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. 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. continuum of communication
Instrumental Expressive
Insistence Artistry
Practical Art-for-art’s sake
Local, limited Universal, timeless
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. Rhetoric is both…
•Product •Process
•Doing/action • concepts on
“how” to do it
11. Rhetoric as Practice
Narrative Dialectic Rhetoric
Mode 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
examination
Used by Bards; poets; everyone Experts Everyone
Outcome Transmits norms Criticism; explores and Probable conclusions in
tests norms, assumptions, specific circumstances
premises
Structure Stories, myths, religion, Question/answer; Public discourse & symbol
fable, parables philosophy; science use; speeches, essays,
statements
Focus Infer norms for Rational certainty, not Opinion and belief that
appropriate/valorous acts action lead to action
Subject Matter Traditions; reality reflected Generalizations, abstract Specific cases
through storyline principles
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
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. 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.”
*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