hey also express their passions by certain tones, which striking the auditory nerves of those o
not a strictly "human" thing
hey also express their passions by certain tones, which striking the auditory nerves of those o
not a strictly "human" thing
urmurings, in love; sobs, groans, and cries in grief; half choaked sounds in rage; and shrieks in tcrrour, are then the only language heard. And the experience of mankind may be appealed to, whether these have not more power in exciting sympathy, than any thing that can be done by mere words. Nor has this language of the pas
You don't always need words to convey a message. Sometimes just the tone is enough, although words are often included along with that.
can discharge this responsibility lo the fullest
reminds me of an earlier comment about cleverly advocating for women's education ; women have to be educated to serve God
perform
reminds me of the Barad piece
hermeneutic
Judith Butler’sname is most often associated with the termperformativi
Argues that gender is performed and is a "stylized repetition of acts" that are formed by society rather than what someone is
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3207893?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
presumption that we can know what we mean,or what our verbal performances say, more readily than we can knowthe objects those sayings
relates back to one of my previous annotations about how society's discussion of something determines how it is viewed
Democritus’s atomictheory
goes into more detail on the atomic theory: https://www.universetoday.com/60058/democritus-atom/
homofaber
excessive power granted tolanguage to determine what is rea
How society discusses certain topics/ideas determines what is valid or right
virtuality/actuality and human/machine,
Reminds me of "World of Tomorrow"
less familiar forms of rhet-oricity.
I wouldn't have thought to relate cave images to the idea of rhetoric. Definitely less familiar. Definitely very cool.
but it is difficult to say what this meant for them.
again, our culture would interpret these in one way; not necessarily what the Paleolithic peoples had in mind while creating
o landscapes, objects, food, and hardly anypeople
The next paragraph mentions aesthetics and how using animals and symbols is a style choice, but are there any other reasons for not including landscapes, objects, etc.?
Chauvet Cave
images of Chauvet Cave: (http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/chauvet/chauvet_cave_art.php)
Sanctuary in Les Trois FrèresCave,
some images of the Sanctuary: (https://www.donsmaps.com/troisfreres.html)
but rather importing one’s way of being in the world,
One's culture shapes how they view certain things; even if you are "seeing" the same image, you are not necessarily seeing/interpreting it in the same way as someone from a different culture, or as the person who created said image, which is the point made about the images on the cave walls.
o situate rhetoricity before the Greeks, yes,but also to lay the groundwork for a different understanding of the Greeks themselves.
As he says most people do, I always associate rhetoric with the Greeks and beyond, so I'm really curious about how it existed in another time and culture.
Paleolithic era
One wrote down quotes in them, extracts from books, examples, and actions that one had witnessed or read about, reflections or reasonings that one had heard or that had come to mind.
Not exactly a personal diary- more like a journal that involves specifically what you have learned/experienced so you can return to it and expand upon those interpretations.
he becomes more capable, in his turn, of giving opinions, exhortations, words of comfort to the one who has undertaken to help him.
Relates back to the idea of one needing the help of others in the "soul's labor upon itself." By helping others, you make it so that they are more capable of helping you in return.
nvention, argument, and arrangement to philosophy, and leaving "style and delivery (as] the only true pares of the art of rhetoric"
Curious as to how you all feel about this/ if you feel as though it's accurate/valid.
nstead, it might be productive not to think that we know what rhetoric is at all.
Better not to define rhetoric; although he says it isn't because there are so many variations of answers to that question, limiting it to just one definition leads to limiting it/you in ways that could be incorrect/detrimental