All good things must come to an end....

Well it's the end of my first year here at UNCW, and although I've enjoyed it, I surely am glad it's almost over. The readings we have had in 388 this semester have really broadened my horizons as far as types of literature. We have covered material that spans over 2500 years. I came into this class thinking that it would be overwhelmingly difficult. I remember asking Dr. Atkins last semester if this course was as hard as it sounded. I remember stopping by the podium after our first day of class...making sure that this stuff wasn't over my head. Do I need to drop this class Dr. Atkins? I think it's a little late now!

Well I'm glad I stuck with it. We've studied some pretty interesting characters, from Plato and Aristotle to what we discussed today: cyborgs. Who knew you'd study cyborgs in a rhetorical theory class? I didn't! I have really enjoyed myself this semester. Our class was full of interesting people who could always find a constructive way to divert Dr. Atkins' attention away from our texts and onto who knows what. A day never went by where we didn't have a laugh. I am glad I took this course. I have learned a lot, and thanks to the readings, maybe I'll get a Jeopardy question or two...cause I studied rhetoric...and now I'm a smarty-pants!

the best...

The figure that most interests me would have to be Gorgias and his entourage of Sophists. I like it anytime a figure can change history and I believ that's what he did. He sold his knowledge for money. If it weren't for intelligent people whosold their knowledege for money, I wouldn't be writing this blog right now. So obviously some of his ideas have stuck around. He may have been shunned at the time and he may have been quite the little caniever, but he changed the way people view rhetoric nonetheless. I suppose that all Classical rhetoricians did, but I like Gorgias the best.
Also, I can appreciate early(and new Rhetoricians) that have applied their knowledge to science as well. I think rhetoric is a science in and of itself. The science of bullstinky, the schience of persuasion, the science of division. I do like Gorgias a lot though. He was the man with the plan--workin' for the man...

Burke

Well this Rhetoric thing is interesting. I am suprised to say that I find the "new rhetoricians" more confusing than the Greek/Romans. I was a bit intimidated when I started--I mean you tell someone you are reading Plato and Aristotle and whatnot and immediately they look at you like "oooohh." It was kind of nice, ya know, getting the "ohhh you must be smart" vibe. Then you tell someone you are reading Kenneth Burke and they are like..."who?" What's up with that? Burke is crazier to understand(in my opinion) than all of the old guys.

Anyway, so all of these debates about language and it's use and meaning are pretty interesting. It's kinda pointless to me, and I dont mean that in a disrespectful manner. I should come up with a better adjective, but "crazy" seems to fit the bill. I think some of Burke's ideas are broad and that is why it is so hard to grasp and realize just what he is talking about. Conley states that in relation to "new rhetoricians," "rhetoric is not seen not as a special use of language that could in special circumstances win approbation on asthetic or social grounds, as in the older bellettristic tradition of the 'ancien regime'. It is rather, the study of all approbation."

I am sure that is a broad description of how these rhetoricians thought, but it is said in a way that helps me understand their purpose a little better. This blog thing does work! YAY!

Bacon

Apparently Francis Bacon was not just an influential rhetorician...he was a painter as well. This is Bacon's self portrait, painted in 1984. Some more of his paintings can be found HERE.

Second Sophistic

I think it is great that while we as English students are studying ancient texts that we are actually getting a history lesson as well. I have definitely learned a lot about the time period of the texts we are studying and that makes me feel smart! And I like to feel smart. Doesn't everyone?

I like the Conley book because he gives a history of the time as well as the subject we are studying. For example, when he discusses the Second Sophistic, he gives us clues to help us associate it in terms of a bigger picture...not just, here's a date...this is what X did...that's all. He tells us that the Second Sophistic is really related to a bigger picture...the fall of the Roman republic. That lets me know its importance and, even though the fall of the Roman empire is a pretty negative idea, it makes me reconsider the meaning of the word "Sophist". I have interpreted the term with a negative connotation thus far in the course. Conley claims the term and the idea of the Second Sophistic has been "widely underestimated and misrepresented in standard treatments of the history of rhetoric" (59).

It seems to me that the Sophists were finally being taken a bit more seriously during this time period of the Second Sophistic. With all the advancements made in educational practices, such as those of the "enkyklios paideia", it seems only natural that the Sophists would fall right into place as teachers for those students who could afford their teaching. I think it's great that the Sophists held their ground during times when they were thought of as swindlers and crooks--becuase now, with a change in standards of education--they fit right in.

Maybe I am over simplifying the historical periods we have studied; nonetheless, the idea of the Second Sophistic has helped me change my negative ideas of the Sophists.

I interpreted the whole section of Roman rhetoric as sort of a transition from Greek. I really don’t see a huge difference, just some blending, expanding, and perhaps a few omitted concepts.
The history involved in the origin of Roman rhetoric is very intriguing. Alexander’s establishment of the Enkylios Paideia was essential to the establishment of Roman rhetoric. I found the idea that Alexander “ slept with a dagger and a copy of the Illiad beneath his pillow.” The possible myth that he spent 2 years studying under Aristotle (if it is true) probably didn’t hurt in establishing the formal system of education.
Enkylios Paideia or “the Rounded Education” is made up essentially of what equates to our modern-day general education requirements here at UNCW.
Romans carried on and it seems like they took the better of the two theories of persuasiveness and combined them together. They use some of the organizational techniques originated by the Greeks, for example, the five parts of speech:

1. prolouge/prooiminon

2. narration/diegesis

3. argument/pistis

4. rebuttal/lysis

5. conclusion/epilogos

Diodorus “harkens back to the vision of Isocrates” in the following statement:

“ History also contributes to the power of speech, than which no nobler thing may easily be found. For it is speech (logos) which makes the Greeks superior to the barbarians, the educated (pepaideumenoi) to the uneducated; and more importantly, by means of speech alone that one man is able to prevail over many.”

The Romans may not have trusted the Sophists, but the did use their same idea of eloquent speech, Yet, Roman focus is still set on education—for bettering their government—not to make a quick buck.

My Money's on Simon...

So…Greek Rhetoric.

I understand it in an oversimplified manner…the smaller, more detailed terms are rather confusing. I understand the terms individually, but when I try to match them to the form of Rhetoric they are associated with, I get confused. The Sophists (Protagoras, Gorgias) were Greeks who loved to preach, and persuade the other Greeks to believe them using language. They also liked to make a great deal of money on the side, charging others who needed their gift of gab. Other Greeks like Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates preferred a Q&A, investigative type of rhetoric. They challenged the Sophists because they believed they used their spell-like language to be fallacious and misleading. After the few selections we have read, I believe I like the latter; questioning something or someone's validity is never a bad thing.

We discussed the 2006 State of the Union Address in class this past week. I was watching TV—some sort of E! or Extra or some celebrity show—and they said that American Idol garnered an audience of approximately 33 million viewers this past Tuesday evening. So I got to wondering how many viewers Dubya pulled in… 42 million. Only 9 million more than Idol, and he could have easily had less if Idol wasn’t on at all. The Washington post said Idol came to President Bush’s rescue with “the aid of a belly dancer, a self-spanker, a faux Rastafarian, a pet hoarder, an adorable set of twins, and a mess of delusional people in Las Vegas.”

American Idol assistance aside…I wondered if more people watched the Presidential Debates as opposed to the State of the Union. I know it’s a time of decision-making—many people(like myself) watch the debates for assistance or assurance in their voting decision. The 2004 Bush Kerry Debates reeled in 62.5 million viewers—20.5 million more than the 2006 SOTU address.

It seems to me like people would rather watch a good face-off than receive a scripted sermon. A one-way conversation isn’t all that interesting. These days—with constant media coverage and the Internet—people have their minds made up before the President even opens his mouth. A SOTU address is pretty much useless because, thanks to the media, we already know it. It’s a ceremonial standard that the Sophists would be proud of. Who knows, they might have even tried to make some money off good old George.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/01/AR2006020102417_pf.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-02-debate-ratings_x.htm