I actually wasn't aware of the psychological associations with "histrionics." Being a nerd who watches commentaries for animated films, histrionics is often a term used to describe an animator's bad habit of constantly making the model move. You'll see this a lot in traditionally animated films, where motions are exaggerated -- it's typically done because our eye reads a non-moving animated character as flat and lifeless. I know gestures were a key part of classical rhetoric, so is this what Hume is advocating for here, an increased focus on the rhetoric of physicality?

Well, Locke, when you call it "dry truth and real knowledge," is it any surprise "wit and fancy" win out?

Like the idea of hacking rhetorical studies!

This is going back to the typical "problem" of not being able to define rhetoric. On one hand, it seems like we have a handle on what rhetoric can be(triangle, joystick), but if we want to stick to that one solid definition, we will miss out on everything else it can be/not be/do/try to do, etc.

Summary: Social constructivist theories of knowledge aren't helpful because they get caught up in bouncing ideas around. Performative theories are better and ought to be considered, because they are practice-focused. Barad is offering them for consideration.

Rhetoric, too, is a supra-disciplinary field, to the extent that it's sometimes mistaken as not even having a 'subject' (re: the protest that you can't teach writing until students have enough of a subject to write about under their belts first).

This is the "problematic" gray area that I try to revel in, in regards to rhetoric.

A broad definition of rhetoric is effective or persuasive communication. This really piqued my interest- I always thought of rhetoric as written or spoken words and never gave much thought to how it might take physical manifestations, and what differences the medium makes.

development of rhetoric

Placing rhetorics in a realm beyond the typical verbal/written/oral/aural.

I like the idea of rhetoric drinking things

classic scholarly move -- I'm appreciating the repeated use of the personal "I" through here. I've noticed (both here and in Paul's class) that scholars of rhetoric seem more amenable to personal insertion into academic writing.

Noting

Many of the first textbooks on rhetoric showed pages and pages of diagrams like these ^, of ways to position every part of your body during each of the 5 steps. There are even pages that teach the proper way for women to stand (assumedly to watch the delivery).

The claim here that "the rhetorical occasion always includes an audience" seems challenged by Rickert, who argues for a rhetorical situation involving an isolated shaman painter in a dark cave.

Commonly referred to as "disposition."

Connecting to Rickert's claim involving the interwoven/entangled notion of culture in terms of rhetoric.

Why don't we ask this question in STEM? If rhetoric is applicable in every sphere, then surely there must be something worth examining on that level. Could this have to do with the different ways in which we approach epistemology in STEM versus the humanities, or is there something more to this lack of discourse?

So, do we define the rhetoric as it is situated within a "good" or "bad" cause? Could the same rhetoric be used in both contexts and therefore be characterized as "good" in once case but "bad" in the other?

Is Lanham suggesting that the "Weak Defense" argues that rhetoricians have an "us" vs. "them" mentality?

When thinking of music, it often occurs that the paring of two chords that do not traditionally create harmony (philosophy and rhetoric) may create beautiful sounds through dissonance.

read: the executives and high-salary concept engineers "found that it engaged far more of the human personality than the highly ritualized and spiritualized competitive atmosphere at Pepsi" -- let's not forget that Pepsi and Apple are both hugely successful businesses that profit from low-wage labor; whether they're "second wave" or "third wave," the economic outcome is the same: a product consumed by millions of people. I take Lanham's point that the latter emphasizes form in relation to content and flexibility over rigidity, which (debatably) produces a better product (though I agree that a curriculum founded on these principles can produce a better student), but I question the utility in the corporate analogy here. What makes an Apple-flavored student superior to a Pepsi-flavored one? If we accept Lanham's metaphor, aren't both companies successful? Probably splitting more hairs here, but I'm always wary when we start using economic language to describe aspects of life not explicitly related to the market. To his credit Lanham prefaces this paragraph with a nod to not "sentimentalizing the life of a volatile corporation."

Does this sound like Mark Zuckerberg's idealism before it devolved into a data-mining project in the service of neoliberal economics?

Rhetoric, like the story of the carrier bag, like women's work...never finished, done, complete.

These places, these larger containers, have their own purposes and functions, and, according to Rickert's Ambient Rhetoric, they also have a rhetoric of their own. They speak to us in various ways. For Le Guin, these containers speak of her status as human, enable her to feel part of humankind.

Relates back to my earlier notion of the freedom that comes with not being definitely defined (or boxed in).

I have been asked by numerous audiences, "what exactly is rhetoric?" They understand the composition part of my studies, but are perplexed by my inability to explain/define the rhetoric portion. The fact that I can't nail down a definition doesn't make me uncomfortable like it does some. Most definitions I end up giving are to wordy for most... so they stop asking.

Alliteration. See also "female franchise." I wonder if you could scan the first three sentences: "Men of the South Heed not the song of the suffrage siren Seal your ears against her vocal wiles"

Is it wrong to warp the jury by leading them to anger or envy if the cause is just?

Not only does this have to do with deliberation but also ethos. If you want to give advice on finances in order to have a good conversation you must be knowledgeable. Deliberation has to do with choices.

Past tense speech is always looking for the blame and to discover what happened.

Species then refer to the different tenses of debate. Future, present, and past and their roles in discussion.

The implications of rhetoric used in the wrong way are devastating. An example is Nazi Germany which became so powerful because of rhetoric. Rhetoric is deeply powerful and dangerous in the wrong hands.

Rhetoric involves every discipline.

He uses the ABA's rating in his big, famous rant at the BK hearings for the USC, though, right?

Plato's version of rhetoric

Rhetoric as bad.

Rhetoric as slick

The Greek epideictic means "fit for display." Thus, this branch of oratory is sometimes called "ceremonial" or "demonstrative" oratory. Epideictic oratory was oriented to public occasions calling for speech or writing in the here and now. Funeral orations are a typical example of epideictic oratory. The ends of epideictic included praise or blame, and thus the long history of encomia and invectives, in their various manifestations, can be understood in the tradition of epideictic oratory. Aristotle assigned "virtue (the noble)" and "vice (the base)" as those special topics of invention that pertained to epideictic oratory.

Epideictic oratory was trained for in rhetorical pedagogy by way of progymnasmata exercises including the encomium and the vituperation.

Sample Rhetorical Analysis: EPIDEICTIC ORATORY

We can understand the dedicatory prefaces to early books and manuscripts as a species of epideictic oratory. Given the system of patronage that for so long made publication possible, one can understand the sometimes long-winded flattery of dedicatory epistles and prefaces. To praise a patron was to effect the possibility of obtaining sponsorship. One Renaissance entrepreneur inserted some 30 different dedicatory epistles into the front of different copies of his work, attempting to hedge his chances that this epideictic oratory would move at least one of his potential patrons, to whom he presented the copy.

Forensic Oratory

Sometimes called "forensic" oratory, judical oratory originally had to do exclusively with the law courts and was oriented around the purposes of defending or accusing. The judicial orator made arguments about past events, and did so with respect to the two special topics of invention described by Aristotle as appropriate for this branch of oratory, the just and the injust (or the right and the wrong).

Sample Rhetorical Analysis: JUDICIAL ORATORY In his famous speeches against Catiline, Cicero blatantly and forcefully accused Catiline of forming a conspiracy that would undermine republican Rome. Although speaking to the senate, he might as well have been speaking in a legal court, for he employed the methods and topics of judicial oratory, as though he were the prosecutor and Catiline the hapless defendant. Although Cicero lacked the solid evidence we would expect in today's courtroom, his dynamic summoning of witnesses (including the personified Rome herself!) secured popular sentiment against Catiline, and the conspirator fled the city.

More info here.

1. The informal method of reasoning typical of rhetorical discourse. The enthymeme is sometimes defined as a "truncated syllogism" since either the major or minor premise found in that more formal method of reasoning is left implied. The enthymeme typically occurs as a conclusion coupled with a reason. When several enthymemes are linked together, this becomes sorites.

Example

We cannot trust this man, for he has perjured himself in the past. In this enthymeme, the major premise of the complete syllogism is missing:

Those who perjure themselves cannot be trusted. (Major premise - omitted) This man has perjured himself in the past. (Minor premise - stated) This man is not to be trusted. (Conclusion - stated) 2.

A figure of speech which bases a conclusion on the truth of its contrary. Example

If to be foolish is evil, then it is virtuous to be wise. This also an example of chiasmus

Epideictic rhetoric

In other words, Trump picked this fight—obviously poltical—because he thinks he can win it, that it works for him.

Rhetorical Complexity: Pathos

Ethics.

Rhetoric and Citizenship

Rhetorical Authority.

Authority

But is that a good thing, to decontextualize?

embodiment as Identity formation:

There are many reasons as to why a tube could be labelled "do not use". It could be that this was a primer that was incorrectly ordered. It could be that upon later validation this reagent it did not meet the criteria required to continue to the next stage of experimentation. It could be that it is suspected that this tube contains some chemical which disturbed a downstream process. All these reasons are quite innocuous. It reveals the eye of the photographer who is presumably curious as to this seeming contradiction in meaning: a carefully curated scientific sample labelled into uselessness.

However, I feel that this quote juxtaposed against this innocuous image ignites the imagination down more sinister paths. Now the shaky hand which drew this label is more intimidating and the questions evoked in the mind concern dangerous side experiments. It works with the tone of this piece to caution the public, but I lament sense of wonder in which the picture without the caption evokes.

Fish/Rhetoric

Jackson's argument for amending the Constitution. What's important to him (or anyone): the end goal (in this case, changing the VP election law) or the supporting logic (the Founders understood their imperfection and so provided ways to rectify structural problems).

So we shift from the language of cybernetics to one with a more human connotation. Guidance evokes the mentor/master who leads the pupil.

Establishing the ethos based authority of Kim: she has worked in the big tech firms of Google and Apple where she made mistakes and now she dispenses valuable advice to other tech companies.

Should we believe that these companies are icons of successful HR?

Certainly Google positioned itself as possessing paradigm challenging HR practices. Last I heard, Google wants to unlock the creativity of their employees by helping them balance their lives (life enriching programming) and giving them time to explore what they think is a best course of action (80/20). But the value of those practices are contingent on an individual's agreement with a company mission. Missions which can become complicated by various managerial interpretations. Thus, as workers, we are first asked whether we accept the interpretation of the mission by our manager(s) then we are asked to become the best we can in that shared understanding of the mission.

I don't believe the author actually believes these things. Instead, this treatise simply takes commonly-held relativistic beliefs and grossly exaggerates them to show the flaws in reasoning within these beliefs.

taking sides

strong words, clearly taking a side (could have said criticising, for example).

provocative statement, sarcarstic

passionate statement

rhetoric questions, without argumentation but supposedly the hyperlinks contradicted it. But it is not clear hyperlink would be effective here (or if the linked page does provide good evidence)

bold to strengthen the statement to highlight danger

stressing that even less dangerous illness has now a vaccine

question as a rhetorical artifact

Persuasion

Putting this quote in my back pocket the next time someone asks me 1) "Why are you majoring in English?" or 2) "What are you going to do with a degree in English?". My answer will be: "To make you heathens more civilized by revealing the highest truth of the world through rhetoric, something that is centrally important to society. Thanks, Fish!!

Important to pause here and take note that Cixous has consciously called her "non-hierarchical" writing practice "feminine." Can we relate this in any way back to the very frequent association of "rhetoric" with the feminine?

Does Foucault's use of "he" suggest his opinion that only men can "do" rhetoric?

This demonstrates the necessity in finding an audience and how difficult it can be to tailor subject matter to individuals in rhetoric

Relating back to the original forms of rhetoric, before the "modern-classic" subgenre that is mentioned in Modern and Post Modern Rhetoric

I was surprised by this distinction; I tend to think of science as dealing with the concrete and rhetoric as dealing more often with the abstract. I wonder if Weaver's distinction was more common in his time than now.

Relevant to the earlier point in this text about personal experience being just as necessary as anything else to make connections to rhetoric and texts

probably the most accurate description of rhetoric given yet

I guess "old Rhetoric" is still alive, because especially on cable news or in arguments with friends, discussions are not "expositions" but "battles of words."

This really makes me think of rhetoric in terms of the ambiguity that we have been discussing and the importance of being unable to classify it as one particular thought. In this instance, certain rhetoric can become an escape during unpleasant times and provide something that even life could not

A very clear parallel between Woolf and the Grimke sisters here

It seems as though this decision to mandate the "current-traditional" approach of rhetoric in the academic setting cut out a large personal aspect of what rhetoric originally had

The first examples of ambiguity beginning to form in the what exactly the definition of rhetoric is?

Perelman's arguments remind me a lot of Thomas Kuhn (summarized on page 1196 in the overview of modern and postmodern rhetoric). Kuhn challenged the binary between communal argument and science, which seems to also be what Perelman is doing.

Which we can all agree is much easier to share with the public when using rhetoric. Just saying.

Thereby implying that "ineffective literature" can be a thing and that the absence of rhetoric in literature can also be a thing. Which, idk, I'm not sure if I buy this. But I suppose that depends on my definition of rhetoric and also my definition of effective.

Burke is important for a lot of reasons, but really, to me, he's the guy who explains why Harry Potter fits into the Rhetorical Tradition, and I can't think of anything more important than that.

Again, from the MicroResponse:

Thus there is a social aspect here as well, which is one of the ways that taste isrhetorical – it is a product of the dynamic relationship between the self and the world

It might be useful here to think about the "social aspects" of rhetoric as they were mentioned in the MicroResponse:

In other words, taste depends not only upon the senses, but also upon established standards. Thus there is a social aspect here as well, which is one of the ways that taste is rhetorical – it is a product of the dynamic relationship between the self and the world.

I think this procedural notion also resembles Rickert's ideas in "Rhetorical Prehistory and the Paleolithic"... For him, rhetoric is not something we do, but something we take part in. Hence his use of the term "rhetoricity."

In many ways this draws upon John Muckelbauer's essay "The Return of the Question." The question is, of course, "What is rhetoric?" Throughout his essay, Muckelbauer works through the "ubiquity of the question" -- the variety of places we encounter it, the people who ask us, and the different answers we provide. The inexplicable nature of the question, even from the beginning, creates a disorientation:

So even at the moment of its historical origin, rhetoric already suffered from a kind of identity crisis (one that would, as we all know, intrinsically complicate the possibility of pointing to the moment of its historical origin). Even at that time, one might easily have responded to the question 'What is rhetoric?' with the answer, 'The art of never finally answering that question.'

Never finally answering the question, while at times infuriating, opens up the possibility of rethinking the history of rhetoric in the way this Elaboration needs. It is not a history of rhetoric that assumes the tradition of theory after theory finding ways to normalize (even though, as already stated, is neither unusual nor unproductive when thinking through rhetoric). Instead, it is a history that manifests (embodies) the very chaos that is the human body. I think Muckelbauer would agree, as he suggests that all of the attempts to answer the question do not “necessarily do an injustice to the diffuse history and conceptual promiscuity of the term.” So, this just might be another messy attempt to answer the question again.

See Jay Dolmage's book Disability Rhetoric

Is this Elaboration an attempt to think in a similar way? Or maybe even copy?

Disability Rhetoric is the first book to view rhetorical theory and history through the lens of disability studies. Traditionally, the body has been seen as, at best, a rhetorical distraction; at worst, those whose bodies do not conform to a narrow range of norms are disqualified from speaking. Yet, Dolmage argues that communication has always been obsessed with the meaning of the body and that bodily difference is always highly rhetorical. Following from this rewriting of rhetorical history, he outlines the development of a new theory, affirming the ideas that all communication is embodied, that the body plays a central role in all expression, and that greater attention to a range of bodies is therefore essential to a better understanding of rhetorical histories, theories, and possibilities.

No way Fish believes this.

Shouldn't the answer be when humans began to write and speak? Or am I just a naive sophomore?

Nice qualification: there isn't a stable definition of rhetoric, so Hill's using the definition that suits his purpose.

This is where we can start to see the splits (and intersections) between speech, writing, and rhetoric. So, Oratory is not rhetoric here. And Persuaion is also not rhetoric here. This seems to be going against earlier rhetoricians who focused primarily on elocution and oratory. Instead, those (Oratory and Persuasion) are just modes of discourse, which can be "rendered effective" through rhetoric.

In other words, it is not just Oratory or Persuasion that "uses rhetoric"; instead, all of these modes are rhetorical.

Still a fan of this: could it be that rhetoric offers precisely this: contextual, isolated dogmas? Not dogmas that reach anywhere and everywhere, but dogmas that apply only in specific places.

Everyone should code. part of the rhetoric of code where it is shown to people in a very important and urgent thing that you need NOW!

Willard is actually, along the way, sublimely unpacking logic as the firm foundation it was being treated as. These are, she argues, the preferences male ministers hold: defend them on those grounds instead of appealing to abstract principles. "Their hierarchy is man-made from first to last." This isn't to critique it as such, but to point toward the rhetorical work being done here. In this, Willard resonates, perhaps surprisingly, with Nietzsche here.

Kind of like our assignments for History of Rhetoric 2.

Nietzsche here expresses a total separation between the sign (language) and its object ("trees, colors, snow and flowers"). There really is nothing, for example, about a tree that warrants the name "tree."

An example of how great rhetoric can shift human history. It's crazy to consider what the U. S. could've looked like had there been a mass exodus of African-American people as Lincoln originally advocated for...

This is an important moment for my own understanding of Douglass and his significance for rhetoric.

This really is an incredible passage The whole category of nature, the body, and attitude are thrown open. Douglass is attuning us to the way that bodies and hearts and minds are composed rhetorical: that is, socially through practice. Nothing is automatic and irreversible. The province of rhetoric is being expanded here.

This is even more true now. As our readings late in the semester will perform, rhetoric is increasingly renewing its interest in the material alongside its longstanding interest in the body. Douglass speaks to these.

This is a fantastic revelation: his physical presence changes rhetoric.

Thinking back to Sheridan, who would probably disagree: "But tho' all who are blest with the gift of speech, by constantly associating the ideas of articulate sounds, to those characters which they see on paper, come to imagine that there is a necessary connection between them, and that the one, is merely a symbol of the other; yet, that it is in itself, a manner of communication entirely different, and utterly independent of the other..."

Further down in the paragraph it is suggested that this blurred line between written and spoken rhetoric could possibly be attributed to Douglass' blending of African, European, and American cultural elements, beyond just necessary last-minute additions of antislavery tracts. Could it then be because of Sheridan's homogenous rhetorical background that he believed written and spoken word to be distinct?

Interesting that Whateley equates "art" and "rules".... When I think of art, I think instead of creativity and self-expression. This demonstrates the difference in perceptions of art through the ages, and goes back to the idea that one's rhetorical environment influences their perspectives.

Although, it may not be entirely relevant, this seems to be like a very interesting representation of the "Truth" that we kept alluding to after our first set of readings, but adapted to a more understandable scenario.

For since sounds are voluntary and indifferent signs of any ideas, a man may use what words he pleases to signify his own ideas to himself: and there will be no im-perfection in them, if he constantly use the same sign for the same idea: for then he cannot fail of having his meaning understood, wherein consists the right use and perfection of language (Locke, 817).

Makes me think back to the subjectivity of what rhetoric and language can be; as long as one person believes it to be true, then it must be true

The etymology of "rhetoric" that Whateley is referencing: early 14th century, from Old French rethorique, from Latin rhetorice, from Greek rhetorike techne "art of an orator," from rhetor (genitive rhetoros) "speaker, orator, teacher of rhetoric," related to rhesis "speech," rhema "word, phrase, verb," meaning literally: that which is spoken.

It can generally be agreed that the composition of an argument also befalls under the general umbrella of rhetoric.

One of many times the fields of psychology and rhetoric overlap and blend

Interesting that these topics of study were made available to women even before they were granted the right to vote in the United States (the beginning of the paragraph says "By the end of the nineteenth century," and the 19th Amendment was not passed until 1920). I wonder how the women's suffrage movement affected the types of education that were made available to women? In turn, how did rhetoric influence women's suffragists and their strategies to gain the right to vote? How did the suffrage movement influence rhetoric?

What is compelling here is the implicit assertion that rhetoric requires locations and vocations to flourish.

This description reminds me of the 18th century work of Phillis Wheatley, the first African American poet to publish a book. Wheatley doesn't have the best reputation now, but maybe looking at how Wheatley's work has influenced not just poets but other prominent African American women could renew appreciation for her work.

Also, in finding this comparison, I think this indicates that rhetoric and poetry are perhaps not so separate. They can have similar motives and techniques. And some of Wheatley's works, if I'm not mistaken, were delivered in public, and I don't think I would consider all of her work as a "soliloquy"; there's definitely an argument being made in her work, even if it's perhaps coded so as not to offend a white audience.

A very compelling phrase here in terms of rhetoric with its triple emphasis on decision, emotions and experience.

Check out this book on the intersection of science and democracy.

Blair-"True rhetoric and sound logic are very nearly allied."

So part of the importance of discussing taste, judging works of art, developing standards of taste and individual taste seem to tie into the project of rhetoric as we've read so far this semester: to come closer to the Truth.

This example of eloquence is one that I still see rather frequently being taught as a literary tool, speaking in reference to the questionable ways that rhetoric was said to be taught earlier in this piece.

I agree very much with the common misconception of the term as fluff to poor arguments, but in the written form, it is often taught to still relate every piece of work back to the general idea to answer the "so what," something that may not be present in all forms of teaching, however

See Campbell's breakdown of appealing to the passions. I think these strikingly similar hierarchies might be important for the conviction/persuasion distinction made on page 970 (as pointed out by Nathaniel).

It is not, however, every kind of pathos, which will give the orator so great an ascendancy over the minds of his hearers. All passions are not alike capable of producing this effect. Some are naturally inert and torpid; they deject the mind, and indispose it for enterprise . Of this kind are sorrow, fear, shame, humility. Others, on the contrary, elevate the soul, and stimulate to action. Such are hope, patriotism, ambition, emulation, anger. These, with the greatest facility, are made to concur in direction with arguments exciting to resolution and activity : and are, consequently , the fittest for producing what, for want of a better term in our language, I shall henceforth denominate the vehement. There is, besides, an intermediate kind of passions, which do not so congenially and directly either restrain us from acting, or incite us to act; but, by the art of the speaker, can, in an oblique manner, be made conducive to either. Such are joy, love, esteem, compassion. Nevertheless, all these kinds may find a place in suasory discourses, or such as are intended to operate on the will. The first is properest for, dissuading; the second, as hath been already hinted, for persuad- ing; the third is equally accommodated to both. (904)

This thought reminded me of the discussion in class about how even babies are communicating before developing a sense of language.

It seems to me that as long as an individual has an understanding of their own cultural ideas and contexts, they can grasp some form of rhetorical interaction with others; rhetoric seemingly always finds a way.

A very important move made here within the history of rhetoric.

This seems to beg the question, "Who or what deserves rhetoric?"

This paragraph reminds me of my microresponse of "what rhetoric will be." With Blair emphasizing the importance of knowing classic rhetoricians and their styles, his point of their styles not withstanding time illustrates the ever-changing nature and flexibility of rhetoric, while still managing to place that importance on where rhetoric came from, as well

This section is jumping out at me this time around. Keep it mind later on when we turn to discuss the elements of the rhetorical situation. Campbell opens up for discussing the material dimensions of rhetoric: not simply rhetoric as the discursive activity of humans, but as an emergent aspect of human and nonhuman relations. Also, recall here Rickert on the role of the caves themselves in the making of cave art.

Ah, yes, the weak defense.

Chapter VII: General Audience Awareness

But, really, Mere Rhetoric has a nice (I'm assuming she's mostly on point here) summary of some of the concepts to follow.

Even if there was a universal language, would it avoid the problem of humans applying disparaging meanings to words, as suggested by Locke? Locke suggests that even those who speak the same tongue do not fully comprehend one another because individuals apply different meanings to the same word based on feelings, background, culture, etc.

Here, Campbell suggests that a little bit of ornamentation is acceptable, depending on the end for which the orator strives. This contrasts Astell's aversion to ornamentation and seems to be a somewhat forward-thinking idea concerning Enlightenment Rhetoric.

I appreciate that Campbell values the relationship between logic and passion and that both are necessary to ensure that rhetoric is successful. Again, he contrasts previous thinkers, such as the Stoics, who disregarded the importance of passion, and only viewed "passions" as a hindrance to human happiness.

According to Sheridan, Rhetoric inspired by God is stronger than the language that man created, because even though our language may be more complicated than utterances, it does not communicate our thoughts, feelings, etc. as well as our natural "groaning" (I'm not sure what our natural noise would be?). Agrees with Astell in terms of divine inspiration correlating to rhetoric, but is different in that for Astell, people of the Christian faith were divinely inspired to be better rhetoricians by virtue of their beliefs, but Sheridan is saying we should "get back to our roots," as it were, and not ignore our natural rhetorical inclinations as inspired by God.

Mirrors Astell's religious language

Interesting that Astell draws a parallel between rhetorical ability and Christianity, that by being a Christian you are automatically a better rhetorician by virtue of your beliefs. Is she suggesting rhetoric is divinely inspired, or just that the virtuous Christian life leads to better rhetorical abilities?

A rare urge from an Enlightenment thinker. Note that histrionic is gendered as well.

But how does the climate of life at the time influence the readers' perceptions of Homer? Surely what they found important during the time of the Romans could be the same, but the application to their own lives would differ because of different customs and ways of life.

Reflects Locke's annoyance with the inconsistency in meaning applied to language

But who determines those who have a superior taste? I assume knowledge has much to do with it, but diverse cultural backgrounds lead to different views of what is considered "tasteful." Two individuals could be equally educated in the same field and have wildly different standards of what is tasteful based solely on their background, culture, etc. Interesting to note that their rhetorical environment influences the way in which they think, albeit not actively, about societal standards and values.

Rhetoric is already complicated enough, and I was only viewing it through an English lens up until this point. Thinking about how rhetoric influences other linguistic interpretations of a thought/feeling/idea/opinion, and how other linguistic practices that incorporate cultural differences in turn influenced the development of rhetoric makes my brain hurt.

The continuation of the move to gender rhetoric/eloquence as feminine.

What might be the relationship between rhetoric and noise?

"There is no end." Another useful way to think through rhetoric in light of Muckelbauer.

But, of course, there are often temporary ends achieved.

Dispute is a way to think through rhetoric here.

This is a good nutshell here.

So, then, in what ways (or how) was he able to do this: to impact rhetoric. What does this claim reveal about the scope and province of rhetoric.

"It is an old observation, that the best writers sometimes disregard the rules of rhetoric. When they do so, however, the reader will usually find in the sentence some compensating merit, attained at the cost of the violation. Unless he is certain of doing as well, he will probably do best to follow the rules."

William Strunk (The Elements of Style, Introduction)

Where's the fun in rhetoric if seemingly all people have a concrete definition of it? To my knowledge, rhetoric is one of the very exclusive words that means different things to different people. Unfortunately, in my experience, it seems that very few seem to care about it at all.

Did these become the same thing?

While offering a single answer to this question may appearing limiting, a basic study of rhetoric will tell you that the single answer is necessary as that is the rhetorical form that is demanded.

There is an interesting construction of agency here: rhetoric is treated as the subject of the sentence. Rhetoric does the selecting. This suggests, perhaps unwittingly, the kinds of claims Rickert makes about rhetoric as less a tool than a capacity or even a force. We participate in rhetoric, but we don't necessarily control it.

Hmm. I don't know what to make of this comment, but I would like to highlight that the Greeks, Plato especially, heavily gendered logos and pathos. "Logos" was what all men should strive for, and was considered male. It made one's argument stronger according to the Greeks (as outlined a few lines down). "Pathos" was less respected and, in some cases, avoided in order to make a "stronger" argument. It was gendered female. I think this gendering of logic and emotion can help us understand why it was avoided in the Greek culture. I do like that the author acknowledges the importance of both when it comes to constructing a sound argument.

I find myself continuously drawn to the points of how rhetoric influenced modern society in its development into what it is today. How can something so influential and essential to how we exist now be so misunderstood by the majority of present-day citizens? It's kind of funny to think about.

I'm reminded of Rickert's earlier point about the strong connection between spirituality/divinity and rhetoric. With this in mind, it's fascinating to think that these occupations would have been one in the same. Would it be possible to be a shaman without being an artist, or perhaps more interestingly, vice versa?

How different would our definition(s) of rhetoric be if we viewed it through the lens of another ancient civilization? I think what this article (and many of the articles which we have read) is saying that in order to gain a broader and deeper understanding of rhetoric, we must view it from the perspective of multiple cultural interpretations.

Alludes to the "Q" question, possibly. To know if something has been fully "rhetoricized," we must understand how it falls into the context of rhetoric. Meaning we must understand how it influences and is influenced by rhetoric.

Though a fairly basic analysis of rhetoric, I love the use of the word "performed" here; it suggests an activeness about rhetoric.

"Perform" originates from an old French (fornir) meaning "to provide." While the purpose of rhetoric may be allusive, I think this root suggests that rhetoric (as a performance) ought to provide something notable for the audience. This suggests there ought to be some degree of substance to rhetoric; rhetoric must be justified. Rickert's implication that plaques and beads serve a purpose beyond abstract fashion is an example of rhetoric as a self-justifying act.

Interesting connection between rhetoric and spirituality. It reminded me of this scene from Exodus:

Moses said to the Lord, “Pardon your servant, Lord. I have never been eloquent, neither in the past nor since you have spoken to your servant. I am slow of speech and tongue.”

The Lord said to him, “Who gave human beings their mouths? Who makes them deaf or mute? Who gives them sight or makes them blind? Is it not I, the Lord? Now go; I will help you speak and will teach you what to say.”

...

The connection between spirituality (the divine) and strong rhetoric that Rickert alludes to here is made literal in this scene; the power of God is in His language and the eloquence he grants to Moses. The strong words granted to Moses/Aaron by God allow the prophet to guide the souls of the Egyptians toward Hebrew liberation.

The emphasis placed on these two elements of rhetoric reminds me of the Greek use of rhetoric in politics as a way to sway audiences and public opinion through public speaking, something that relied heavily on these specific elements.

To me, this idea of writing that speaks and reveals information to a "director" is the very basic idea for what first person narratives are.

Furthermore, this idea of confessing to an audience through an interactive narrative translates to various media, as well. However, even though these confessions are seemingly necessary in textual renditions of narratives, they can often be misconstrued as more intrusive fourth wall breaks due to this change in media. This creates a very thin line between these confessions being additive to the narrative or if they take away from the overall intent of the author.

To keep this idea going still, upon researching the definition of "cogitationes," the definitions were either of self-reflection, thoughts, or the act of thinking; something clearly represented through Foucault's writing, but a connection I found interesting, nonetheless.

The rhetoric of how campus spaces are designed the way they are

Chiasmus, cf. Portrait bird girl, "soft and slight, slight and soft."

Chiasmus, cf. "The Dead" "falling faintly through the Universe and faintly falling."

A law professor's response to a student's complaint about his (or her) Black Lives Matter t-shirt. It is a lesson in critical thinking and persuasive writing -- as well as a reply to general hostility toward BLM.

This.

on the flattening effect collaborative authorship has on style

I've been thinking about this metaphor, and about comments on blogs vs. blogs linking to blogs. In some ways this is another part of the Wikipedia vs. Federated Wiki question. I say "vs." because the alternatives do become binary at some point in the conversation. But back to the owning vs. sharecropping: in terms of web presence, maybe; in terms of discourse and rhetoric and the ways call and response differ, maybe not. I'll keep thinking. And I'm grateful for the heads-up that Hypothes.is is at last up and running!

I see this as evidence of technology determinism, which this article is shot through with. This kind of sentiment comes off as if technologies make things better, faster, more efficient for all involved parties, without consequence. It also assumes a consensus around what improved teaching and learning looks like and means. IMO, "efficiency" recalls turn of 20th century industrialist philosophy and rhetoric. In the work of education, I think that we need to ask if efficiency really is always better, and better for who. I am suggesting that in many cases efficiency is better for administrators from a business perspective, but not so for learners.

Skeptic's voice implied. "But couldn't we just go back to the way things were?"

Evidence for what he says.

But the evidence that might at first seem to support what they say actually supports what he says.

More evidence that gives what they say some plausibility.

I say neatly incorporates a repetition of what they say.

Why what they say is plausible.