bval1988

Crowley Response

Beatriz Valdez

Summary 2

 WC771

The Ancient Rhetorics

                 In Ancient Rhetorics: Their Differences and the Differences They Make, the reader is introduced to how good old arguin’ was done in the day. Or should I say, how arguing was not done. According to the text, Americans have equated arguing with rhetoric, which is something that is simply not true. The textbook contends that in modern times, people tend to argue and defend a position through means of shouting matches and what not, instead of discussing the issue at hand and discovering ways of resolving the issue. In ancient times, rhetoricians understood that humans will inevitably disagree over something because of the mere fact that everybody has different thoughts, languages and experience. With that said, they understood and accepted the fact that not everybody would agree with their opinion. In modern times, people do not like to disagree with one another without feeling as though they have attacked the character of the other person. People tend to associate opinions with the character of a person, because that opinion must come from the experiences the person has had in life. Therefore, when challenging an opinion, it is as though a person is challenging the other person’s experiences.

                Ancient Rhetorics also looks at things people use for evidence in an argument.  For example, in modern times, people tend to look at facts as things that can’t be disproven; they take them for what they are, i.e. the freezing temperature of water, the celestial path of the moon, eye witness accounts, etc. However, ancient rhetorics realized that a person’s perception tends to cloud the mind. It has been proven that people aren’t the most accurate creations on Earth. People are only aware of what they want to be aware of, i.e. selective listening.  There also other sorts of evidence, such as emotional appeals, and logical appeals. Both of these types of evidence can also be manipulated by a person to turn the argument into the direction they want to go.

                Another interesting topic the textbook brought up was the power of language. Ancient rhetorics realized that humans have the intelligence and power to convey feelings and thoughts. However, it is not enough to just be able to convey thoughts. A person is a much stronger speaker if he or she can communicate his or her thoughts well. They realized that language can move people to their deepest emotions. For example, the movie, The Green Mile, was so well written, that I cried days after watching the movie if someone mentioned it. Even with this wonderful power of manipulation in language, it can also be said that not everyone will understand the manipulation that is being done. For example, not everyone will interpret this particular textbook the same. Not everybody had the same thoughts about Harry Potter. But, what if somebody read Harry Potter aloud? That would give people a chance to see the speaker’s gestures, hear the voice, and feel the “presence” of the book. Rhetoricians argue that while language is a very powerful tool, it should also be made aware that not everybody will walk away with the feeling that was intended.

                Even with all this information on how to become a strong rhetorician, how do we go about doing it? One way to do it is to imitate arguments from the past. At first glance, this may look as plagiarism, but if one does it correctly (acknowledges the author), it can be a helpful tool in becoming a better rhetorician. By imitating an author’s style of argument, one can see how the argument is built and for what the author is arguing. According to the textbook, it allows one to try new approaches and become aware of different styles of arguing.

                This book brings up many interesting points. For one, I thought it was almost “normal” for people to argue about a subject while screaming and shouting at the top of their lungs. It is almost expected of a politician or a participant on a talk show to become mad and angry when challenged in their opinions. It’s called arguing, right? However, there are different ways to go about an argument. An example is to challenge someone’s opinion without challenging the person’s character. The argument will almost take on a neutral stance because the person will be out of the picture.  Also, play with words! Have fun and manipulate words, and most of the time, people will tend to agree when they don’t understand. This world would be a better place if everyone took the time to look at how the ancients did it!