Rhetroc, It's All Around Us

RT – Boethius & An Overview of the Structure of Rhetoric

In The Rhetorical Tradition it discusses how Boethius could be considered a part of the Aristotelian tradition and that he believed “in denying rhetoric a separate knowledge-generating status. It is merely the servant of dialectic, a method of applying arguments” (487). I think that this way of thinking can still be found among people who aren’t well-versed in the subject of rhetoric. I know that when I first thought of the term rhetoric – prior to taking any rhetoric classes – I mainly thought it was what methods someone used when trying to convince someone of something. Even then, I thought of it more in terms of debating and advertisements. However, the more I learn about the subject the more obvious it becomes to me that that definition is lacking.

What I found interesting in this section as well is the part about the Ciceronian tradition, which includes “a more humanistic approach that treats language and knowledge as interrelated and thus affords rhetoric some parity with philosophy” (487). The more I learn about rhetoric, the more clear the relationship between philosophy and rhetoric becomes to me. Without valuing the search for knowledge and how we can express what we know and believe good rhetoric would not be possible. Specifically, the five parts to rhetoric outlined in the book invention, disposition, style, memory, and delivery. Without an appreciation for many of the concepts and ideas that philosophy focuses on as rhetoricians we wouldn’t care and give much thought to our ideas, at least not enough to bring them to people’s attention and in a manner that can persuade them.

The second part of the reading regarding the structure or rhetoric builds on what was discussed in the previous section. Boethius had a very limited view on rhetoric when it is actually pretty complex. Most importantly, we must decide which type of rhetoric applies to the situation at hand. Is it judicial, demonstrative, or deliberative? Based on that we can then decide if we want to make an appeal to ethos, pathos, or logos, or some combination of those.  When I think about how I can apply these concepts to my own life, I think it is important to remember that “the orator must look for his goal both in himself and his audience” (490). In one of my other rhetoric classes today we had to participate in a simulation that when I took it at face value, the use of rhetoric didn’t even cross my mind or many of our group members minds either. There was one person who brought up how the other group might react but for the most part that thought was dismissed which in hindsight seems silly since this was an exercise for a rhetoric class. We were given the task of creating a way to provide assistance for a group who we thought was in need. However, when we presented our ideas we were confronted with opposition and myself along with my group had to quickly come up with responses to address their concerns with some of us employing the use of rhetoric better than others. This served as a reminder that rhetoric is all around us.