Rhetoric is any form of communication where a rhetor strives to persuade, or change the thoughts of an audience in order to bring them past an obstacle in a possible misleading way.
I agree with the first part of the definition, but necessarily the end. I don't think that there needs to be an obstacle present for the rhetor to engage with an audience or that there needs to be an obstacle completely defeated for the rhetor to be successful. I also do not think that "possible misleading way" needs to be included in the definition of rhetoric. I do believe that rhetoric can be somewhat misleading at certain times, but I think that misleading is normally a result of the situation and the audience. It all depends on how the rhetor is interpreted and who the rhetor is being interpreted by.
I completely agree with the beginning of this statement. Rhetoric can be any form; art, speech, or music. I also agree that those forms are used to persuade any and all audiences. What I don't agree with that the persuasion is happening to get an audience over an obstacle. Rhetoric is created so an audience can be persuaded to believe in whatever is being argued for. A person could just stumble upon a random piece of art at a museum, and they could be persuaded by the artist to believe in what the artist is painting. -Laura Chami
You might have been able to expand on this definition but it hit on key points - which was the point of this whole exercise. The rhetor has to try and overcome some sort of obstacle (exigen) with potentially active rhetoric. One thing I really liked about the definition was the last part 'in a possible misleading way,' it almost gives a sneaking-around sense to rhetoric. Shows that there is and has to be an underlining motive.
I agree with the first part of the definition, but necessarily the end. I don't think that there needs to be an obstacle present for the rhetor to engage with an audience or that there needs to be an obstacle completely defeated for the rhetor to be successful. I also do not think that "possible misleading way" needs to be included in the definition of rhetoric. I do believe that rhetoric can be somewhat misleading at certain times, but I think that misleading is normally a result of the situation and the audience. It all depends on how the rhetor is interpreted and who the rhetor is being interpreted by.
ReplyDelete-Maddy Cuono
I completely agree with the beginning of this statement. Rhetoric can be any form; art, speech, or music. I also agree that those forms are used to persuade any and all audiences. What I don't agree with that the persuasion is happening to get an audience over an obstacle. Rhetoric is created so an audience can be persuaded to believe in whatever is being argued for. A person could just stumble upon a random piece of art at a museum, and they could be persuaded by the artist to believe in what the artist is painting.
ReplyDelete-Laura Chami
You might have been able to expand on this definition but it hit on key points - which was the point of this whole exercise. The rhetor has to try and overcome some sort of obstacle (exigen) with potentially active rhetoric. One thing I really liked about the definition was the last part 'in a possible misleading way,' it almost gives a sneaking-around sense to rhetoric. Shows that there is and has to be an underlining motive.
ReplyDelete