"Once upon a time, I, Chuang Chou, dreamt I was a butterfly, fluttering hither and thither, to all intents and purposes a butterfly. I was conscious only of my happiness as a butterfly, unaware that I was Chou. Soon I awaked, and there I was, veritably myself again. Now I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly, dreaming I am a man. Between a man and a butterfly there is necessarily a distinction. The transition is called the transformation of material things."

Dig at both Protagoras and Socrates at the same time.

Attack on virtue ethics, painting it as circular.

Simultaneously acknowledging Plato's cave, and rejecting that there is anything but the cave.

Had this come out later, this would work as functional critique of Wittgenstein's Tractatus in which all logical propositions rest on atomic facts. Whereas Neitzche declares the atoms themselves untrue.

Perhaps declaring that society at large is consequentialist, despite what individuals claim.

possibly a dig at Plato

The tone, and especially the use of the word "flame of vanity" reminds me specifically of the biblical book of Ecclesiastes

When applied to rhetoric, this kind of rejection of end goals would line-up with a rejection of the weak defense

So, his concept of rhetorical style would fall at the opposite end of Aristotle, who viewed ideal rhetoric as complimenting argument as plainly as possible

see previous

Invoking all of Rivers diatribes about grammar and usage

Extra eye-rolls

Weak Defense

ENGL-1000s

This switch from orality to literacy has a hint of struggle implied here. With Ong in mind, I'm imagining a hyper-literate culture as an extension of other forms of marginalizing forces.

Obsession with literacy, particularly when opposed to orality, has a nasty supremacist taste to it.

This is quickly becoming a very, very multifaceted argument against patriarchal exegesis. Starting with inconsistencies in how the literal text is interpreted, and then using the text itself to contradict the patriarchal exegesis, finally an analogy is used to make the patriarchal exegesis equal to bad medicine.

Back in ye olde days in Sunday school, I always had this kind of thought in the back of my mind. It always seemed weird having our pastor fixate on passages like that, and declare them biblical law, and then proceed to a different passage and be like "lol, k, that's just a story tho." I was pretty indoctrinated back then, so it says something that I picked up on that. I think maybe everyone does. It's like an open secret or something.

Kind of like the text was playing patriarchal smoke-signals.

I feel like this is way too relevant in modern protestant theology. Literalism becomes a fetish when it supports the underlying, repressive cultural rhetoric of a group in power.

What the actual fuck? Someone took the time and thought "fuck it, let's put this in legal writing"

Even in the 19th century, how was that a thing?

"I will cut off this right arm of mine before I will ever work or demand the ballot for the Negro and not the woman" - Susan B. Anthony

I am always reminded of this quote when Anthony comes up, as it captures the nature of the early feminist movement compared to later, more inter-sectional movements.

This relates to what we were talking about last Thursday, regarding the assumption in the rhetorical tradition of white men that there is automatically an audience before any rhetorical considerations are to be made.

This serves as an example that finding an appropriate audience is also a part of rhetoric as opposed to what many of the enlightenment rhetoricians assumed.

This guy's whole schtick includes morality in rhetoric, and yet he's expressing downright inhumane arguments just to make a point. Like, he's going out of his way to be an asshole about his theory. Seems a little bit "frivolous"

Translated: the parts which people like myself partake in

see previous

Honestly, Fuck this guy

I wonder if all of these guys got together one day and decided that classism was absolutely necessary to write about rhetoric. Like, they just decided altogether, "hey, let's rag on these uneducated peasants in every single piece of work that we write"

There is a constant sense of moral fright wrapped in these thinkers' rhetoric.

I'm going to nitpick, but it's a little disappointing that he relegated communication to two mediums. Even without technologization, there could have been a little bit more inclusiveness here.

Computers

As opposed to "problematic"

Discussion of the sublime (in which such a thing is defined in any respect) always strikes me as inherently reactionary

I once had an adjunct philosophy 101 instructor who had a serious bone to pick with cultural relativism. But the criticisms we read straw-manned the theory quite a bit using knit-picky logic.

Numbered lists

Macintyre would have a field day

This guy

This reminds me of Aristotles ten categories, which, incidentally include "relation"

So space and time are a part of his rhetoric. Coolio

Unnecessary analogy that reinforces patriarchy. Oh and the whole numbered categories thing.

Again, But quantum physics, yo. And fuzzy logic, and stuff.

Obligitory Descartes note

But Quantum physics, yo

This is getting painful to read

This particular tidbit reminds me of one of Augustine's arguments for the existence of God (the causal chain)

In this case, eloquence is emergent of the speaker and hearer. Kind of like orgchem.

How pure can logic get? we talking symbolic?

Very Kantian

Aristocratic

moreteleology

Numbered categories are fun. It's like the numerologically significant headcounts in folklore tales. But bleeding into the writings of enlightenment thinkers.

This could also be expanded to any non-original consumption of rhetoric. If time, place, and medium are considered a part of the potency of rhetoric.

Reminds me of the "Must speak English," Trumpkin crowd. Linguistic polity being corrupted into democracy etc...

Language as a social contract?

This chart reminds me of Emerson's semiotic triads. Very structured, rigid, mathematical.

can we go back to spelling that like that

Teleology

Sounds a lot like Cartesian dualism, if it were applied to rhetoric. The analogy would go that Campbell's "scientific reasoning" would be like the body of argument (From what I'm reading, Campbell's rhetoric is teleological) while "rhetoric" (as used in this case) would be a... Soul/psyche. Or reverse.

This drips with an obsession with potency. Which in turn tells a little bit about where Campbell is coming from

Actually, if I remember correctly, there was actually a tribe which lived in the Australian Bush and had a language which didn't recognize the concept of guilt/blame.

There is an implied sense of import to this fact, which may or may not be superficial

Take this out of context, and it's really relevant right now.

Has a sort of legalistic ring to it.

reminds me of a Franzen essay

Again, assuming this exists outside of rhetoric. Q question

But how common though? In Disability Theory, we discussed the fact that Locke conveyed horrendously Eugenic views of the disabled as a sort of a footnote in one of his works. Makes me insta-skeptical

We were discussing the failures of the renaissance in a different class, and at some point we concluded that the "renaissanceness" that comes from the period mostly came from a bunch of the same people patting eachothers backs or something.

Jesuitical sophistry, if you will

Think;am. yay!

Reminds me of the view of rhetoric as a tool that the weak defense holds

Trichotomy, this reminds me of the divisions that Pierce makes between various signs and signifiers in his letters

This seems to be in the same vein as the notion that reason exists outside of rhetoric, whole and pure and whatnot, but with with new packaging

Phaedo

I'm reminded of McIntyre, who claimed that the "revolutions" of enlightenment ethics were instead a failed attempt at reconstructing bits and pieces of classical ethics into what superficially appeared new and novel

Shoutout to Ignatius

Noting orality/literacy dichotomy. How would this apply to consumption/production in other forms of media? For instance, the rhetoric of orality and literacy wouldn't be as cleanly divided in the modern multi-media landscape, where the two are often presented together, or with other novel means of conveying rhetoric.

Three Monkeys

The terminology of academics being assimilated into the corporate world provides an ironic model for how theory affects reality.

More titles for academics

I love the heroic and treacherous terminology when referring to the two academics

Assuming reason can exist without the former

This reminds me of how the phrase "duckspeaking" is described in 1984. "depending on who is speaking, and whether what they are saying is in following with the ideals of Big Brother."

Darkside-lightside

And alas, the dramatic build-up falls apart at this point.

...A little bit dramatic. I dig the story-telling device at the start of an essay though

"It was a dark and stormy night...." [insert generic epiphany] ..."here's the "Q" question, kids."

This actually reminds me of a think piece about sound in which the conclusion was that older audio technology "sounded" better due to the artifacts created by the outdated recording technology. Perhaps then, the "downsides" of older technologies create an underlying rhetoric while the user engages with the medium.

The "faults" of books are that they take up physical space, and are subject to damage. Likewise, they affect the senses more so than an e-book, beyond what is conveyed in their text. In that case, people used to using books would suddenly lose an entire rhetoric specifically related to the physical aspects of books. This would most certainly be jarring.