As we discussed in class, rhetoric is the art of persuasion, the art of discourse. The more I look at ideas on rhetoric, it looks to me like the art of argument.
Of course, when one thinks of the history of rhetoric, one is likely to think of the Sophists or Aristotle. The study of rhetoric (at that time, expressed most commonly through persuasive speaking) came about in Ancient Greece, primarily as a means of settling legal problems. Among the Sophists, rhetoric was thought of as the proper way to discover truth, and its users were required to state their arguments clearly and eloquently. Over time, though, others, like Plato, argued that rhetoric was a way in which to deceive. In Plato's case, he argued that the Sophists did not advance their students in the slightest by teaching them this form of flattery. In his opinion, the Sophists were not discovering virtue and truth in their teaching of rhetoric; how could they be, when they condemned Plato's mentor, Socrates, to death in search of this supposed "truth"? No, to Plato, rhetoric amounted to deception.
Several other philosophers reclaimed the positivity of rhetoric after Plato. Aristotle went on to expand on rhetoric considerably, and of course, from his writings we get our explanations of ethos, pathos, and logos. Cicero argued that rhetoric amounted to much more than eloquence in delivery; he maintained that to be a good speaker, one had to be a good person. In this way, one can continue to discover truth through rhetoric.
I'd like to say that when we began discussing rhetoric in class, that all of this information was circling through my head in a frenzy, and I was ready to mentally fact-check any and all historical mentions against my own knowledge of rhetoric. Sadly, though, I do not have much experience at all in this field (though I am looking forward to gaining some). So, when I look at the emersion of rhetoric in the past, I begin to think not of learning about rhetoric in school, but about learning how to argue. I grew up as a preacher's and a New Testament professor's kid, which meant that every Sunday I was stationed on a pew and asked to listen to my dad's newest oratory presentation. I can see now that, putting his preaching subjects aside, these weekly lessons began to drill into me an inclination toward certain rhetorical choices. My dad's pacing, his emphasis on certain words, the tone of his voice, the volume of his voice... all these things, when listened to repeatedly, gave me an ear for good oratory style. Further than that, when I learned how to argue (with my family, like most humans), I had to have my argument completely put together before presenting it to my family. If not, I would absolutely fail to make any or all of the points I wished to make.
Everyone has their own style of argument, whether they know it yet or not. Rhetoric has applications in real life long before we are made to write essays with it. I am hoping to learn how to teach my future students to harness their version of rhetoric, because this, to me, means giving students the means to express their ideas in the exact way in which they want and to be able to explain their purpose behind their rhetorical choices. Besides using rhetoric in writing, I think it is dire in today's world to teach students how to analyze rhetoric. We have to learn how to embrace this "Google" generation, because they, more than any other generation thus far, have to sift through the most of what Neil Postman calls "information glut." They have to learn how to discern between true and false, reliable and unreliable. Now that the internet is here, it's not going away. I think that Plato was right, that rhetoric can certainly be used to fool the masses. However, with some help, students are more than equipped to fight this deception.
