Monday, September 15, 2008
Philosophy and Rhetoric
How do you think current philosophy (meaning the philosophy surrounding a specific rhetoric in terms of time) affects that rhetoric? What about the inverse? How can rhetoric change given a shift in temporal (meaning time related) thought or philosophy? Pick ONE clear example of a how philosophy and rhetoric have affected each other, and use at least ONE resource, i.e. the Internet, the library, books, etc.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Philosophy is thought, rhetoric is use on persuasive language.
I do think philosophy affects rhetoric in terms of time. Philosophy is a scheduled idea/thought that is used in a certain time period; therefore, I believe that it does affect rhetoric because without thought, there would not be persuasive language. Thought comes before language, not after.
Therefore, because of language coming second to thought, I do not believe that rhetoric affects philosophy. Philosophy is always going to be there because there will always be ideas and thoughts, but rhetoric should not affect those ideas. Persuasive language does not influence philosophy or how it is presented, because no matter what is said, whatever the thought maybe will always be present.
For example, in Julius Caesar's Romeo and Juliet (book), the philosophical idea that Romeo or Juliet could not see each other, made the romantic rhetoric present without that, there would not be rhetoric.
Rhetoric can change drastically if philosophy makes a massive shift. For example, if in Caesar's Romeo and Juliet, there was not that present idea that they could not see one another, then there would no longer be anymore romantic rhetoric, because thought comes first, and without that thought, no language will be present.
Therefore, I believe that philosophy affects rhetoric, but rhetoric does not affect philosophy. Because no matter what happens to the language, philosophy is always going to be there and stay the same.
Resource - Internet
-Jacob P. Fleming
rhetoric and philosophy are intertwined. both affect eachother. you cannot use rhetoric without thought; you cannot express thought without speech.
plato believed that rhetoric was to be use for sharing and gaining knoledge. without philosophy you cant gain knowledge. and you cannot express the knowledge without rhetoric.
s morris
Rhetoric, being defined as choice of words and language used, is basically the forming and completing of thoughts with the use of words. Philosophy, being the thoughts, runs parallel with rhetoric. Philosophy comes from prior knowledge and basic understanding of what is being introduced to the audience by the author. If something is too complex and the audience cannot interpret it well or misinterpret it completely then the thoughts could change or become bias. "Since wit and fancy find easier entertainment in the world than dry truth and real knowledge, figurative speeches and allusions in language will hardly be admitted as an imperfection or abuse of it." John Locke knew that rhetoric was important and that people preferred to hear “figurative speeches and allusions” to get their thoughts across; however, Locke felt that the charade was unnecessary and pointless. He believed that the authors should just get to the point and address it well.
s.t
Philosophy and rehetoric go hand in hand. Philosophy is known as your knowledge and the way you express or think it. Rehetoric, on the other hand, is the art of speech.
These aren't the same thing but they each use one another.
In the "Allegory of the Cave", Aristotle states that knowledge is an important factor in speech. If you have no knowlegde, your speech won't make sense and you might not be able to explain it or verify it.
Also another example is found in John Locke's "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding". He states that to communicate (such as in a speech) a person should do it by two ways: either Civil or Philosophical. He says that "I mean such to convey the precise notions of things, and to express in general propostions certain and undoubted truths, which the mind may rest upon and be satisfied within its search after true knowledge."(he is exampling the philosophical part) This meaning that to speak we should express the truth
and use our knowlegde.
Thus, we can see with these two examples that philosophy and rehetoric are used within one another.
-Cindy Flores :)
Philosphy is thought. Rhetoric has been described as the expression of speech for the use of knowledge and persuasion. Philosophy affects rhetoric because to express knowledge and persuade someone you must use your thoughts.
The inverse of that is you must find a way to express your thoughts,and one way of doing that is through rhetoric. Therefore, philosophy would not exist without rhetoric. You can see how philosophy can change rhetoric over time, because as philosophies begin changing from generation to generation, so does rhetoric.
Rhetoric and philosphy very much affect eachother as i have stated above, because without one you could not have the other. An example of this is in John Locke's "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding" when he says, "By philosphical use of words, i mean such a use of them as may serve to convey the precise notions of things, and to express in general proposisions certain and undoubted truth, which the mind may rest upon and be satisfied with in its search after true knowledge". He related words, which are part of rhetoric, to philosophy. As well as the search for true knowledge which may also come through the use of rhetoric.
A.Burchel!
From my current readings, I have learned that philosophy is thought and rhetoric is the use of persuasive language or the art of speech. You can’t have thought without speech, therefore there can’t be speech without thought.
To express knowledge you must have thought, which shows that philosophy effects rhetoric. Without rhetoric, there is no philosophy. If one changes from generation to generation or overtime, then the other one will change as well. This shows how philosophy and rhetoric go hand in hand.
An example of this would be in, "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding,” by John Locke because Locke states that, By philosophical use of words, I mean such a use of them as may serve to convey the precise notions of things, and to express in general propositions certain and undoubted truth, which the mind may rest upon and be satisfied with in its search after true knowledge". In this quote, Locke explains how philosophy and rhetoric effect one another.
Resource - Internet and John Locke's essay, "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding"
From my current readings, I have learned that philosophy is thought and rhetoric is the use of persuasive language or the art of speech. You can’t have thought without speech, therefore there can’t be speech without thought.
To express knowledge you must have thought, which shows that philosophy effects rhetoric. Without rhetoric, there is no philosophy. If one changes from generation to generation or overtime, then the other one will change as well. This shows how philosophy and rhetoric go hand in hand.
An example of this would be in, "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding,” by John Locke because Locke states that, By philosophical use of words, I mean such a use of them as may serve to convey the precise notions of things, and to express in general propositions certain and undoubted truth, which the mind may rest upon and be satisfied with in its search after true knowledge". In this quote, Locke explains how philosophy and rhetoric effect one another.
Resource - Internet and John Locke's essay, "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding"
-V. Gobble
Current philosophy mainly affects rhetoric. Whatever is the current philosophy, someone will most likely use it for rhetoric. Without the philosophy, there is no reason to make a speech of it. Usually, a philosophy is a belief of a person. Rhetoric can deliver a speech with or against the philosophy. In Aristotle’s Rhetoric he mentioned, “Rhetoric is useful because things that are untrue and things that are just have a natural tendency to prevail over the opposite.”
I don’t think that rhetoric really affects philosophy. Philosophy is the ideas that gave rhetoric a reason of speech. A rhetoric’s persuasive speech couldn’t change the ideas of a philosophy.
I don’t believe that rhetoric can change even if philosophy changes. The same strategies are still going to be used, to persuade or to spread knowledge, as in Plato’s “The Allegory of the Cave.”
^^T. Xiong
Current philosophy and rhetoric are related in many different ways. Philosophy can be defined as a belief or system of belief accepted as authoritative by some group. The beliefs of people today are often greatly affected by other people, and the language these people use.
In John Locke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, he stated that there were two uses of words: civil and philosophical. Locke said, "By the philosophical use of words, I mean such a use of them as may serve to convey the precise notions of things, and to express in general propositions certain and undoubted truths, which the mind may rest upon and be satisfied with in its search after true knowledge." He means that the words individuals use ultimately determine the ideas of people at any certain time.
One example of this that I have had the opportunity to observe is in today's politics. President George W. Bush has been telling Americans for years that it is necessary for troops to remain in Iraq. This idea has been argued, but many people still believe what he says is true. They are convinced of this by Bush's choice of words. He uses rhetoric to affect the philosophy of the American people.
Overall, rhetoric and philosophy would not exist without each other. Rhetoric determines philosophy and vice versa.
E. Styers!
From my understandings of Rhetoric and Philosophy I believe that they have an affect on one another. I believe Philosophy would have an affect on Rhetoric because Philosophy is all about the study of the mind. Therefore, it would have an affect on Rhetoric because you have to use the mind to educate or persuade an audience using Rhetoric. Also Rhetoric could change because if there is a change of the idea of Philosophy in a period of time, Rhetoric would have to change as well because they both have an affect on one another.
As a result of Philosophy and Rhetoric having an affect on one another there are many examples that show the affects. For example, in the Allegory of the cave, Plato ventures out of the cave and witnesses reality for the first time. He then has the Philosophy of reality to return to the cave and educate his audience. Another example is the election of 2008 with Barack Obama and John McCain. Both canidates are using their idea Philosophy to use it in a Rhetorical way to persuade the voters to gain their vote.
*T. Hearst*
Well, from my understanding of rhetoric and philosophy, they exchange many of the same ideas and uses and do have the potential to change if one is changed.
One example of how rhetoric and philosophy affect each other would be the persuasion in speech. The philosophy behind it is knowing how to exchange words in sympathy to your audience. Rhetoric's part in the situation is the actual words being presented. Knowing HOW instead of WHAT to say is how rhetoric plays its roll.
For example in William Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar", both Brutus and Antony gave persuasive speeches at Caesar's funeral. Rhetoric showed itself mostly in Antony's speech when he talks about the horror of the murder of Caesar yet states that Brutus and the rest of the conspirators are "honorable men". The Philosophy behind this well constructed speech was to move the audience into chaos and anger toward the killers.
-J.Baranowski
I believe current philosophy affects rhetoric, because of the fact that philosophy is the way people think, as to, rhetoric is the language people use. Therefore, the language people use affects the way people think. This not only happened, in the Renaissance, but is also takes place in the modern world.
A famous quote written by John Locke stated: “I have always thought the actions of men the best interpreters of their thoughts.” I think this quote does exactly what it says. The actions of people are always affected by their thoughts, and thoughts are often expressed verbally in some shape or form.
I think one example of this would be in today’s society. Such as in politics, voting is coming up, and is a big deal in our world, because it decides who our future president is going to be. Deciding on who you want to vote for determines on which candidate attracts your attention the most, often by what the candidate has said, affecting our thoughts, to decide which person we will vote for. Generally speaking, the persuasiveness of how a person gets their point across, (in this case a presidential candidate) determines the way we think, and progress from there.
In conclusion, Rhetoric and philosophy couldn’t exist without each other. They determine each other’s outcome, in most all situations.
[Information, from John Locke, came off the Internet.]
a.bayse. [:
The relationship between philosophy and rhetoric are closely connected. When using philosophy, you are thinking of how to express your ideas in terms of what you are saying. While using rhetoric, you are expressing your ideas in terms of how to express them. If either rhetoric or philosophy is altered, then the assisting rhetoric or philosophy will alter as well.
For an example, in Shakespear's 'Julius Cesar', Brutus and Mark Antony both gave exemplary speeches to persuade their audience whether or not to go into complete turbulence. Brutus' speech was well stated, but once Mark Antony took the stage he used rhetoric in addressing the people and wording his speech to where even though he wasn't degrading Brutus, he was able to manipulate the crowd by his use of appeal.
By using the phrase 'honorable men' when talking about Cesar's murderers, Mark Antony had performed great philosophy before hand so that he could come up with a way to not go against his word when telling Brutus that he wouldn't talk negatively, but yet still getting the crowd angry at Brutus.
--R-Woods--
If rhetoric is the way to spread knowledge, then philosophy is the way to attain that knowledge. The two areas are completely intertwined.
What good is a thought if it is not expressed and shared in someway? We must use rhetoric properly to inform wide audiences and broadcast that thought to spread knowing. If an idea is created out of logic then rhetoric must add emotion in order to persuade people of this idea.
The basis of all rhetoric is though which spawns from philosophy. Rarely will you find one without the other.
Plato once said, "Rhetoric is the art of ruling the minds of men." I believe he means that rhetoric can tell people what and what not to think based on the philosophical thoughts of the orator.
Emerson Jones
Philosophy and rhetoric are similar in many ways. Philosophy is a belief that is in charge on a group of people. The people today believe many things just because of the outside influence on them.
John Locke’s An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, it states, “By the philosophical use of words,I mean such a use of them as may serve to convey the precise notions of things, and to express in general propositions certain and undoubted truths, which the mind may rest upon and be satisfied with in its search after true knowledge.” By this he means that the words some people speak affect what others believe.
One example of this today is the upcoming election. John McCain and Barrack Obama have changed many peoples views on some subjects. These two political figures tell people things that the people believe are true just because the people have similar views as them.
In conclusion, philosophy and rhetoric work together, because without the other they would not be existent.
-S. Everhart-
OH my plato quote came from the internet.
-emerson
I do believe that current philosophy affects rhetoric.
This is so because philosophy is known knowledge, and rhetoric is the art or study of using language.
Without knowledge you wouldn’t be able to have art of language because if you didn’t have knowledge you wouldn’t know what to say.
The same thing goes for the opposite you wouldn’t be able to write a speech or have persuasion if you didn't have knowledge of what you were writing or what point you were trying to get across.
One example, of how philosophy and rhetoric have affected each other is as follows, in Allegory of the cave, Aristotle stated that you need knowledge to write a speech or to make it make since.
Resource--internet, allegory of the cave packet.
--d.fivecoat :]
I do believe that current philosophy affects rhetoric.
This is so because philosophy is known knowledge, and rhetoric is the art or study of using language.
Without knowledge you wouldn’t be able to have art of language because if you didn’t have knowledge you wouldn’t know what to say.
The same thing goes for the opposite you wouldn’t be able to write a speech or have persuasion if you didn't have knowledge of what you were writing or what point you were trying to get across.
One example, of how philosophy and rhetoric have affected each other is as follows, in Allegory of the cave, Aristotle stated that you need knowledge to write a speech or to make it make since.
Resource--internet, allegory of the cave packet.
--d.fivecoat :]
Rhetoric is the art of speech and used as a mean of persuasive language,while philosophy is the art of thought.I think that philosophy could exist without rhetoric but rhetoric couldn’t exist without thought.
How can speech exist without thought ?
Rhetoric affects philosophy because you need to think before you speak.Knowledge is all about thought and the way an individual perceives something and in order to express your thoughts and knowledge, one must have some sense of speech.But philosophy can exist without rhetoric because thoughts don’t necessarily have to be expressed, there are a million
things that are left unsaid because thought doesn’t require speech but speech requires thought.
Philosophy is an idea, a thought, or a belief at a certain period in time, over time philosophy may change but I don’t think that it will always necessarily have an impact on rhetoric because words may change, the way the words are presented and perceived may change, but philosophy just is. It will always be there whether time changes or rhetoric changes.
In Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave”, he states that knowledge is
an important factor of speech, without knowledge rhetoric wont make any sense.
Resource: Internet, Platos Allegory of the cave
-Uroosa Naveen Haider
Philosophy is a system of thought or a set of ideas concerning a particular subject. In contrast, rhetoric is the effective use of language to persuade or to inform. Though both have different definitions philosophy and rhetoric are very entwined. Philosophy and rhetoric are dependent on one another.
Without rhetoric, philosophy could not be expressed. So if someone has a idea or belief they would use rhetoric to explain it and try to persuade the spectators to believe in the idea as they do. However, without speech philosophy could exist, but what is the point of an idea if you don’t share it with others? In turn speech (rhetoric) could not exist if there was no thought behind it. You must think about what you are going to say before you say it.
In John Locke’s “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding” he explains the communication of words, one being civil and the other being philosophical. John Locke explains the philosophical communications of words, “By the philosophical use of words, I mean such a use of them as may serve to convey the precise notions of things, and to express in general propositions certain and undoubted truths, which the mind may rest upon and be satisfied with in its search after true knowledge.” By that statement he means that the philosophical use of words is to explain how or why something works or why it is true.
Philosophy and rhetoric work together, and I believe without one the other would not serve a purpose to exist. Speech without thought does not exist and unshared ideas do not serve a purpose.
-L. Gonzalez
Philosophy and rhetoric are closely connected. Philosophy is when you are thinking of how to express logic or an explanation. While rhetoric is using words to express thoughts and feelings. Both rhetoric and philosophy have to do with sharing knowledge and using knowledge. I think that if philosophy is changed then the use of rhetoric will be altered and if rhetoric is altered then how we communicate philosophy will be altered. The time period also effects rhetoric. Whether it is in a classical, renaissance, or modern period will change thought and philosophy.
An example is found in John Locke's "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding". He states that to communicate (such as in a speech) a person should do it by two ways: either Civil or Philosophical. He says that "I mean such to convey the precise notions of things, and to express in general propositions certain and undoubted truths, which the mind may rest upon and be satisfied within its search after true knowledge." In this statement he expresses how without rhetoric we cannot express feeling, thought, or knowledge.
--Sharlese Hall
Current philosophy and rhetoric are connected in many different ways. The defintion of philosophy is a belief or system of belief accepted by some group. The ideas of people today are often influenced by other people and the language people use. One example of this today s George Bush. President George W. Bush has been telling Americans for years that there is WMD in Iraq. This idea has been argued, but many people are still convinced even though we have not found any. He uses rhetoric to affect the philosophy of the American people. Rhetoric and philosophy would not make sense without each other. Philosophy determines rhetoric and the other way around.
Malcom King Ivery
Post a Comment