The Enlightenment Era: John Locke and Mary Astelle

The reading focuses at first on the general changes associated with the enlightenment era in which related to rhetoric. Suggesting the enlightenment era as one which greatly influenced modern rhetoric the reading suggests that “the rhetorical theories of the enlightenment are intimately linked to the intellectual and social developments that shaped the modern world” (Herzberg 792) such as the advent of text. There are still elements of oral literacy that exist today, but nothing like the days before mainstream text. Now someone can pick up a book written hundreds of years ago and hear the author’s thoughts. As I stated in my essay concerning how printed text changed rhetoric, text originally allowed for an aftermarket audience. It still does, but in many ways now more than ever text is seen as a primary medium to reach an audience instead of an aftermarket model.  The reading then goes on to talk about John Locke and his essay concerning human understanding. Though I found his philosophy rather interesting and the subject matter to be very relatable to what we have been learning, the reading of Mary Astelle interested me much more.  Text allowed for people to be anonymous in many cases. Though this sounds like a counterintuitive notion, there were many times throughout history (especially around the time that text arose) that having ones name associated with a controversial issue, speech, or text could mean serious repercussions.

Mary Astell`s A Serious Proposal to the Ladies, Part II is just one example of a piece that would not have reached the masses and been influential had she not had the ability to use text as her medium. Astell was a part of the upper middle class until her father died. Since she wasn’t married and the remaining sum of her father’s wealth was put into her brothers schooling, Astell suffered decreased circumstances with her mother and aunt. However, when her mother and aunt died, Astell moved to London in order to pursue a profession as a writer. Though she had trouble at first, she eventually wrote A Serious Proposal to the Ladies, Part II which actually resulted in a positive benefit since her ideas were followed and in some light admired for implementing change for women’s education. And though she was a woman in a time dominated by men, when she created a proposal for reviving women’s education, her “proposal established her reputation for wisdom and eloquence well beyond her immediate circle” (Herzberg 842). Since she was a woman many of her books “made her the butt of satire from misogynists of the day, both on stage and in print” (Herzberg 843). This was because her use of text to reach the masses also allowed for those in disagreement to pick apart her arguments without her own ability to really defend herself. This is a recurring theme with the emergence of text in rhetoric. How do we truly understand a context and meaning of something if not received directly from the author?

Bizzell, Patricia, and Bruce Herzberg. The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical times to the Present. 2nd ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2001. Print.

Arrangement: Getting it Together

This reading focuses on arrangement and its role in rhetoric. The reading suggests that ancient rhetors agreed arrangement was the second part of rhetoric and second only to invention. This is all fine, but my opinion differs. Though I agree that arrangement is important I feel that there is an argument to be made that it is more important than invention. Firstly, on a side note any invention requires arrangement in itself in my opinion since the formation of rhetorical proofs stems from arranging extrinsic proofs in a manner that facilitates the furthering of intrinsic proofs.

That said, obviously arrangement isn't all that comes into play. Invention is also important, however I feel that the invention comes from the arrangement. Not the other way around. Though I have not fully been able to develop this idea I feel that arrangement in its most basic form is what creates not invention. We arrange letters into words and arrange words into sentences and so on. Ideas are arranged to invent something and the differing arrangement of ideas causes new rhetorical inventions. We use extrinsic proofs arranged properly to create logic, and form intrinsic proofs. I understand this is a bit of a generalized understanding that doesn't account for all factors but it seems like something is there.

Additionally, the reading suggests the more literal meaning of arrangement which would be introduction, narration, proof, and conclusion. This form of arrangement has different sub categories in each, however it seems a bit too literal. When I read something, and even more so when I hear something the arrangement is what I look to first. The invention or idea at any point in a speech or paper is never fully complete until nearing the end of the presentation. However if one were to look at it as a way of using check points to reach the invention we see the interdependence begin to form. Just like we spoke of in class today about the box office. One cannot know going into something what their opinion of it is. Again I understand that this idea isn't perfectly polished but it seemed more appropriate than merely regurgitating the words of the assigned reading onto my blog.

Extrinsic Proofs and the Ancient Rhetors

This section talks about extrinsic proofs and how Aristotle divided proofs into intrinsic or extrinsic. Intrinsic was invented by the speaker whereas extrinsic has to do with fact and testimony along with other empirical evidence. Though it may seem like a long shot I instantly was curious if Peter Ramus agreed with extrinsic proofs. Obviously one cannot contradict fact, however the chapter mentions that Aristotle is often credited with the distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic evidence. This interested me since last week we read that Peter Ramus objected to Aristotle’s views of the way rhetoric should be structured, however it seems impossible to picture rhetorical proofs in any other way. The innate nature of humans to reason that Ramus mentions is highly based off of both extrinsic and intrinsic proofs. He gained his Master of Arts degree using a thesis ridiculing Aristotle and other classical philosophers. Once graduated he began to teach students in colleges and gained quite a following. Ramus attacked Aristotle and scholasticism. His claim was that ability to reason was innate and one didn’t need to learn from Aristotle or other classical sources (Herzberg 675).He said it was a waste of time to study the classical readings and texts because a person’s own thought process and pursuit of knowledge is what’s important. This is all fine, but what if Aristotle and the classics were a way for people to understand intrinsic proofs rather than just stringing extrinsic proofs together.

Additionally, I was very interested in the section about evaluation of data. It seemed to exclaim that evaluation of data is an action based both extrinsically and intrinsically and that all rhetors must understand who compiled the evidence for facts and who compiled the ideas for concepts. This only further enforces the checks and balances that the ancient rhetors seemed to use on one another in contrast with the free nature of Ramus`s views where one reasons for and by themselves. Could be nothing but I found it interesting. 

The Renaissance & Peter Ramus

The renaissance was a time of war, violence and evolution. According to the reading, the Catholic Church had been in power as the religious and political head of state. This changed in the renaissance however. The middle class grew, and governments started to base power on monarchs and those in professional lifestyles. Humanism came about in the renaissance and “emphasized human powers to know and change the world and insisted on scholar’s rights to pursue knowledge without being constrained by church dogma” (Herzberg 555). Humanism started in northern Italy where people weren’t as effected by war and disease, even though they did see the Black Death. Being a center of philosophy and law when the rest of the world is in turmoil allows for a people to have a much greater influence over time.

With all of this change came some change in thinking among the youth in the region. Peter Ramus in specific was one of these different thinkers. He gained his Master of Arts degree using a thesis ridiculing Aristotle and other classical philosophers. Once graduated he began to teach students in colleges and gained quite a following. The reason this made such an impact was based on his ideas. Ramus attacked Aristotle and scholasticism according to the reading and “since scholasticism and the Paris facility were still strongly associated in people’s minds with the catholic church, Ramus`s academic arguments took on overtones of religious reform” (Herzberg 675).  His ideas however took flight as he gained a following. His claim was that “the ability to reason was innate in normal humans. One did not need to learn from Aristotle or any other classical source” (Herzberg 675).he said it was a waste of time to study the classical readings and texts because a person’s own thought process and pursuit of knowledge is what’s important. This seemed to take the idea of rhetoric capability and open it to the masses. He claimed that the only two aspects of rhetoric that mattered were style and delivery. He composed a list of topics which dialectical invention comes from in his proposed method. He was arguably making a “universal method of inquiry” which he thought was what people wanted. He seemed to have quite an impact in his time that he was alive, and historians argue that he changed humanism into humanities because of this universal method.

Bizzell, Patricia, and Bruce Herzberg. "Against the Sophists." The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical times to the Present. 2nd ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2001. 72-74. Print.

Essay 1 Final

Imitatio Reflection:

Against the Lobbyists: Our Modern Day Sophists

Isocrates’s Against the Sophists was quite a speech to imitate. This speech was intended to set Isocrates apart from many of the other rhetoricians of his time, specifically the Sophists. He singled out the Sophists because he felt that they were not being true to the art and study of rhetoric. The status quo he felt had become one of deceit and lies. Isocrates claimed “although they say that they do not want money and speak contemptuously of wealth as ‘filthy lucre’, they hold their hands out for a trifling gain and promise to make their disciples all but immortal” (Bizzell 72). He attacks the quality and validity of their work and seems to feel a degree of anger towards these Sophists because he argues that the field is being degraded for mere monetary gains. There is no drive for the greater good and advancement of knowledge here, rather just greed.

            Finding a speech from an ancient rhetorician was very difficult for me, but after jumping around from speech to speech I finally fell upon Against the Sophists. Though it may not have seemed appealing, after reading it about two or three times I noticed how much this seemed familiar. It was heavily reflective of political races today. The connotation of rhetoric follows that of politics, and many consider them to be closely related. I am specifically referring to the parallels between this speech and that of a slur campaign or a breakaway stance in a politician’s campaign. However, analyzing the relations between the two seemed almost too simple. After writing a short rough draft of my speech, I noticed a blaring difference between Against the Sophists and a political slur campaign. Isocrates conveyed a love for teaching and a passion for the greater good of his students in his speech, whereas a political slur campaign ad has a more selfish feel about it. This is because a political candidate’s goal is to further their career and win elections arguably for the good of the public, but what is good for part of the public is not good for the whole. Isocrates on the other hand seemed to care about the good of his students more than his own prosper. If he was concerned about “winning” or being ahead of the competition he could have stayed with the Sophists and reaped the benefits however he didn’t do that.

            At this point I tried to think of a current issue where people were the people with more money get what they want and those with true promise and capabilities can get shut out. Of course politics came to my mind again. However, lots of political issues seem very self-centered and Isocrates was giving a speech to inform people of the issue at hand, not for his own benefit, but for theirs. If I was going to use politics as my topic, I needed a topic where I could empathize with the people and make a call to action against whatever political issue I picked in order to replicate the motive of Isocrates. I noticed that the exact scenario that I was thinking of was political lobbying by conglomerates and corporations to further their own interests. As the conveyor of this speech I would stand as Isocrates would against the unfair bias in political lobbying towards the wealthy and their interests.

The issue of lobbying in politics fit nicely with Isocrates`s Against the Sophists. However, making my speech sound at all like one written centuries ago was not simple and though I may not have fully evoked an Isocratic feel, I feel it mirrored his structure and use of rhetorical conventions. Isocrates seems to use this speech as  a public service announcement and as such I tried to make my speech mimic that tone. Through this process I learned a lot about how Isocrates formed his speeches and what forms of rhetoric he actually employed. Much of his rhetorical issues can be seen in modern times as well.

            Isocrates for one employs a great amount of ethos when he basically stakes his personal character on the issue. He suggests that he is willing to act in the best interest of the student rather than reap the benefits from taking advantage of the public and only tailoring to the rich. Isocrates does this not by blatantly saying these things but rather, he attacks the other side’s character and in doing so he separates himself as opposite from that group. According to Isocrates, the Sophists “distrust those from whom they are to get this money, they distrust, that is to say, the very men to whom they are about to deliver the sciences of just dealing” (Bizzell 72). He basically calls the other side a bunch of frauds. This mimics the stance that many anti-lobbying and anti-oil groups take.

            After attacking the credibility and character of the Sophists, Isocrates backs up his accusations using logical proofs. He shows that the Sophists are taking advantage of their students by explaining the fact that these teachers promise success as long as the students pay. However, Isocrates points out that success in this field isn’t something that can be guaranteed or bought and logically it should follow that if these Sophists are lying about one aspect of their services, they are more than likely lying about other parts.  This can be translated into modern times just as my speech showed when referring to BP oil and lobbyist funding.

            From a holistic point of view this project seemed very difficult. However, when broken down and thought out it was actually a very valuable learning experience. Being given loose guidelines and very general prompts seemed to me at first to be the product of a difficult class, but in hindsight this project actually allowed me to learn the material and synthesize it in a manner unique to myself. The reason it was hard I figured out was because in the past teachers did half of the work for you by providing a specific prompt and details. However as we have learned from relevant readings, class discussion , and especially this project, forming the questions and guidelines for ones work is just as important as the actual product itself.

Against the Sophists Imitation

Energy is something that we as a society are extremely reliant upon. Those who control energy control the world. I would ask, what responsibility does the energy industry have to work towards “the greater good”? Is it wrong for oil and gas companies to use their vast fortunes to influence politics and legislation? Even if it risks deteriorating our environment and economic independence?. Gas and oil are positive for our economy, but when “about 50% of the crude oil processed in U.S. imported” in 2013 according to the Energy Information Administration we see a dependency begin to form. This dependency as we have seen can lead to war, and can cause complications in international politics.

All this while there are promising benefits from clean energy. These benefits would include less foreign dependency, and a cleaner environment.   It is important to remember though that politics and legislation is all very influenced by money. By that I mean that having a limitless supply of money can guarantee that a company’s political interests are met. For example, the top 54 oil and gas companies in the world share a market value of over 4 trillion dollars. Since 2011 alone 105 million has been spent of lobbying for oil and gas in the United States and another 150 million has been spent on TV ads promoting fossil fuel interests.

The people in our country are being taken advantage of and these companies are only interested in financial gain. Time and time again we hear about these oil spills and oil wars, all because our dependency forces us to act on our fossil fuel interests in certain countries.

            I’m sure many of you remember the BP oil spill. In this case there was an offshore drilling incident where 200 million gallons of crude oil spilled into the Gulf of Mexico. The leak was capped and closed after 87 days of spilling into the ocean and devastating much of the coastlines. The officials at BP immediately started creating TV ads and organizing cleanup efforts, however their primary goal throughout the whole situation was salvaging their reputation. President Obama even created a 20 billion dollar response fund for relief. This was money that could have been spent in other places if this disaster had never occurred, but offshore drilling is heavily supported by companies that lobby to the U.S. Government.

            These companies play on the weakness of society based on our energy dependency. We don’t care how we get the energy as long as we get it. If money were spent on clean energy like it is on gas and oil there would be no shortage of clean energy which would reduce the impact to the environment.  These gas and oil companies are simply taking advantage of society’s dependency without any interest in the future. They look at the issue from a why fix it if it isn’t broken point of view.  And sure, these companies invest in some clean energy, but nowhere near what they could be investing. The question must be asked, do these companies owe any degree of responsibility to the public? People pour money into these conglomerates and in turn those conglomerates lobby in their own interest rather than the interests of the people, taking advantage and reaping the benefits. Capitalism is a great thing, but I feel that there should be a higher level of accountability for these companies as a whole.

References

Bizzell, Patricia, and Bruce Herzberg. "Against the Sophists." The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical times to the Present. 2nd ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2001. 72-74. Print.

Brenner, Noah, Anthony Guegel, Tan Hwee Hwee, and Anthea Pitt. "Coast Guard confirms Horizon sinks." Upstreamonline. Accessed February 25, 2014, http://www.upstreamonline.com/live/article1188900.ece

Hoch, Maureen. "New Estimate Puts Gulf Oil Leak at 205 Million Gallons." PBS Newshour. Accessed February 25, 2014, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/new-estimate-puts-oil-leak-at-49-million-barrels/.

"How Dependent Is the United States on Foreign Oil?" U.S. Energy Information Administration. E.I.A., 1 Jan. 2011. Web. 19 Sept. 2014.

Leber, Rebecca. "Three Ways Big Oil Spends Its Profits To Defend Oil Subsidies And Defeat Clean Energy." ThinkProgress Three Ways Big Oil Spends Its Profits To Defend Oil Subsidies And Defeat Clean Energy Comments. 24 Oct. 2012. Web. 17 Sept. 2014.

Searles, Chris. "Oil & Gas, the World's Wealthiest Industry." 2 Feb. 2012. Web. 18 Sept. 2014.

Effects of Writing and Print on Rhetoric

The reading this week focused on the effects of writing and print on rhetoric and how our society uses rhetoric. Additionally if focused on the transformation from an oral based society to a literature based society. According to Ong, literacy is different from orality in that it involves writing and print. This difference he says is causing us to become much more reliant upon literacy and text rather than orality. He even attempted to discover more about orality by observing areas where literacy has not become a large part of the culture yet and observing the differences between the oral society and the literate one. He claimed writing is like technology that we must learn and it requires a shift in society’s thinking along with their practices. I find this even more fascinating since this piece was written in 1982 and as such seems to give a bit of a societal timeline. When Ong wrote this society was already text based, however this has only grown since then. People in our society are externalizing their information at an ever increasing rate and the medium for this is text and literacy. The phone in ones pocket now has a vast aray of accessible information both personal and public all in the form of literacy. If you ask someone in their twenties a question that they don’t know the answer too, instead of consulting a scholar on the issue they would consult the almighty Google in search for your answer.

Wolf in addition focuses on the understanding of peoples interpretation of said literacy. Basically, Wolf tried to understand the complexity and workings of reading and how society adopted it. According to her, society changed rapidly with the occurrence of reading and writing. The reading became less symbol based and more abstract. This requires our brains to change and rewire themselves she says. I would wonder however, is the transition over yet? Obviously our society if text based now, and was fully oral based at one point in history. However, I wonder if our society will one day be fully text based? Though it seems like it may be already, there is still a large portion of society based upon orality such as teaching and the legal system and such. Though these systems rely heavily upon text to be affective, are we fully text based already? Is there more of a transition to come? I would say that in my opinion, just seeing the extenede reliance upon text from when Ong wrote his piece until now, there is still rome to change and grow more text based.