Rhetoric is confusing, and it is a subject I've been expected to understand since starting college, but I've never been taught the basic understanding and the core of the idea. Rhetoric to me is a compilation of thoughts and ideas that are backed my historical writings and evidence to assist in persuading and audience.
From the introduction of Richard Toye's book, I have gained a slightly better understanding of rhetoric, but have become more confused by the first chapter where he goes into the history of rhetoric and where the world was established. Toye explains that that rhetoric has always been thought and explained through public conversation and argumentation, but he argues that it is also private in the way that everyone expresses themselves visually, verbally, and virtually. All arguments, no matter the subject of debate, are forms of rhetoric. He also explains that we receive our abilities to read and write from our peers and from examples that surround us, such as TV, newspapers, social media, etc.
Rhetoric not only allows for the expression of ideas, but also allows for the generation of ideas. I agree with this argument in that, when two people debate they are allowed to generate ideas off one another and it can form a whole new basis of argument that is different from the original topic.
In your experience with rhetoric, have you found it more personal or public?
As Toye continues in his brief overview of the history of rhetoric, I found his writing style very dry and boring. I found myself drifting in and out of the context, so I feel like I didn't get a great understanding of the historical context that he presented.
Do you feel that he presents his analysis clearly and effectively?
I hope in class we will go over this reading more in depth and my classmates will help with my understanding of rhetoric.
No comments:
Post a Comment