rhetoric without bias? We'd like to believe things like newspapers and rhetoric that reports "factual" information to us is just straight information and not bias, but the factors that lead into a story being reported make it otherwise ( playing to audience, people reporting it's point of view, etc...). Is Burke's assertion correct, or are there any examples of rhetoric without bias?
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Questions for Chapter 2
Three questions:
1) On page 16, the issue of democracy is discussed. The author explains the concern that public decision making (which majority of the time winds up in the hands of the powerful and rich leaders) often has indirect consequences to millions in society, even those who were not apart of the decision making. It is argued that to improve this, communication and debate must be improved upon in society. While I concur that something must be done to change this, and like the authors example, Dewey, that "communication is the key practice necessary that representatives learn of the public's interests and act in the interests of the general good", my question is, is this all that can be done to fix the problem? One hopes that persuasion and debate can change the minds of those in charge, but is spoken and written rhetoric the only way? I find it interesting that our democratic process, developed by those who rely on persuasion and communication to the masses themselves, can only be fixed by the very devices of rhetoric that created it.
2) There is a lot of discussion on the Sophists and their beliefs in this chapter. At one point it is noted that Sophists come to their opinion by the disso logoi method. If they reach their opinion this way, by writing both sides of an argument out and choosing the "stronger one", do they choose this argument because they know it will win or because they truly believe it to be right? I understand that in a way, the "stronger" argument by default must be to them their opinion, but I wonder if instead this method teaches one to choose what makes sense on paper and what looks like it will win, rather than what is their true opinion, or even what is "right"?
3) Philsophers and Sophists believed that language was so powerful it could "guide another person's soul", and thus be potentially dangerous if the person controlling takes advantage of another or uses this power for evil. What I cannot decide is this dilemma, and how it could work one of two ways: the first being that language in fact can move us and our emotions, but deep down only an indivudual can control his or herself ( "sticks and stones.."), and if this is so, then would not these Sophists be wrong? or perhaps they are right, but would then it be true to the extent that if language affects one another's souls and person, then wouldnt everything we have ever heard, been told, read, or taught with language be controlling our every decision and emotion and how we think and feel, and therefore when we use language and effect others, it is due to the language that effected us, like a never ending cycle? And suppose this was true, then who is responsible for effecting the first soul?
1) On page 16, the issue of democracy is discussed. The author explains the concern that public decision making (which majority of the time winds up in the hands of the powerful and rich leaders) often has indirect consequences to millions in society, even those who were not apart of the decision making. It is argued that to improve this, communication and debate must be improved upon in society. While I concur that something must be done to change this, and like the authors example, Dewey, that "communication is the key practice necessary that representatives learn of the public's interests and act in the interests of the general good", my question is, is this all that can be done to fix the problem? One hopes that persuasion and debate can change the minds of those in charge, but is spoken and written rhetoric the only way? I find it interesting that our democratic process, developed by those who rely on persuasion and communication to the masses themselves, can only be fixed by the very devices of rhetoric that created it.
2) There is a lot of discussion on the Sophists and their beliefs in this chapter. At one point it is noted that Sophists come to their opinion by the disso logoi method. If they reach their opinion this way, by writing both sides of an argument out and choosing the "stronger one", do they choose this argument because they know it will win or because they truly believe it to be right? I understand that in a way, the "stronger" argument by default must be to them their opinion, but I wonder if instead this method teaches one to choose what makes sense on paper and what looks like it will win, rather than what is their true opinion, or even what is "right"?
3) Philsophers and Sophists believed that language was so powerful it could "guide another person's soul", and thus be potentially dangerous if the person controlling takes advantage of another or uses this power for evil. What I cannot decide is this dilemma, and how it could work one of two ways: the first being that language in fact can move us and our emotions, but deep down only an indivudual can control his or herself ( "sticks and stones.."), and if this is so, then would not these Sophists be wrong? or perhaps they are right, but would then it be true to the extent that if language affects one another's souls and person, then wouldnt everything we have ever heard, been told, read, or taught with language be controlling our every decision and emotion and how we think and feel, and therefore when we use language and effect others, it is due to the language that effected us, like a never ending cycle? And suppose this was true, then who is responsible for effecting the first soul?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
