Lesson one

370 views
288 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
370
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
151
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • *BOTH dialectic and rhetoric are methodological rather than substantive ways of thinking (hows rather than whats); share some of the same features but are unique in other ways; complementary *BOTH were modes of arguing; differ in experts vs. laypeople; this means that they begin with different boundaries of opinion and experience/everyday vs. expert *BOTH are universal methods; have no subject matter that is solely theirs--->more technical, then DIALECTIC; more public and aimed to action; then RHETORIC *experts aim at criticism of the others ideas with the aim of arriving at some "truth"--->DIALECTIC examines opinions, then systematically tries to determine what must necessarily or logically follow; RHETORIC looks at problematic situations in terms of prevailing opinions and tries to result in decision and action *both operate where certainity is missing--->result in probable solutions (DIALECTIC might reach certainity) *have DIFFERENT ENDS (action v. truth)
  • *BOTH dialectic and rhetoric are methodological rather than substantive ways of thinking (hows rather than whats); share some of the same features but are unique in other ways; complementary *BOTH were modes of arguing; differ in experts vs. laypeople; this means that they begin with different boundaries of opinion and experience/everyday vs. expert *BOTH are universal methods; have no subject matter that is solely theirs--->more technical, then DIALECTIC; more public and aimed to action; then RHETORIC *experts aim at criticism of the others ideas with the aim of arriving at some "truth"--->DIALECTIC examines opinions, then systematically tries to determine what must necessarily or logically follow; RHETORIC looks at problematic situations in terms of prevailing opinions and tries to result in decision and action *both operate where certainity is missing--->result in probable solutions (DIALECTIC might reach certainity) *have DIFFERENT ENDS (action v. truth)
  • *BOTH dialectic and rhetoric are methodological rather than substantive ways of thinking (hows rather than whats); share some of the same features but are unique in other ways; complementary *BOTH were modes of arguing; differ in experts vs. laypeople; this means that they begin with different boundaries of opinion and experience/everyday vs. expert *BOTH are universal methods; have no subject matter that is solely theirs--->more technical, then DIALECTIC; more public and aimed to action; then RHETORIC *experts aim at criticism of the others ideas with the aim of arriving at some "truth"--->DIALECTIC examines opinions, then systematically tries to determine what must necessarily or logically follow; RHETORIC looks at problematic situations in terms of prevailing opinions and tries to result in decision and action *both operate where certainity is missing--->result in probable solutions (DIALECTIC might reach certainity) *have DIFFERENT ENDS (action v. truth)
  • *BOTH dialectic and rhetoric are methodological rather than substantive ways of thinking (hows rather than whats); share some of the same features but are unique in other ways; complementary *BOTH were modes of arguing; differ in experts vs. laypeople; this means that they begin with different boundaries of opinion and experience/everyday vs. expert *BOTH are universal methods; have no subject matter that is solely theirs--->more technical, then DIALECTIC; more public and aimed to action; then RHETORIC *experts aim at criticism of the others ideas with the aim of arriving at some "truth"--->DIALECTIC examines opinions, then systematically tries to determine what must necessarily or logically follow; RHETORIC looks at problematic situations in terms of prevailing opinions and tries to result in decision and action *both operate where certainity is missing--->result in probable solutions (DIALECTIC might reach certainity) *have DIFFERENT ENDS (action v. truth)
  • *BOTH dialectic and rhetoric are methodological rather than substantive ways of thinking (hows rather than whats); share some of the same features but are unique in other ways; complementary *BOTH were modes of arguing; differ in experts vs. laypeople; this means that they begin with different boundaries of opinion and experience/everyday vs. expert *BOTH are universal methods; have no subject matter that is solely theirs--->more technical, then DIALECTIC; more public and aimed to action; then RHETORIC *experts aim at criticism of the others ideas with the aim of arriving at some "truth"--->DIALECTIC examines opinions, then systematically tries to determine what must necessarily or logically follow; RHETORIC looks at problematic situations in terms of prevailing opinions and tries to result in decision and action *both operate where certainity is missing--->result in probable solutions (DIALECTIC might reach certainity) *have DIFFERENT ENDS (action v. truth)
  • *BOTH dialectic and rhetoric are methodological rather than substantive ways of thinking (hows rather than whats); share some of the same features but are unique in other ways; complementary *BOTH were modes of arguing; differ in experts vs. laypeople; this means that they begin with different boundaries of opinion and experience/everyday vs. expert *BOTH are universal methods; have no subject matter that is solely theirs--->more technical, then DIALECTIC; more public and aimed to action; then RHETORIC *experts aim at criticism of the others ideas with the aim of arriving at some "truth"--->DIALECTIC examines opinions, then systematically tries to determine what must necessarily or logically follow; RHETORIC looks at problematic situations in terms of prevailing opinions and tries to result in decision and action *both operate where certainity is missing--->result in probable solutions (DIALECTIC might reach certainity) *have DIFFERENT ENDS (action v. truth)
  • *BOTH dialectic and rhetoric are methodological rather than substantive ways of thinking (hows rather than whats); share some of the same features but are unique in other ways; complementary *BOTH were modes of arguing; differ in experts vs. laypeople; this means that they begin with different boundaries of opinion and experience/everyday vs. expert *BOTH are universal methods; have no subject matter that is solely theirs--->more technical, then DIALECTIC; more public and aimed to action; then RHETORIC *experts aim at criticism of the others ideas with the aim of arriving at some "truth"--->DIALECTIC examines opinions, then systematically tries to determine what must necessarily or logically follow; RHETORIC looks at problematic situations in terms of prevailing opinions and tries to result in decision and action *both operate where certainity is missing--->result in probable solutions (DIALECTIC might reach certainity) *have DIFFERENT ENDS (action v. truth)
  • *BOTH dialectic and rhetoric are methodological rather than substantive ways of thinking (hows rather than whats); share some of the same features but are unique in other ways; complementary *BOTH were modes of arguing; differ in experts vs. laypeople; this means that they begin with different boundaries of opinion and experience/everyday vs. expert *BOTH are universal methods; have no subject matter that is solely theirs--->more technical, then DIALECTIC; more public and aimed to action; then RHETORIC *experts aim at criticism of the others ideas with the aim of arriving at some "truth"--->DIALECTIC examines opinions, then systematically tries to determine what must necessarily or logically follow; RHETORIC looks at problematic situations in terms of prevailing opinions and tries to result in decision and action *both operate where certainity is missing--->result in probable solutions (DIALECTIC might reach certainity) *have DIFFERENT ENDS (action v. truth)
  • ART = based on observation, a set of guidelines (not a science) DISCOVERING = observing, finding AVAILABLE = not everything suited to every issue or every audience; instead POSSIBLE SAYABLES in THIS GIVEN CASE [Hauser 28] NOT THE ART OF PERSUASION = but the discovering the tools of persuasion in this case effectiveness is not the criteria might not be successful (doctor-patient) goal-oriented thinking about what will work finding AND selecting
  • ART = based on observation, a set of guidelines (not a science) DISCOVERING = observing, finding AVAILABLE = not everything suited to every issue or every audience; instead POSSIBLE SAYABLES in THIS GIVEN CASE [Hauser 28] NOT THE ART OF PERSUASION = but the discovering the tools of persuasion in this case effectiveness is not the criteria might not be successful (doctor-patient) goal-oriented thinking about what will work finding AND selecting
  • ART = based on observation, a set of guidelines (not a science) DISCOVERING = observing, finding AVAILABLE = not everything suited to every issue or every audience; instead POSSIBLE SAYABLES in THIS GIVEN CASE [Hauser 28] NOT THE ART OF PERSUASION = but the discovering the tools of persuasion in this case effectiveness is not the criteria might not be successful (doctor-patient) goal-oriented thinking about what will work finding AND selecting
  • ART = based on observation, a set of guidelines (not a science) DISCOVERING = observing, finding AVAILABLE = not everything suited to every issue or every audience; instead POSSIBLE SAYABLES in THIS GIVEN CASE [Hauser 28] NOT THE ART OF PERSUASION = but the discovering the tools of persuasion in this case effectiveness is not the criteria might not be successful (doctor-patient) goal-oriented thinking about what will work finding AND selecting
  • ART = based on observation, a set of guidelines (not a science) DISCOVERING = observing, finding AVAILABLE = not everything suited to every issue or every audience; instead POSSIBLE SAYABLES in THIS GIVEN CASE [Hauser 28] NOT THE ART OF PERSUASION = but the discovering the tools of persuasion in this case effectiveness is not the criteria might not be successful (doctor-patient) goal-oriented thinking about what will work finding AND selecting
  • ART = based on observation, a set of guidelines (not a science) DISCOVERING = observing, finding AVAILABLE = not everything suited to every issue or every audience; instead POSSIBLE SAYABLES in THIS GIVEN CASE [Hauser 28] NOT THE ART OF PERSUASION = but the discovering the tools of persuasion in this case effectiveness is not the criteria might not be successful (doctor-patient) goal-oriented thinking about what will work finding AND selecting
  • Lesson one

    1. 1. What is Rhetoric? One form of human communication
    2. 2. What is Rhetoric? communicationpersuasive rhetoric
    3. 3. What is Rhetoric? One form of human communication Unique “status” : social, literary, philosophical – Bryant 424
    4. 4. Rhetoric: Functions and Scope (Bryant, 1953)
    5. 5. What is Rhetoric? One form of human communication Unique “status” : social, literary, philosophical – Bryant 424 “the [art of] use of symbols to induce social action” - Hauser 3
    6. 6. What is Rhetoric? One form of human communication Unique “status” : social, literary, philosophical – Bryant 424 “the art of using of symbols to induce social action” - Hauser 3 a “practical art” - Hauser 11
    7. 7. continuum of communication Instrumental Expressive Insistence Artistry Practical Art-for-art’s sake Local, limited Universal, timeless
    8. 8. What is Rhetoric? One form of human communication Unique “status” : social, literary, philosophical – Bryant 424 “the art of using of symbols to induce social action” - Hauser 3 a “practical art” - Hauser 11  Cooperative / transaction  Temporary / situated  Limited / strategic  Ordinary / symbolic & social  Productive / constitutive
    9. 9. Rhetoric is both… •Product •Process •Doing/action • concepts on “how” to do it
    10. 10. Rhetoric as PracticeNarrativeDialecticRhetoric
    11. 11. Rhetoric as Practice Narrative Dialectic RhetoricMode of thinking Storytelling; normative, Posing of objections to all Two-sided argument to traditional, noncritical in doubtful propositions until arrive at likelihoods based nature objections are refuted or on audience standards; the original proposition is intersection of reason with replaced by one better able experience in ways that to withstand critical engage feelings and values examinationUsed by Bards; poets; everyone Experts EveryoneOutcome Transmits norms Criticism; explores and Probable conclusions in tests norms, assumptions, specific circumstances premisesStructure Stories, myths, religion, Question/answer; Public discourse & symbol fable, parables philosophy; science use; speeches, essays, statementsFocus Infer norms for Rational certainty, not Opinion and belief that appropriate/valorous acts action lead to actionSubject Matter Traditions; reality reflected Generalizations, abstract Specific cases through storyline principles
    12. 12. Rhetoric as METHOD Dialectic  Rhetoric • “expert” argument • “everyday” argument • begins with opinion • begins with opinion • all subjects • all subjects • contingent issues • contingent issues • Generalized, “ideal” • Concrete, specific questions questions • expert, technical • popular argument argument leading to leading to persuasion criticism & “truth” & action
    13. 13. Rhetoric as METHODDialectic = speculative inquiry concerning generalized propositionsRhetoric = practical inquiry concerning concrete situations
    14. 14. BOTH Practice & Method Practice  Method  act, performance  planning  shape feelings, ideas,  investigate situations, acts (persuading) solutions  expression  how to express  social study  intellectual study  practical  theoretical  instrument  concept  doing  knowing  action  philosophy
    15. 15. Aristotle Bk I, ch 2“Rhetoric may be defined as the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion. This is not a function of any other art.”
    16. 16. The Rhetorical SituationLloyd Bitzer (1968)
    17. 17. The Rhetorical SituationLloyd Bitzer (1968)Elements of the Rhetorical situation
    18. 18. The Rhetorical SituationLloyd Bitzer (1968)Elements of the Rhetorical situation  Exigence

    ×