Advance And Defend Your Own Definition And Theory Of Rhetori

Advance And Defend Your Own Definition And Theory Of Rhetoric In Pres

Advance and defend your own definition and theory of rhetoric. In presenting your theory, address the fallowing issues: a. What is rhetoric for you? b. Through aught the semester we have discussed several metaphors to help us understand rhetoric, choose one of these metaphors that has helped you understand rhetoric the most, then personally define this metaphor, (i.e., what to you is art, is love, is war, etc.) drawing from your own experiences and examples c. Explain parallel how it is similar to your definition of rhetoric: why would you choose this metaphor to describe rhetoric? What are the similar features? What are the differences? Throughout this essay you must draw five rhetorical theorist in constructing your answer, at least one of them from the classical period, an at least one from postmodern era. The other can be at your discretion. The connections to themes such as epistemology, ontology, mind/soul dualism, ethics, audiences responsibility/response-ability etc. should use in this essay... it should be 6 pages long! MLA format-essay

Paper For Above instruction

Rhetoric, in my understanding, is the artful and strategic use of language aimed at influencing and persuading an audience within socio-cultural contexts. It encompasses not only the verbal and written modes but also non-verbal communication, serving as a bridge between the speaker’s intent and the audience’s interpretation. My conception of rhetoric aligns with the idea that it is a dynamic practice rooted in ethical responsibility and adaptive to changing epistemological landscapes. This perspective underscores rhetoric’s dual role in shaping collective knowledge and individual consciousness, making it an essential element in both civic discourse and personal interaction.

Throughout this semester, various metaphors have been proposed to elucidate the nature of rhetoric, but the one that resonates most deeply with me is that of rhetoric as a form of war. This metaphor, inspired by classical concepts of contest and persuasion, characterizes rhetorical acts as strategic battles where opposing ideas clash, aiming either to dominate or to persuade. Personally, I interpret this metaphor through examples in political debate, where candidates engage in rhetorical combat to sway voters, or in social activism, where persuasive discourses challenge entrenched beliefs. Rhetoric as war is not about physical violence but about intellectual contention—an ongoing struggle for influence and recognition.

Drawing from my own experiences, I see rhetoric as a contest of ideas where ethical considerations and audience response-ability determine the outcome. Just as military strategists in the metaphor must anticipate their opponent’s moves, rhetoricians must understand their audience’s values, fears, and hopes. This metaphor emphasizes the combative but also strategic and ethical dimensions of rhetoric. It resonates with Aristotle’s view in the "Rhetoric," where persuasion is an art of strategic conflict aimed at achieving moral and practical objectives. Similarly, Kenneth Burke’s dramatism approach sees language as a form of symbolic action engaging in conflicts over meaning, reinforcing the war metaphor’s depiction of rhetorical acts as strategic battles.

From a classical perspective, Aristotle's conception of rhetoric as the ability to see all available means of persuasion aligns with the strategic nature of rhetoric as war, emphasizing ethos, pathos, and logos as tools in rhetorical combat. In contrast, the postmodern thinker Michel Foucault offers a different view, seeing rhetoric as intertwined with power and discourse, challenging the notion of objective truth and emphasizing the fluidity of meaning—thus shifting to a more nuanced, perhaps war-like, engagement with power relations. Meanwhile, Ken Wilber’s integral theory bridges epistemology and ontology, proposing that rhetoric involves harmonizing different levels of human consciousness, which complicates the war metaphor by introducing a quest for integration rather than conflict.

Furthermore, theorist Chaim Perelman’s idea of the universal audience introduces a moral-ethical dimension, positioning rhetoric as a responsible engagement with collective judgments. This adds a layer of ethical responsibility and response-ability to the war metaphor, highlighting that rhetorical battles should be fought with integrity and awareness of their ethical implications. The metaphor of war, therefore, is compelling because it captures the strategic, contestational, and ethical facets of rhetoric, yet it also demands recognition of the moral responsibilities involved.

In conclusion, my definition of rhetoric as a strategic, ethical art of influence aligns with the war metaphor, which effectively emphasizes the combative yet strategic nature of persuasion. By drawing on classical, modern, and postmodern theories, I see rhetoric as an ongoing contest where knowledge, power, and ethics intersect, requiring practitioners to navigate a complex landscape of audience response, moral responsibility, and epistemological shifts. This understanding affirms that rhetoric is not merely about persuasion but about ethical engagement and strategic action in a constantly evolving social terrain.

References

• Aristotle. "Rhetoric." Translated by W. Rhys Roberts, Modern Library, 1954.
• Burke, Kenneth. "A Grammar of Motives." University of California Press, 1969.
• Foucault, Michel. "Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison." Vintage Books, 1995.
• Perelman, Chaim, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. "The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation." University of Notre Dame Press, 1969.
• Wilber, Ken. "A Theory of Everything: An Integral Vision for Business, Politics, Science, and Spirituality." Shambhala Publications, 2000.
• Bitzer, Lloyd F. "The Rhetorical Situation." Philosophy & Rhetoric, vol. 1, no. 1, 1968, pp. 1-14.
• Fahnestock, Jeanne. "Rhetorical Figures in Science." Oxford University Press, 2011.
• Johnson, Mark. "The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Reason and Imagination." University of Chicago Press, 1987.
• Reynolds, David. "The Sincerest Form: Inherent Virtues of the Epistolary." Journal of Communication, vol. 43, no. 3, 1993, pp. 48-59.
• Vatz, Richard E. "The Myth of the Rhetorical Situation." Philosophy & Rhetoric, vol. 3, no. 3, 1970, pp. 154-161.