Barad's use of parentheses reminds me of Gate's article on signifyin(g). While he used parentheses a lot at the end of the word "signifyin(g); he also used them throughout the article around the prefix "re-", denoting "again". I think Barad is suggesting that there are always new ways to articulate something, so it is not necessarily always "re-articulated," but rather is sometimes re-articulated and other times is said in a completely different manner.

Historicity - historical actuality; historical authenticity

I could be way off base, but this sentence reminds me of the Romantic idea (held by William Godwin, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, and Mary Shelley, amongst others) that the betterment of the individual was achieved through interactions and forming relationships with others. An improved individual was equipped to understand the world and discover truth--which is I think what Barad is saying here about agential intra-actions and their production of phenomena, which results in both physical and cultural matter.

We need to understand the influence of language and matter together in order to more properly understand the world around us as well as fully understand the history of matter's influence on the development of culture and society.

Barad aims to argue why and how "matter matters" in the world and why language has been given too much power in the development of society at the expense of matter.

Amalgamation

The action or process of uniting or merging two or more things.

It seems like Edbauer is attempting to reverse what Quintillian did many years ago by compartmentalizing rhetoric, which in his mind would be a better way to understand it and practice it. However, rhetoricians have since argued that this has been problematic to the field, with which I think Edbauer would agree. In order to display a truer form of rhetoric, Edbauer wants to create a model that will showcase all of its aspects.

Agglomeration: the action or process of collecting in a mass

It's interesting that Edbauer uses parentheses around "der" in "un(der)explored"; this suggests that she is not sure of this inquiry has been explored, but she knows for certain that it has not been explored enough.

So she is saying that Derridean deconstruction, or differance, can allow us to reevaluate the concept of the rhetorical situation.... However, Biesecker spent so much time explaining differance that I didn't find a clear explanation for her take on "rhetorical situation." I remember her saying something to the effect of: "differance/deconstruction has an effect on the rhetorical situation" but I don't recall her actually explaining how/why. Can anyone clear this up for me? Did I miss something, or did she actually just not explain it?

Sounds kind of like Plato in Phaedrus on the Soul when he said that philosophers should have control over Greece to run the society as efficiently and morally as possible.

Maybe this is a stretch, but the word choice of "hierarchy" makes me uncomfortable because it implies a great amount of self-importance and arrogant superiority.

Yes, because this sifting and choosing is in itself rhetoric. Rhetoric=choice (and also many other things, but rhetoric definitely involves choice).

Is he going to italicize "create" every time he uses the word?

In the past, "salient" meant "to leap," an action. I find this interesting, because according to Vatz, a rhetor must actively create salience. A leap also implies more effort or action than, say, walking. So again, to make something salient requires active, extra effort on behalf of the rhetor.

I think Nietzsche would agree with this. Nietzsche said that language (and by extension meaning) was subjective and could not be truly universal because individuals (in this example, rhetors) would apply their own background and experiences to a particular word in order to determine its meaning. Also mirrors Locke's idea that language is not universal.

"Should be done" in this context is relative to the individual who is engaging rhetoric in a certain situation. One person might believe something should be done, while another thinks that the status quo is sufficient. This reminds me a little of Hume's theory of taste, in which he argued that certain people had "better" or "superior" taste to others. In reality, taste is subjective and is in the eye of the beholder.

We have discussed "context" itself in depth in this class, but I like thinking about the "nature" of context itself. Bitzer argues that a rhetorical situation is the nature of the context in which rhetorical discourse is created, and indicates that he will explore more deeply what exactly a rhetorical situation is.

I think Nathaniel would agree with this, as he says that many individuals who claim to engage rhetoric so as to persuade others do not actually want to persuade them, because then they would not have anyone with whom to argue, and would not feel like they were affecting change concerning a certain situation.

I could just be putting words in his mouth, though.

This would be different depending on what type of rhetoric one is examining, according to Gates. He argues that the speaker-audience relationship in white rhetoric is vastly different from the relationship in black rhetoric. In white rhetoric, the audience listens to the speaker; in black rhetoric, the audience listens and is actively involved in the rhetorical discourse through affirmations, comments of support, etc.

A situation determines the necessity of discourse; discourse does not give existence to a situation. In other words, proper rhetoric comes about as a result of a situation and is required to address certain problems, questions, etc. You don't speak just to speak, in order to engage rhetoric appropriately there must be a prior reason to do so.

Reflects the extreme importance placed upon the individual, at least in American culture.

Diverts from all Enlightenment rhetoric of the Anglo tradition, which valued efficiency and straightforwardness over artistic "fluff."

Gates' idea of different cultural rhetorics can be also applied here.

Again references the idea of language and identity, suggesting that one's language influences one's perception of who they are as individuals.

The choices she lists in the following two paragraphs about which dialect/language she uses depending on who her audience is a very direct manifestation of the choices a rhetorician makes based on audience--in this case, the choice is between language rather than specific words.

The image of "mutilation" very strongly conveys disdain, and suggests that Chicano Spanish actively mars the Spanish language as a whole.

Similar to Woolf's idea that the sentence is a male construct of rhetoric, Anzaldua takes the argument a step further by suggesting that language itself is masculine. It takes us back to the question throughout history of "who can do rhetoric?"; the answer was primarily rich white males for thousands of years, which stifled the development of language. I think this is, in part, why Anzaldua argues that language is inherently male.

I love the metaphor of language as a quilt. Quilts are unique, just as language is unique to each individual who engages it. It brings together different types of fabric that maybe don't seem like they would go together, but once assembled make a beautiful product.

The image of layering multiple identities is intriguing to me, and reminds me of a class I took last semester called American Mosaic, which explored literature written by American immigrants or minorities from different backgrounds, which reflected the confusion individuals felt concerning their identities. Anzaldua, I anticipate, tries to layer these multiple facets of her identity together in her literary works, a feat with which many authors struggle.

Suggests again that black and white rhetorics are not completely separate, but instead intersect and therefore influence one another.

Etymology of signification: early 14c., "symbolization, representation," from Old French significacion and directly from Latin significationem (nominative significatio) "a signifying, indication, expression, sign, token, meaning, emphasis," noun of action from past participle stem of significare "make known, indicate" (see signify). From late 14c. as "meaning" (of a word, etc.).

I thought it would be interesting to look at the etymology of "signification" (as it is a main topic of this essay) because Gates has been discussing the diverging meanings of the word in different rhetorics. It is unsurprising that the etymology defined here comes from the "white rhetoric" tradition, as described by Gates. I suppose upon further search and inquiry I could possibly find the meaning of "signification" as defined within African American rhetoric, but it would require a lot of extra effort on my part. This lack of available definition demonstrates the "glossing over" of the African American culture in the United States and the general lack of knowledge and understanding on behalf of the majority of white Americans, and is a reminder of the ignorance that is very much alive in the US.

This reading has encouraged me to think a lot more on divergent cultural rhetorics and how awareness and acknowledgement of the validity of different rhetorics is crucial to any progress that is to be made in race relations in the US.

antanaclasis

vertiginous

This is an important point to remember—just as context and culture influence rhetoric, so too do diverging rhetorics influence one another and incorporate aspects generally considered a part of a particular rhetorical tradition.

For Make a Difference Day my sophomore year, part of our service brought us to a primarily African American church, I am not sure what denomination. I was struck by the communal aspect of rhetoric in the church. The audience was involved and invested in the rhetoric of the speaker and offered an openly supportive environment. Now that I am thinking back on this, the support and involvement of the audience completely changed my experience of the speaker's rhetoric and stressed the importance of community. As mentioned earlier, language and culture cannot be separated, and the rhetoric of African Americans reflects the value placed upon community and depending upon others as a result of the discrimination and challenges they have faced in a predominantly white culture.

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!!

Today's definition: a book of words, dictionary

Specious

The idea that a good rhetorician is a good man (and is not an evil man). An evil man cannot be successful in engaging rhetoric. This has been mentioned before in our readings, specifically Lanham's The Q Question in reference to Quintilian's thoughts on rhetoric.

Sunder

Hume would say the qualified judges are those with good taste, who have experiences that have influenced them to have a refined sense about the world, and therefore are qualified with a better judgment of all things.

This sums up the beauty of literature--the different interpretations that each reader can glean from what the author writes. Booth argues that this is not knowledge, because it is subjective to each individual who reads and interprets the material; knowledge, Booth says, should be more widely accepted and generally uncontested.

To Booth, being fully human means that one can communicate with others through symbols, language, and other interactions. To him, lacking full mental capacity means that one is not fully human (at least I think that is what he is saying). This kind of broaches on the philosophical argument surrounding personhood, and whether one requires what is considered "normal" mental function in order to be considered "human." Animalists would say no, your form as a human is enough; Hylomorphists and Substance Dualists would argue that your mental capacity is necessary to your identity as a human person. I wonder how much, if at all, these schools of thought influenced Booth when he wrote this?

Booth mentioned "tripartite" earlier and here lists three phrases which three words each.... sounding Platonic.

Booth disagrees with the Enlightenment ideas of rhetoric, reflected by rhetoricians such as Astell and Hume, that the goal of rhetoric is to be as logical and rational as possible and disregard the importance of emotion, which he defines here as scientism.

Interesting to think that if you are already in a state to communicate, you will continue to communicate and will find new ways to express yourself and your thoughts to others (and to yourself). Writing is, according to Derrida, the next step in communication, but we constantly aim to grow our vocabulary and develop our writing style to even better communicate our thoughts to ourselves and to others.

hermaneutics

Is anything having to do with rhetoric "absolutely determinable," though?

Nietzsche would like this: metaphors on metaphors.

I think Foucault would not be comfortable with the use of the word "undeniably." He says that language is a sign, but he also says it isn't because it depends on exactly what one means by "sign" (1448). I wonder how his theory of language would translate to writing?

Reflects Locke's idea that language is not standard and cannot convey a universal meaning because individuals apply their own backgrounds and experiences to the meanings of words, so their perceptions and understandings of a statement will vary.

This is the reason, I assume, that Nietzsche would give for why language is a lie.

The existence of the statement proves that signs exist. However, they are not one in the same: first, one must determine what he or she means by "signs;" then, he or she must determine exactly the connotation of "to be" for something "to be a statement" or "to be a sign," because this distinction can change the meaning one assigns to what a statement or a sign is.

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

scansion

Foucault argues that rhetorical objects are contingent upon many conditions in order to enter the historical discussion. He also mentions that the time in history that a rhetorical object is being discussed influences what is said about it, because the cultural practices vary throughout time and influence those living in that time period and the way they think.

A more direct definition of "meaning," rather than the loosely applied, ambiguous idea that people apply to the word as referenced on page 1276.

There is ambiguity within meaning in terms of the accuracy of certain symbols; e.g. some symbols are more accurate than others, but that is not necessarily clear at first glance. It must be studied and researched in order to determine what definition is the most accurate.

You can apply Burke's idea of breaking something down to its absolute basic level in order to fully understand it; once you understand it, only then you can recreate it to make it your own.

Is she acknowledging the intersectionality of feminism?

There seems to be a correlation between Woolf's use of "experience" in Woman and Fiction and Professions of Women; in both instances, she states that it is impossible, or at the very least, extremely difficult, for women to gain experience professional experience due to the patriarchal structure of society and the limitations this structure placed on a woman in all aspects of her life.

Many authors use literature as a way to express their views on society, politics, economics, etc. Some prominent authors that come to mind are William Godwin and Mary Wollstonecraft, both of whom wrote extensively on the struggles of women and criticized the societal structure in which they lived, but expressed these views through characters and stories.

Interesting to note that in Goethe's The Sorrows of Young Werther, the protagonist Werther mentions multiple times that words/language could not accurately describe his feelings or the world around him; this takes the stance that not only does language not accurately convey logic, but also lacks the ability to explain one's emotions. It's similar to Locke's (and other Enlightenment thinkers') idea that language cannot allow us to express what we want to express because it does not accurately capture anything in the world around us, whether that be objects, emotions, other people, etc.

References the Rickert piece, which stated that the rhetorical/cultural environment influenced the rhetoric that was produced. Similarly, the rhetorical culture of America and Europe differed, and the primary opponent of rhetoric changed as a result of the different rhetoric produced (due to different rhetorical environments). This web of rhetoric is kind of confusing, but also makes sense because rhetoric is everywhere.

In the general university system, I would tend to agree with Burke. Whenever I tell anyone I am an English major, they immediately assume that I study literature (which I do sometimes, but also not all the time) and ask what I want to teach, and can't possibly imagine that there are other careers available for English majors. When I mention that my concentration is Rhetoric, people are confused as to what that even is. This kind of references the readings from the first week when we tried to define rhetoric, but never actually established a definitive definition; in the same way, I struggle with communicating exactly what I learn with my friends who have no contextual background or understanding for what I study.

Etymology

Definition

Reflects Astell's (and other Enlightenment thinkers) view that writing should be clear, concise, and without superfluity.

The idea that in order to reinvent something, you must take it back to its basic form. Once it is in its basic form, you can better understand it; once you have an understanding of it, only then can you transform it into something else.

What does the choice itself that you made to use a certain word suggest about the rhetoric you have created? Choice is an important part of rhetoric, because what you choose to include in your writing influences what is created and therefore what the reader is able to understand from your writing.

He wouldn't like the stoics, then.

Therefore, it cannot be true because women, over half of the church's population, were prevented from participating in exegesis; exegesis grows as the more members of society are able to participate (1128).

Would these two passages against "woman's public work for Christ" possibly be against it if read literally? Her point is that reading the bible literally is the incorrect way to read the bible, and it sounds like she is inferring this here. Willard just said a few passages before this that if men are to read the passage literally, then they: "should remember that this literalness of rendering makes it his personal duty, day by day, actually to 'eat his bread in the sweat of his face.' The argument is a two-edged sword, and cuts both ways" (1130).

Another zinger

Pabulum

This is really close to SLU's ratio! (60% Female, 40% Male, last time I checked).

Therefore, exegesis would grow if women (half the population) were to actively participate. Interesting that it is interpreted as scientific; I wonder if that was one of the factors that men used to prevent women from participating? (e.g science was a man's study).

Willard is saying that women are necessary to discover truth, and that a reason that truth has not been realized so far is because women have been excluded from interpreting the bible in their own way and instead are told what is said in the bible by men. Reflects her earlier statement, which states that men generally interpret the bible in their self-interest and to ensure they maintain power and minimize competition (1124).

Willard is not afraid to call her contemporary men out on their bullshit and I love it.

I never thought about how the temperance movement regarded the wine used in Church for Christ's blood... this is honestly mind blowing.

Contravene

Like Spencer and Bain, Hill is very focused on the efficiency of language.

Reflects platonic division into three parts; also seems to be somewhat Augustinian in nature. Augustinian divided the soul into three parts: Memory, Understanding, and Willing.

The Understanding, the Will, and the Feelings seem to be Bain's update on Logos, Ethos, and Pathos.

Lots of connections in this passage!

Wouldn't this inverted sentence structure go against Spencer's principle of economy? The comma in between clauses really threw me off, personally.

It seems Bain is assigning "pathos" to poetry, but I could be misinterpreting this passage.

collocation

Spencer states that the simple words we first learn as children are more efficient than the synonyms we learn later in life. There are less connections to be made with the original word that we use, and therefore using original language is more economic.

Etymology: desiderare (Latin) --> desideratum (Latin) mid 17th century: from Latin, ‘something desired,’ neuter past participle of desiderare (see desiderate)

Definition: something that is needed or wanted.

The "why," or the analysis, is important to emphasize because you will be more likely to persuade your audience. Is he saying that analysis is essential to successful rhetoric? As my AP English teacher always said, "Your analysis is where your paper "lives."

Contrasts general enlightenment thought, but especially Astell:

"But we shou'd fold up our Thoughts so closely and neatly, expressing them in such significant tho few words, as that the Readers Mind may easily open and enlarge them. And if this can be done with facility we are Perspicuous as well as Strong, if with difficulty or not at all, we're then perplext and Obscure Writers" (852).

BAM

Grimke is saying that we will not live to our full potential, what God has destined for us, if we continue to live our lives in extreme separation between the sexes. Interesting point to suggest that society was living against what God manifested for humanity.

Septuagint

Grimke is (finally) moving away from the idea that women are "soft;" she states that men and women are equal in the eyes of the Lord in spreading His Word, thereby suggesting that women had the right to speak publicly on religious grounds.

gewgaws

thraldom

(sorry it's dictionary.com but the Oxford dictionary only defined "thrall")

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.

It seems like Palmer holds a view somewhere between Astell and Grimke, in that women have appropriate spheres in which to "act," but that sometimes God will allow women to "be brought out of the ordinary sphere of action" in order to do His will. The fact that God approves this allows women to keep their "womanly grace".

Highlights the dangerous implications of slavery to any who attempted to change the system, although it was inherently worse for African Americans, as society did not protect them as people, and it was expected that they be treated horribly based solely on skin color.

Douglass highlights the inequality even among slaves within the political/social structure of slavery. I never would have thought about status differentiations between city/country slaves, but it makes sense if viewed as an outward statement of class on behalf of whites.

Here, Stewart is arguing that in many past respected societies (Greek, Roman, Jewish), women were well-respected in a religious sense. As a reference to her earlier claim, that she was visited by the Holy Spirit and therefore had the temerity and the right to speak publicly on religious grounds. I do find it interesting that she said: "For God makes use of feeble means sometimes, to bring about his most exalted purposes." Her use of the word "feeble" is interesting, because it seems like she is ascribing to the expected gender roles/personalities, in that women are the "softer sex," and not perceived as strong or powerful.

In addition, the societal construct at the time determined their livelihood. I especially like her word choice of "ignorance," because I think it can apply to both whites and African Americans: whites are ignorant of the struggles that African Americans face and cannot truly know/understand their experiences; African Americans are ignorant of their own capabilities and do not understand their true potential, as society's judgments of them have clouded their self-image and have influenced them to think less of themselves. I don't know if she intended this, but it has a somewhat psychological connotation in regards to self-perception in light of the rhetoric/environment/society at the time.

Stewart does a great job of employing pathos and appealing to the emotions of her audience through vivid, honest language. This sentence in particular struck me, as I imagine it did her audience when she gave this impassioned speech.

This is a nice summary of one of Stewart's main points: African Americans, of any sex, are just as capable, just as intelligent, and just as American as whites are. She concedes that there are some who are "idle," but counters that this does not just apply to African Americans, but also to whites (and by extension, all races). I wonder if this helped the reception of her speech: acknowledging shortcomings, but pointing out that these shortcomings apply to others as well, suggesting that all people are equal.

Reflects Hume's point that: "It is well known, that in all questions, submitted to the understanding, prejudice is destructive of sound judgment, and perverts all operations of the intellectual faculties..." (836).

Opposite of Astell, who said that women should not speak publicly and should instead speak in "appropriate spheres".

Etymology of "philology"

Wow that's dedication

Reflect's Maria Stewart's idea that African Americans "would not simply imitate white rhetoric but would develop their own ways of using language for public action" (p. 988).

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?

"Taste, in the sense in which I have explained it, is a faculty common in some degree to all men." - Blair

"True criticism is a liberal and humane art. It is the offspring of good sense and refined taste. It aims at acquiring a just discernment of the real merit of authors." - Blair

To answer my earlier question, it isn't all predestined; it is more influenced by education and cultivation.

So is he suggesting that a higher power (in his belief, as a Christian man, God) decides who has "better" taste than others? That taste is a predetermined concept controlled by the Divine?

This makes me excited to read on.

According to Blair, taste is a nice mixture between emotions/feelings and reason. He also recognizes that both are important for an individual to achieve satisfaction.

So Blair is suggesting individuals can find purpose in life by "reading polite literature"? Interesting.

Couldn't it be a combination of both? One has to be naturally comfortable speaking in front of others, but it is also necessary that they be trained in how to best do this.

This word choice definitely suggests a classist superiority from Blair.

Definition

Take that, physiologists

Is he suggesting moral relativism here?

This is very true. Good to know that lacking common sense is a timeless phenomenon.

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.

Definition

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.

The famous Trinity College library is the permanent home of the Book of Kells, It's also where Jack Gleason attended university after finishing his run on Game of Thrones.

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?

It's clear that Astell places great importance on the "Invention" and "Arrangement" aspects of Rhetoric

How one develops his/her taste, in addition to practice. Comparison is the next step to achieving superior "taste."

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.

Reminds me of the Stoics, such as Epictetus, who said that humans more often than not make false judgments in a certain situation based on their "sentiments," (he didn't use this word but I think it works) which then causes individuals to experience a "passion," such as grief, anxiety, despair, or anger. Stoics argued that people should indeed attempt to judge a situation correctly in order to avoid being overcome by passions and instead find true happiness (which for them was probably more equivalent to our American culture's version of "okay-ness").

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

Again, this begs the question, "What is good taste, really?"

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.

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.

It seems as though everyone hates on rhetoric, although it is a central component to a functioning and cultured society.

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.

Definition

Reminds me of Foundations of Rhetoric: Why are you choosing blue instead of red? What feelings do you want the color to evoke in your audience? Interesting to be able to draw a parallel to what I did in a university class to the thought process that Homo sapiens used to paint caves.

Refers again to the influence that cultural bias and perception has on our understanding of rhetoric.

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.

Definition

Definition

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.

In my Age of Romanticism literature class, we just finished reading "The Confessions" by Jean-Jacque Rousseau. (It is the inspiration for the modern conception of the autobiography and was quite controversial, because it completely challenged the style of writing that was popular at the time.) In his autobiography, Rousseau admits that he did not keep an exact log of the events of his life, and although he claims to have never intentionally lied (which we actually see is not the case as we read, but I digress), he suggests that some events may be exaggerated or different than how they actually occurred. Rousseau ended up writing about 700 pages about himself from "memory" and no records, or so he claims. Although it seems that Rousseau did write without records, at least extensive records, there are times in "The Confessions" where he openly contradicts himself. This long-winded explanation of Rousseau's autobiography is my way of supporting the idea that one gathers all data first and then writes it down is preposterous. If one is aiming for accuracy, they should write as they go along to ensure events are fresh and what is told is the truth.

See the "Academic Dishonesty" section of every syllabus at SLU.

An interesting point—how can the learning and acquisition of knowledge of the outside world be contextualized in a way to benefit self-development? How can what we learn about others allow us to understand ourselves more deeply and establish a relationship with ourselves?

Putting on my history hat: it's interesting to examine the role of writing in the development of the conception of the self in pre-Christianity times. How did writing, and therefore rhetoric, influence society at the time and ultimately make way for the establishment of the now wide-spread Christian faith? In my theology class, "Psychology and the Soul," we are currently reading pre-Christian writers, such as Plato and (later the Stoics,) who also writes on this topic of the self. This excerpt made me think about how rhetoric influenced such a monumental cultural shift, and it will help me readjust the lens through which I read other assignments for my Psychology and the Soul class.

This is a great point. It seems somewhat useless to just talk in circles about "What is rhetoric?" when humanity has not necessarily been able to come to a cohesive agreement since its inception. It is not, in my opinion, necessary to completely understand all the intricacies and implications of rhetoric in order to engage it. Evidence for this would be the countless rhetoricians who have devoted their lives to the discipline without having a definitive, agreed-upon definition of rhetoric. Rhetoric still exists as an area of study, and we are taking a 2.5 hour class on it's history without knowing its exact definition. Maybe the point of the class is for us to conclusively define it, but that seems like an increasingly tall order given all of the articles/essays we have had to read for class this week.

It seems that people at least somewhat understand rhetoric when it is under the guise of/paired with another discipline, such as those listed in the above paragraph. Muckelbauer is saying that this is not truly and genuinely rhetoric, because the discipline of rhetoric can and does stand on its own. I think his phrase "opening of alterity" is interesting, because to me it indicates that we should not be so hung up on "what is rhetoric exactly? HOW exactly can we define it?" and instead focus on its differences from other disciplines, its involvement in other disciplines, and how it contributes to the world around us. At least that's what I originally thought he was saying, but now that I wrote it all down I'm not really sure. Maybe he is saying something completely different?

Why was this common thought? One who orates well is not necessarily a good person; the two are not mutually exclusive. Throughout history, there have been captivating orators but incredibly terrible human beings. Hitler being one of them. (I know Nathaniel said that Hitler did not engage rhetoric because he did not use persuasion, he used fear tactics. I agree with this, but he also was able to speak in a powerful and motivating way, although that motivation came about as a result of fear.)

A division/breakdown of rhetoric is essential to understanding exactly what it is, and by extension is essential to employing rhetoric in the most effective way possible. When thinking about communicating a point, you must consider multiple components: Who is the audience? What is the context/background of this message? What form of communication is best (e.g. written/spoken/visual/audio)? How can I most effectively convey my point, convince my audience, and ultimately get my way? These are all questions that arise as a result of breaking down the rhetorical process and engaging various aspects rhetoric, which result in a deeper understanding and ultimately a more successful employment of the discipline.