Jared,
If there's one thing that I've learned about rhetoric, in this class so far, is that it is neither A or B and neither true or false. I think that this same concept applies to being a rhetoric man or a serious man...which creates even more blury-ness. I also think that there is some logic in choosing to rhetorical. For instance, to me it makes more rational sense to write in a way that please one's audience and challenges their thoughts and opinions rather than solely dumping information. However, maybe I think this because I tend to lack common sense and would consider myself more rhetorical. Also, rhetoric seems to challenge what is considered practical and common sense. Even so, I think maybe, even if slightly, being rhetorical is a rational choice.
In Kelly's post, she talks about how she alternates between a serious lens and a rhetorical lens, and this alternation is dependent upon her mood or the situation. This makes me wonder if it is possible to see though both lenses at the same time or it the lenses are only possible if seen through one at the time. Is the rhetorical lens purely seeing outside of the serious lens? Most of my confusion lies in where the serious and rhetorical man collide and where there is a definite distinction between the two.
When you discussed your confusion in distinctions between philosophy and rhetoric, it made me laugh because when people ask me what this class is about, my description has been, "Oh, it's a rhetoric theory class." They look at me stumped, like I have spoken a foreign language, so I say, "it's like a writing/philosophy class." It's interesting because I'm trying to provide clarity for something that I'm not clear about. I agree in that I don't know where the distinctions are, but I also think that clear distinctions do not exist. I think that's why rhetoric seems so difficult to define and why we have been reading what it means to different rhetoricians. It seems that my definition of rhetoric is constantly being challenged and redefined, which is one of the characteristics of rhetoric.
You bring up a valid question, in the midst of all this blury-ness, why does it matter? Why so many studies of rhetoric? My best answer to that is that and why I'm most interested in rhetoric is that I'm interested in the conversation that I am having with my audience. However, I know that it's not that simple and I think I'm questioning the complexities of it because it seems that everything we define in the study of rhetoric, the narrative and rational paradigms and rhetorical and serious man, becomes blurred.
Hi Ashton,
ReplyDeleteI wanted to make a quick note that I agree with you on rhetoric not being meant to be clearly defined. No one, not even the professors can understand this topic completely (Doug told me this once I think -- Side note, this makes me wonder about credibility of believing in texts of other people more so than others, but I'll save that for another time). It's so complicated because I think some of it depends on reader interpretation of this practice through their lenses. I think everyone will always have their own way of looking at it and whether or not it makes sense to them, and I think that's where disagreement comes from. I enjoy exploring rhetoric because it's uncertain. I like the idea of making connections in ways that make sense to me as one reader/interpreter of this practice. I like the idea of using rhetoric to solve problems and to bridge gaps with other readers & writers. .... It's interesting for me to think about. :)
Thank you,
Kelly Kinney