372 Matching Annotations
  1. Aug 2020
  2. Jul 2020
    1. I have begun this letter five times and torn it up five times.

      Begins with parallel structure a rhetorical device used throughout. With students I'd ask them to identify other examples in letter. Discuss parallelism in sermon construction and its emotionally evocative power and its use by Baldwin, King, and Obama. Connect to musicality and memory--important cultural literary structures when literature is spoken rather than read. Can connect to Akhmatova social/political context. Note the intimacy of POV. There's a duality in the expository form--it's addressed to one but published to many. Why is this an effective voice for the persona? How would you describe the persona?

  3. Apr 2020
    1. First,it motivatedher to refuteotherabusive,male-dominatedliterarytreatmentsof women.Second,it establishedChristine'sreputa-tionas a femaleintellectual,a well-educated,outspokenwomanwhocouldargueeffectivelyanddefendher positions.Andfinally,it pointedto hercharacterandcre

      I imagine she had many enemies for all of these reasons, and it's interesting and gratifying to see her ethos grew throughout her life as well as her confidence. She clearly took a lot of risks to say what she felt needed to be said, and the reward was her progress as a rhetor.

  4. Mar 2020
    1. sarcasm is an insincere form of politeness which is used to offend one's interlocutor.
  5. Mar 2019
    1. SHE

      "SHE is responsible" Is this BOLD repetition on the page related to oratorical style? It would be interesting to hear this document read aloud, incorporating all the emphases of the upper case letters and rhetorical breaks.

    1. therefore at least to some extent a failure

      this is strange; I suppose you can 'succeed' in carrying out the utterance, but it does not consecrate anything, which... is the entire point? So, strange to say that it fails only in part when in another sense it fails completely. It's like I succeeded in taking a shot but missed the basket?

    2. One thing we might go on to do, of course, is to take it all back

      How can you take back an action? (though you could retract a claim about an action, of course)

    3. So far then we have merely felt the firm ground of prejudice slide away beneath our feet.

      Not absolute; not bedrock (though we thought it was). And merely? This is "merely" the dissolution of what you thought reality was?

    4. That this is SO can perhaps hardly be proved, but it is, I should claim, a fact.

      Haha - claiming "truth" for something that he acknowledges might not be provable - 'take my word for it, it's a fact'. Use of the performative again in "claim," e.g. "I claim" cannot be responded to with "that's not true!"

    5. outward and audible sign

      Proverbial tip of the iceberg; the "seen" part.

    6. Here we should say that in saying-these words we are doing some- thing-namely, marrying, rat her than reporting some- thing, namely that we are marrying

      Important distinction between doing and reporting; the former obviously an action, and the latter a verifiable statement. But can the lines blur? Is "I do" ever reporting the fact that you are getting married, which is verifiable?

    7. Yet to be 'true' or 'false' is traditionally the characteristic mark of a statement.

      All statements are boolean: T/F

    8. all cases considered

      Not sure that all cases considered are worth considering...?

    9. the only merit I should like to claim for it is that of being true, at least in parts

      You would think the goal of an essay would be to find or argue a truth, but here he is marginalizing it; truth is not the goal.

      Arguing that truth and falsehood are not what matters; that the performative exists outside such claims (as we learn later).

      Using the performative in his opening through the use of "I claim"; and here he claims truth. He performs his own argument.

    10. we shall next consider what we actually do say about the utterance concerned when one or another of its normal concomitants is absent

      So the utterance is surrounded by other ceremonial trappings, and without which there is a presumption that the utterance is hollow, that the accompaniments make it "complete"; suggests that the ceremony becomes greater than the sum of its parts by being able to bring about this binding force which the parts cannot do individually; or can they - is just the utterance enough to describe and seal the inward act? The other question is, does the utterance imply (and describe) the other trappings?

    11. our word is our bond

      And yet these are just words; as believable or unbelievable as the uttering of an oath?

    12. Thus 'I promise to . . . 9 obliges me-puts on record my spiritual assumption of a spiritual shackle.

      The consecration of the oath; but when is the uttering just a garnishment? For some, the internal / spiritual bond is the key thing, binding regardless of whether the one to whom the words are uttered believes them or not; the words are just words, but the intent is everything. The intent can exist without the words, and so the words can exist without the intent. It is the words though that offer a public record of commitment, and against which one's character is judged and assessed in accordance with their ability to live up to them.

    13. fictitious

      Interesting choice of words; many swear that they are real and binding, but, yes, they are imaginary (in our culture); we require signed contracts, and verbal oaths are nice, but have a romantic tinge to them and we expect them maybe to not be kept as frequently.

    14. the outward utterance is a description, true or false, of the occurrence of the inward performance

      The process by which we arm feelings of guilt / responsibility / etc to trigger when we have second thoughts about the vow we've made

    15. Surely the words must be spoken 'seriously' and so as to be taken 'seriously' ?

      Requires a certain solemnity, yes, but how many vows or promises are made with no intention of ever keeping them? Or only that they were meant in the moment, but that future circumstances resulted in the changing of one's heart/mind?

    16. tircumstantes

      Drilling down to the even-more-particular; not just anyone can marry somebody, at any time, at any place, with a word (and have it mean anything); requires person w/ particular qualifications / authority / occasion / etc.

      Also requires a society/set of institutions that considers such acts normal and reasonable. In this way, the particulars affected by the occasion are part of a much large general sphere in which they are legitimized and sanctioned; and outside of that may exist a larger sphere which is baffled by them.

    17. very commonly necessary that either the speaker himself or other persons should also perform certain other actions

      While the naming or the uttering of "I do" symbolically 'seals' or makes the transaction official, the naming or the uttering is part of a longer ceremony. Not sure about betting though; it would be strange somehow if a complete stranger bet another with no prior interaction (i.e. no mechanism to build trust, etc), but it could happen

    18. dangerous


    19. convert the propositions above

      Make them more particular; less general

    20. but in some other way

      Aren't the words more ceremonial? i.e. in marriage, they bind symbolically, but what really matters is the legal stamp of the JOP? But that's not what everybody stands, applauds or weeps for; maybe on some level that's what we're doing with words here?

    21. current

      Good qualifier; reminds us that language is always shifting.

    22. it indicates that the issuing of the utterance is the performing of an action

      Is it true that the function of the utterance is to assign metadata in some way?

    23. perfornative sentence

      Performs an action affecting particulars in a way that cannot be measured or perceived outside of the moment in which the utterance takes place.

    24. I assert this as obvious and do not argue it

      Is this phrase also an exercitive, neither true nor false?

    25. Examples :

      Involve the:

      • creation of relationships
      • creation of dividing lines which, prior to the uttering of the sentence, did not 'exist'; i.e. prior to "I do" they were not married, but afterwards they are; prior to "I name this ship...", it had no name, but afterwards it does; they are historical mile markers of sorts.
      • involves particulars; not all women are my wife; this one is. Not all ships are named; but this one is.
      • must be said aloud or in print, and often needs to be backed by some legal authority to "legitimate" the action; of course, anybody can name something, but the 'officially recognized' name can only come from a certain privileged source / I can marry a random woman just by saying "I do" to her, but the 'marriage' is not recognized, etc'; privileges some constructs over others by a vested authority
      • also denote things that cannot be done for me; I must utter them in order for them to take effect (be true); they require agency (or the appearance of agency)
      • the statements themselves are neither true or false, they just are; ex-post we can decide that a subsequent statement identifying the brother as the legal heir to the watch is 'true' or 'false'; but the original declaration is neither(?)
      • involve the combination of words with some ceremony or ritual that somehow enshrines it (in the case of the bet maybe the ritual is the exchange of money, but not sure if that fits the bill). Almost like incantations of sorts.
    26. exercit ives

      "A speech act in which a decision is made regarding action; examples include orders and grants of permission."

    27. the uttering of the sentence is, or is a part of, the doing of an action, which again would not normally be described as saying something

      The action is performed with the uttering of the sentence.

    28. Yet they will succumb to their own timorous fiction, that a statement of 'the law' is a statemknt of fact.

      When in doubt, defer to authority.

    29. disguise'

      Is the disguise applied moreso by the reader's bias than the author's intent?

    30. parti pris

      pre-conceived view or bias

    31. Whatever we may think of any particular one of these views and suggestions, and however much we may deplore the initial confusion into which philosophical doctrine and method have been plunged, it cannot be doubted that they are producing a revolution in philosophy.

      Makes me think of a generation set in its ways butting up against a younger "less respectful" generation that is "doing it all wrong"; i.e. generational divide between viewpoints; some may think a revolution hardly necessary, that it is fine the way it is and that they are simply being disruptive.

    32. Constative'

      "denoting a speech act or sentence that is a statement declaring something to be the case"

    33. It has come to be seen that many specially perplexing words embedded in apparently descriptive statements do not serve to indi- cate some specially odd additional feature in the reality reported, but to indicate (not to report) the circumstances in which the statement is made or reservations to which it is subject or the way in which it is to be taken and the like.

      Qualifying / conditional factors?

    34. We very often also use utterances in ways beyond the scope at least of traditional grammar.

      And how does the reader know exactly, and to what extent, the boundaries of a definition are being pushed by the use of a word which they think they are familiar with?

    35. For how do we decide which is which? What are the limits and definitions of each ?

      There is an unaddressed problem which hinders clear communication; there is no standard criteria for the establishment of intent in communication. (Doubt that's what the ultimate argument is, but seems to be the set-up)

    36. It is, of course, not reaw correct that a sentence ever is a statement: rather, it is used in making a smmt, and the statement itself' is a 'logical construction' out of the dings of satements.

      A sentence remains a sentence; it is just a tool or vehicle for the delivery of something which depends entirely on its configuration.

    37. It was for too long the assumption of philosophers that the business of a 'statement' can only be to 'describe' some state of affairs, or to 'state some fact', which it must do either truly or falsely.

      The utility of the vehicle used to distinguish truth from falsehood itself rests on an assumption; purports that there is or maybe ought to be a 'purpose' to a statement.

    38. discussed

      Makes it feel inclusive; a conversation.

    1. Strong Defense assumes that truth is determined by social dramas, some more formal than others but all man-made. Rhetoric in such a world is not ornamental but determinative, essentially creative. Truth once created in this way becomes referential, as in legal precedent. The court decides "what real-ly happened" and we then measure against that. The Strong Defense implies a figure/ground shift between philosophy and rhetoric-in fact, as we shall see, a continued series of shifts. In its world, there is as much truth as we need, maybe more, but argument is open-ended, more like kiting checks than balancing books. Much as we want to evade it, howeve

      Law creates rhetoric, or rhetoric creates law? Philosophy of law generally presupposed that law is objective. Lanham's argument makes a good case that law presents itself as objective, even though it can't possibly ever be.

    1. Two-fold arguments are also put forward concerning the just and the unjust

      Examples here are more oriented toward personal freedom / libertarian values; points out that the same action applied to the same person, can be either potentially just or unjust depending on the circumstances, and also that there will be local conflicts and differences in opinion (e.g. in preventing a friend from committing suicide, they may be angry and disagree that your actions are just, though others may support your decision and think it is indeed just).

      There is no universal sanctity of property rights or freedom from bodily restraint by others; violence is in some cases justified, and in others not.

    2. Since if anyone should ask those who say that the same thing is both disgraceful and seemly whether they have ever done anything seemly, they would admit that they have also done something disgraceful, if disgraceful and seemly are really the same thing.

      In removing the context, the actions become effectively neutral, in that they are simultaneously good and bad; the actions themselves exist without judgment, and the judgment is only the product of the culture in which they take place (or are regarded)

    3. But there is also an argument about the disgraceful and the seemly which says that each is distinct from the other. Since if anyone should ask those who say that the same thing is both disgraceful and seemly whether they have ever done anything seemly, they would admit that they have also done something disgraceful, if disgraceful and seemly are really the same thing.

      Depends perhaps upon in whose eyes we are judged; to consider the judgment of all would result in paralysis, and goes back again to "the right thing" being dependent upon its context and actors.

      One is maybe always simultaneously appeasing certain gods and transgressing against others.

    4. but the right occasion

      The right occasion = the opportune moment; context-specific.

    5. And if you investigate in this way, you will see another law for mortals: nothing is always seemly or always disgraceful, but the right occasion takes the same things and makes them disgraceful and then alters them and makes them seemly.

      No universal truths, however this wisdom is not universally regarded as true, and many would argue that universal truths or laws do exist.<br> Paradox of claiming that there are no universal laws is that in doing so, you are making a claim of a universal law.

    6. against the law

      As examples rise in degree of 'extremity', they brush up against norms and laws, an act that may be celebrated in one culture is punishable by death or ostracism in another, simply based on the geography or time in which it takes place. By keeping location and temporality intact, the author is able to refrain from making absolute claims about any of the actual behaviors and just cite them as things that are, irrespective of judgment. The degree to which the reader judges them may be dependent upon the reader's interpreting the behaviors not as context-specific acts, but as archetypes(?) or fixed representations of those acts which stand outside of time and place.

    7. the most beautiful grave imaginable

      Shifts to more 'extreme' examples, but points out that this perverse (to the greeks) act is BEAUTIFUL and an act of love to others; perhaps their reverence is inversely proportional to the Greeks' horror.<br> Also, in using such 'extreme' examples, the author shows that in fact nothing is truly extreme, because it is all a matter of context, and concepts of extremity introduce limits or constrain these things to a spectrum which is not necessarily accurate; it all depends on the context, and something cannot "depend" strongly or weakly based on the actual act, but only on the context.

    8. I go on to the things which cities and peoples regard as disgraceful

      Switches to point out arbitrary differences in culture; be born in one area and you believe x, be born in another and you believe y, but largely it is a matter of the random happenstance of one's birth. These beliefs are human creations, and vary depending on where the humans live.

    9. (although for men to do so in the palaistra aid gymnasium is seemly.)

      The "good" and the "bad" can be seemingly arbitrarily different between identity groups. Why is it seemly for person of type x and unseemly for person of type y?

    10. And I am not saying what the good is, but I am trying to explain that the bad and the good are not the same but that each is distinct from the other

      Not trying to identify a moral absolute, just point out that it is relative and therefore that there is no absolute.

    11. I think it would not be clear what was good and what was bad if they were just the same and one did not differ from the other; in fact such a situation would be extraordinary

      Is this sarcasm? Is he saying that such a duality would be extraordinary in that it would violate the philosophers' attempts to categorize and assign general rules? Not sure...

    12. But there is another argument which says that the good is one thing and the bad another, and that as the name differs, so does the thing named.

      This serves as a sort of refrain in the verse/chorus structure of the text. It is constructed like a song in some respects.

    13. And death is bad for those who die but good for the undertakers and gravediggers.

      Use of the progressive method of providing examples; in this case, linear from health to death. Further on in the text from mundane to extreme.<br> Examples here shift from the personal (the sick individual) to a class (professions); there is a hierarchy and blending here of sorts in that any member of any of the professions listed could find themselves as the individual afflicted by the example condition/problem, and as such we find that the same person could potentially hold these conflicting opinions at different stages in their life, and that neither is necessarily wrong nor contradictory.

    14. And, further, incontinence in these matters is bad for the incontinent but good for those who sell these things and make a profit. And again, illness is bad for the sick but good for the doctors. And death is bad for those who die but good for the undertakers and gravediggers.

      i.e. it depends on who you're asking; all are likely to express sympathy, but also their livelihoods depend on the decline of the other.

    15. or at one time good and at another time bad for the same person

      Not fixed

    16. Two-fold arguments concerning the good and the bad are put forward in Greece by those who philosophize. Some say that the good is one thing and the bad another, but others say that they are the same, and a thing might be good for some persons but bad for others, or at one time good and at another time bad for the same person.

      Good & bad, or things with which we agree and disagree. They are sometimes put forth as absolutes or dividing lines, but in reality, there may be disagreement about whether things are in fact, good or bad. Instead of arguing back and forth over who is right, the interesting discourse may be in where the differences lie.

    17. Suppose someone should question the man who says this as follows: Why don't you assign your household slaves their tasks by lot, so that if the teamster drew the office of cook, he would do the cooking and the cook would drive the team, and so with the rest ?

      How do these "fish out of water" statements compare back to previous examples? Seems to imply that, if you took an Athenian and placed them in Sparta, that they would consider the Spartan culture still foreign and would be at a disadvantage trying to operate within the context (which is likely)? They would see things through the lens of an Athenian, which, on the other hand, may provide certain perspective that the Spartans take for granted. Perhaps it is a reminder that opportunity is not democratically distributed, and that the moments and circumstances conducive to certain results cannot be manufactured by moving the pieces around, because they depend so much not only on the context in which they happen, but the experience and history of those who find themselves within the situation?

  6. Feb 2019
    1. mes noted oftener than absolutely necessary, and some transitions arc of necessity omitted. It i

      more embodied rhetoric

    2. very vuricty of o

      Interesting here the interconnectedness of language and the body -- an embodied rhetoric. Physical gestures find root in classical rhetoric, but this seems to be the most explicit example of it in the readings we've encountered so far in this class.

      As kmurphy1 has noted, there's also a move to contextualize rhetoric and language against growing interests in the (literal) mechanics of the body. Astell makes a similar pivot with her use of the word "Particles" to describe aspects of language and her machine-body metaphor.

    3. the delivery or a speech

      As opposed to Astell's focus on style, could it be argued that Austin most values delivery (performance) of the five canons of rhetoric?

    1. and most

      His emphasis on emotion reminds me of Aristotle, one of the few classical thinkers to take into account a person's emotions in a rhetorical context.

    2. one's moral values will rise to the corresponding level.

      This reminds me of the "Q" question, the assumption that just exposure to literature will inculcate an upstanding character: the banner model for humanities education.

    3. voice and gesture

      Ok, I don't know that Locke would disagree, but Sheridan is specifically including the vocal chords and limbs, that is, the body, in the sphere of the rhetorical.

    1. Firmness and strength of Mind ·,_ 1 • ..will carry us thro all these little persecutions,, ..... ..-orrt ... • h' h . r • • w 1c may create us some uneasiness 1or a.. .t...t 0r while, but will afterwards end in our Glory and-....:� Triumph.

      I think it's important to note that the words Astell is using are not unusual or incredibily difficult to understand -- they are, in fact, pretty conversational, and don't seem pretentious or alienating. She's working with her audience.

    2. it is not because you mm! but because you will.

      This is awesome. It's confrontational but also empowering -- definitely keeping her audience in mind.

    3. Obscurity, verbosity, and pretentiousness are to be avoided; unusual words are to be used only when they aid clarity and prevent the aforementioned faults. For Aslell, women's rheloric should focus on the art of conversation, us both Sutherland and Renaissance scholar Jane Donawerth have argued. This is women's proper rhetori­cal sphere, different from but in no way inferior to the public sphere in which men use oratory.

      My mind immediately went to gossip and how the exchange/passing along of information/knowledge between women has been through this "proper rhetorical sphere" -- (private) conversations.

      The way obscurity is used here versus how it's used by Locke is also very interesting and very, very gendered.

    4. accommodate her audi­ence.

      This idea of audience centeredness is still taught today in the majority of public speaking classes.

    5. primary requirements fur eloquence arc innate

      This is a very interesting idea that one's rhetorical capabilities are innate rather than learned or taught. Do all human beings have this innate capability? And if so, do only some choose to act on this ability?

    6. Most of Astell's discussion of rhetoric is devoted to style,

      Therefore, could we infer that Astell valued "style" as the most important of the five canons of rhetoric?

    7. She asserts that nature is the best teacher of clo{1uencc. Rules help only a little, and only if they have been <lcrivcd from nature.

      This has echoes of Plato in it, where Socrates asks repeatedly whether rhetoric can be taught.

    8. noise

      There's that noise reference that we noted in class, similar to Locke's use of the metaphor.

    9. Particles

      This use of the word "Particles" reads as a signal toward language (or style, maybe) as an almost scientific process, as if she's syncing up language with the ongoing conversations in the burgeoning field of natural philosophy.

    1. were simply too poor to hire instructors who could teach i

      Amazing. This is a noteworthy comment on how economics can also shape knowledge. It's still a hotly debated issue today, with the whole private/charter/public school discourse circling around the intersection of money, resources, and, curriculum.

    2. Rhetorick."

      What's with all this either/or stuff? In Augustine's De Doctrina Christiana, he articulate three categories of style (subdued style, moderate style, and grand style), and argues that its the interplay of the three that make for the most effective preaching.

    3. conception

      Is rhetoric classified as a concept?

    4. all five clas�ical canons (invention, arrangement, style, memory. and deli\'· cry),

      The five cannons of rhetoric are still taught today in public speaking courses.

    5. rhetoric came under attack

      I think it could be argued that rhetoric continues to be under attack today. The term "rhetoric" often carries a negative connotation, as can be seen recently through popularized terms such as "political rhetoric" or "media rhetoric." Many people throw around the term rhetoric without knowing what they are saying or referring to.

    6. Hugh Blair and George Campbell,

      Key players in shaping rhetoric and university curriculum in the 18th and 19th centuries (Cf. James Berlin's account of composition instruction in American universities)

    1. a perverse use of those signs which we make use of to convey truth to one another.

      Plato: "You can't give long answers or talk funny. Just give it to me straight, without all the obfuscation."

    2. books of rhetoric which abound in the world,

      How many copies of Blair's Lectures (62 editions, 51 abridgments, and 10 translations) did he stumble across? (see Rhetorical Tradition Enlightenment intro)

    3. where by chance there arose a question, whether any liquor passed through the filaments of the nerves.

      Whereby drunk rhetoric takes on mixed modes

    4. xactly the same idea

      Is this even possible?

      (Cf. Kent's Paralogic Rhetoric, where he discusses the uncodifiable ways that we communicate, particularly in the face of needing to make jumps and guesses to even approach understanding another's meaning)

    5. dry truth and real knowledge,

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

    1. .

      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?

  7. Jan 2019
    1. an effectively hack rhetorical studies. T

      Like the idea of hacking rhetorical studies!

    2. n short, it may very well be the case that the rhetoricaltriangle is about as useful as a joystick in eXistenZ—in other words, it mayoffer us the sense that we are in control of the game, but we will miss outon all the action as a result

      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.

    3. etoricaltriangle

    1. My aim is to contribute to effortsto sharpen the theoretical tool of performativity for science studies andfeminist and queer theory endeavors alike, and to promote their mutualconsideratio

      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.

    1. ‘supra-disciplinary’ character.

      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).

    2. These in-between state

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

    1. stemming from increased sociomaterial complexity, performed via plaques, beads, andspatial arrangements; and rhetoric as performed through mysterious cave rituals,

      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.

    2. ater developments build on this.

      development of rhetoric

    3. material forms.

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

    4. rhetoric drink

      I like the idea of rhetoric drinking things

    5. I will complicate both narratives, showing that each depends on earlier devel-opments.

      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.

    1. For rhetorical theory now, language is ulways persuasive in intent, always imbued with elhics and ideology


    2. Deli11er

      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).

    3. as

      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.

    4. Ammgeme/11.

      Commonly referred to as "disposition."

    5. Rhetoric has a number of overlapping meanings

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

    1. For clearly it applies not only to rhetoric, but to all teachmgof tne arts and letters, to everything we call the humanities.

      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?

    2. The good kind is used in good causes, the bad kind in bad causes

      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?

    3. The We Defense argues that there are two kinds of rhetoric, good and bad. The good kind is used in good causes, the bad kind in bad causes. Our kind is the good kind; the bad kindjs used by our opponents

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

    4. Philosophy and rhetoric, taken as the two great opposites of the Western cultural conversation, can be harmonized

      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.

    5. people working at Apple

      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."

    6. the calcu-lation of uses and applications that might be made of the vastly increased available means in order to devise new ends and to elimi-nate oppositions and segregations based on past competitions for scarce means. (24)

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

    1. since its purpose is neither resolution nor stasis but continuing process.

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

    2. home being another, larger kind of pouch or bag, a con-tainer for people, and then later on you take it out and eat it or share it or store it up for winter in a solider container or put it in the medicine bundle or the shrine or the museum, the holy place, the area that contains what is sacred,

      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.

    1. an opening of alterity

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

    2. when this question is put to us, it's entirely understandable that we mighthesitate. Maybe we aren't quite sure which idiom is offering us the question (isthe question curious or obligatory, dismissive or confused?). Or maybe we justhaven't come up with an answer that is pithy enough yet

      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.

    1. song of the suffrage siren!

      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"

  8. Oct 2018
    1. for everyone thinks the laws ought torequire this, and some even adopt the practice and forbid speakingoutside the subject, as in the Areopagus too,14rightly so providing;for it is wrong to warp the jury by leading them into anger or envy or

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

    2. Thus, one who is going to give advice on finances should knowwhat and how extensive are the revenues of the city, so that if anyhave been left out they may be added and if any are rather small theymay be increased; and all the expenses of the city as well

      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.

    3. he deliberative speaker[the end] is the advantageous [sympheron]83and the harmful (forsomeone urging something advises it as the better course and one dis-suading dissuades on the ground that it is worse), and he includesother factors as incidental: whether it is just or unjust, or honorable ordisgraceful; for those speaking in the law courts [the end] is the just[dikaion] and the unjust, and they make other considerations inciden-tal to these; for those praising and blaming [the end] is the honorable[kalon] and the shameful,

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

    4. Aristotle’s concept of epideictic is the most problematic of the speciesand it has remained a problem in rhetorical theory, since it becomes the category for all forms of discourse that are not specifically deliberative orjudicial.

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

    5. It seems likelythat Aristotle taught rhetoric to the young Alexander, and if so, whathe would have taught him were practical skills in public speaking andan ability to evaluate speeches by others who came before him, withwarnings about the moral dangers inherent in rhetoric.

      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.

    6. Logic and dialectic belong in that class. Aristotelian scholars of late antiquity and the Middle Ages regarded rhetoric as one of thesemethods or tools, largely on the basis of what is said in On Rhetoric

      Rhetoric involves every discipline.

  9. Sep 2018
    1. Although the Phaedrus also criticizes the rhetoric of the day,4 it explains what an art of rhetoric would be: the speech of the true rhetorician is based on knowledge of the soul and its different forms and of the kinds of speeches appropriate to eac

      Plato's version of rhetoric

    2. e. Rhetoric is the counterpart of cookery, Socrates says, for just as cookery provides pleasure for the body with no regard for what truly benefits it, rhetoric gratifies the soul without considering its good. Consequently, rhetoric is ignoble flattery rather than art, both because it aims at the pleasant and also because it cannot give a rational account of its own activity.

      Rhetoric as bad.

    3. He wants to learn, in other words, how to "make the weaker argument the stronger" (Clouds, 112-115

      Rhetoric as slick

    1. deliberative, forensic, and epideictic.

      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.

    1. Rhetoric then may be defined as the faculty of discovering the possible means of persuasion in reference to any subject whatever
    1. forensic

      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.

    2. enthymemes

      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.


      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

  10. www-jstor-org.proxy.library.georgetown.edu www-jstor-org.proxy.library.georgetown.edu
    1. Perhaps epideictic rhetoric isbest regarded as any discourse that does not aim at a speciÆc action but isintended to inØuence the values and beliefs of the audience.

      Epideictic rhetoric

  11. Aug 2018
    1. In other words, Trump picked this fight—obviously poltical—because he thinks he can win it, that it works for him.

    1. What is surprising, and what I seek to show, is how in its exposure ofpersuasive language’s power to sway, mislead, theatricalize, distract, anddelight, rhetorical discourse reveals unexpected (if often explicitly dis-avowed) points of resemblance between the reason and honorableauthority of free citizen men and the confusion and abjection that issupposed to be everyone else’s lot.

      Rhetorical Complexity: Pathos

    2. If philosophy maybe “divided into three branches, natural philosophy, dialectic, andethics,” Cicero declares in his dialogue de Oratore (On the Orator), “letus relinquish the first two,” but, he continues, rhetoric must lay claim toethics, “which has always been the property of the orator; . . . this area,concerning human life and customs, he must master” (1.68).


    3. I treat rhetoric, especially the work ofCicero, as an extended engagement with the ideals and demands ofrepublican citizenship.

      Rhetoric and Citizenship



    1. At the very same time, I go back to being completely convinced that these were legitimate I.D.F. special forces soldiers that had trained with these techniques or had actually used them.
    2. The way it was explained to me is that there was a group of Israeli special forces soldiers that were going around the United States shooting a show for Israeli television about terrorism and how Americans defend themselves.

      Rhetorical Authority.

    3. Authority

  12. Jul 2018
    1. Unlike the movement of the body, in scholarship we can—and often do—look at one piece of a system of communication without seeing its relationship to others.

      But is that a good thing, to decontextualize?

    2. as a force which connects us to the universe, and as a force which allows our body to make meaning from this connection. What we can understand from such a connection includes the distinction between our self and other selves, or our self and the rest of the world, but also, importantly, our relationship to the world, to other bodies in the world

      embodiment as Identity formation:

    3. Embodied rhetoric
  13. May 2018
    1. “It’s going to be a matter of time before someone resynthesizes smallpox,” Mr. Gandall said.

      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.

  14. Feb 2018
  15. Jan 2018
    1. Our fellow citizens, too, who in proportion to their love of liberty keep a steady eye upon the means of sustaining it, do not require to be reminded of the duty they owe to themselves to remedy all essential defects in so vital a part of their system. While they are sensible that every evil attendant upon its operation is not necessarily indicative of a bad organization, but may proceed from temporary causes, yet the habitual presence, or even a single instance, of evils which can be clearly traced to an organic defect will not, I trust, be over-looked through a too scrupulous veneration for the work of their ancestors. The Constitution was an experiment committed to the virtue and intelligence of the great mass of our country-men, in whose ranks the framers of it themselves were to perform the part of patriotic observation and scrutiny, and if they have passed from the stage of existence with an increased confidence in its general adaptation to our condition we should learn from authority so high the duty of fortifying the points in it which time proves to be exposed rather than be deterred from approaching them by the suggestions of fear or the dictates of misplaced reverence.

      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).

  16. Oct 2017
    1. Guidance, which is fundamentally just praise and criticism, is usually called “feedback,” but feedback is screechy and makes us want to put our hands over our ears.

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

    2. Along the way, she managed a lot of teams in various states of euphoria and panic. And while she did a lot right, she’d be the first to admit everything she did wrong.The good news is that Scott, now an acclaimed advisor for companies like Twitter, Shyp, Rolltape, and Qualtrics, has spent years distilling her experiences into some simple ideas you can use to help the people who work for you love their jobs and do great work.

      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.



  17. Sep 2017
    1. I myself side with those who hold the latter opinion, and I shall examine it using as an example human life and its concern for food, drink, and sexual pleasures: these things are bad for a man if he is sick, but good if he is healthy and needs them. (3) And, further, incontinence in these matters is bad for the incontinent but good

      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.

  18. Jun 2017
  19. Apr 2017
    1. They say that measles isn’t a deadly disease. But It is. They say that chickenpox isn’t that big of a deal. But It can be. They say that the flu isn’t dangerous. But It is. They say that whooping cough isn’t so bad for kids to get. But It is.

      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)

    1. Measles has doomsday capabilities.

      bold to strengthen the statement to highlight danger

    2. And there is now a chickenpox vaccine available, too.

      stressing that even less dangerous illness has now a vaccine

    3. But what is the anti-vaxxer movement and what sort of fringe theories do they believe?

      question as a rhetorical artifact

  20. Mar 2017
    1. the skill which produces belief and therefore establishes what, in a partic-ular time and particular place, is true, is the skill essential to the building and maintaining of a civ-ilized society.

      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!!

    1. eminine,

      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?

    1. Who derives from it his own special quality, his prestige, and from whom, in return, does he receive if not the assurance, at least the presumption that what he says is true?

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

    1. We all need to have things pointed out to us, things stressed in our interest.

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

    2. I have a consistent impression that the broad resource of analogy, metaphor, and figuration is favored by those of a poetic and imaginative cast of mind.

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

    3. f science deals with the abstract and the universal, rhetoric is near the other end, dealing in significant part with the particular and the con-crete.

      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.

    1. Between a thought and a symbol causal rela-tions hold

      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

    2. the study of misunderstanding and its reme-dies.

      probably the most accurate description of rhetoric given yet

    3. The old Rhetoric was an offspring of dis-pute; it developed as the rationale of pleadings and persuadings; it was the theory of the battle of words and has always been itself dominated by the combative impulse.

      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."

    1. Even in the nineteenth century, a woman lived almost solely in her home and her emotions. And those nineteenth-century novels, remarkable as they were, were profoundly influenced by the fact that the women who wrote them were excluded by their sex from certain kinds of experience.

      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

    2. Strolling around the campus, she is warned off the grass by an offi-cious beadle and barred entry to the library because she is a woman.

      A very clear parallel between Woolf and the Grimke sisters here

    1. Although some professors who urged a focus on public discourse and argumentation expressed opposition to the current-traditional approach, that method prevailed and, indeed. continued to be the predominant approach to composition through the first two-third~ of the twentieth century-and on some campuses much longer.

      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

    2. psychology, linguistics, philosophy, and literary studies.

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

    1. sons

      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.

    2. s seeking impersonal truths

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

    1. "effective literature could be noth-ing else but rhetoric."

      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.

    2. Rhetoric and Primitive Magic

      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.

    1. rhetoric

      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

    2. he messy process through which norms and standards have beenconstructed and imposed

      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."

    3. rhetoric,too.

      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.

    4. naturally

      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.

  21. Feb 2017
    1. For current-traditional rhetoric, reality is rational, regular and certain - a realm which when it is not static is at least in a predictable, harmonious, symmetrical balance. Meaning thus exists independent of the perceiving mind, reposing in external reality.

      No way Fish believes this.

    1. here is some disagreement about the place of inven-tion in rhetoric

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

    2. or the purposes of lhis treatis

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

    3. Oratory, or Persuasion,

      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.

    1. soA lated dogmas

      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.

    1. slogan that comes with some urgency, coinciding with a narrative about the supposed sho

      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!