…And now for something completely different. I hope everyone enjoys history. It may be due to all of the philosophy courses I’ve taken over the years, but I have such a romanticized idea of Plato-era Athens. Probably similar to the way many have of Paris. It is a bit strange, but I am intrigued by the philosophical views that have come from there. So for me, a history of rhetoric that begins here is not what I would consider an enormous task… but I have a cold, and I am very cranky. I’ve sat down three times to begin this over the past two days and nothing comes. I’ve considered going Peter Elbow all over this page, but feel it will not serve its purpose here. I’m going to work with a few premeditated ideas and we’ll see if we get cooking.
It appears that Williams believes that if we are ever to become truly great teachers of writing, we must have a concise knowledge of where it all came from. While I normally ague that one must have historical context for everything, I am not certain it creates a great teacher. Perhaps, it creates a greater student. For example, if someone is writing a review of The Clash’s 1979 album, “London Calling,” it is almost impossible to call the album essential if someone has no knowledge of this era. In fact, a critic’s knowledge should extend far beyond the sonic achievement contain within the 30-60 minutes of a typical album. But one correlation I’ve tied from the text and credibility, is that what is considered good is always debatable. Like Protagoras would say, “a man was the sole judge of his own sensations and beliefs, which were true for him so long as they appeared to be so.” Sure, collectively rock critics argue that “London Calling” is one of the most important albums of all time, but philosophically, the Sophists would say something along the lines of “importance does not exist, just choose a side, stick with it, iron out the flaws, and sell! sell! sell! your product. Anything can we right, if you take the time to convince others.”
This is why we have lawyers. We are unable to collectively agree to what is right and wrong (let alone act upon them) or good and bad. We can speculate on the correctness of everything. For instance, some would consider the 1950s to be the good ‘ole days: simpler times, kinder people, less commotion, greater respect for the family, greater reliance on religion, etc. etc. etc. But those who were the victim of race/discrimination crimes, or poverty stricken, or divorced, or had non-Christian beliefs, or had a child out of wedlock may see this era completely different. That is why I would consider the modern era to be the finest for one great reason: we are able to witness many ideas that have come and gone. Some have failed, some were unsuitable for the time, some have stood the test of time, some fall in and out of favor, etc.
The fortunate thing for students is their teacher will be introducing them to a plethora of ideas. They will hear history and respond to it with their modern ideologies. They may even be using techniques to review a piece of classical literature or philosophy with the technique prescribed by the philosophers in question. That is o.k. I think many teachers have open-minded philosophies. We cannot decide what is ethically right in the world half of the time, so how are there any credentials for judging a students work?
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Blog 3
I enjoyed this chapter, and I like that the text begins with the historical background of rhetoric. History has always been fascinating to me, and for this reason I was particularly interested in reading about these early applications of rhetoric. I found it especially interesting because I have a particular interest in Ancient Greek culture. I’ve read several of the texts mentioned in the Greek section and, as a result, I was able to fuse previous knowledge with the accounts in Preparing to Teach Writing.
I was glad to read so much about the sophists because, reading mostly works by Plato, I had (and perhaps still have) a very biased account of this group of people. Plato does not speak very highly of them, and, as the text also points out, Socrates never wrote any records of his own thoughts (or, if he did, none of them survive).
My only other knowledge of the sophists comes from the works of Aristophanes (who approved of neither the sophists nor Socrates). As Williams points out, Aristophanes called Socrates a sophist in his comedic play The Clouds. This farce blatantly attacks the sophists for advocating senseless positions simply because they are capable of doing so.
While I would side with Socrates over Aristophanes on many subjects, I can see Aristophanes’ point—Socrates was a master rhetorician, often manipulating alternative viewpoints to make his ultimate point. From what I’ve read of Socrates’ minor verbal sparring matches (as recorded by Plato) with Athenians, Socrates is shockingly good at forcing his opponent to contradict himself. Socrates makes his opponent prove himself wrong and prove Socrates right, and all the while Socrates puts forth no (or few) direct statements himself. Socrates uses questions to guide the conversation and ultimately leaves the person with whom he is conversing two equally unappealing alternatives.
I also read Aristotles Rhetoric and Xenophon’s Oeconomicus. The Oeconomicus is along the same lines as Socrates’ other dialogs, but is used for inspiration rather than knocking his opponent down a peg (as was the case in the dialog Ion, the short exchange that, of the texts I’m familiar with, most markedly demonstrates the traits I mentioned above). Rhetoric, in contrast, is a manual of sorts, explaining the use and importance of rhetoric (probably groundbreaking in its time, but much of it is generally well known today).
I enjoyed reading about the other people and times as well, but I am not familiar enough with any of them to add additional information.
The Background of Rhetoric
This section of Preparing to Teach Writing was an interesting read. The story between Corax and Tisias (p.4) was so funny I had to share it with my family who also laughed. A connection is made from that story about the use of rhetoric. Ancient Greece was a cornerstone for the world as we know it. Philosophy, mathematics, language, politics, and the history leading to our present day had much of its beginnings in ancient Greece.
The debate between laws of man and laws of nature also took place (p.8). These views may limit, as laws might exist outside or transcend the laws of man and nature. Also the question of whether truth was relative or absolute became a matter of importance. If truth was relative, it didn't matter which "side" one choose, and any search for the complete truth would be in vain as it was always relative to a time, place, or person. If truth was absolute, then there was a possibility of finding it, and thus searching could prove a worthwhile endeavor.
Rhetoric could also be a way to go about understanding or questioning the truth. This was done by way of the dialectic process or dialogue. (p.16) Rhetoric was also seen as a tool for a successful speech or for persuading courts or the people one way or the other; despite that some thought using rhetoric to make a particular idea sound better was wrong because rhetoric may make anything sound good. Rhetoric also had a practical purpose in the politics of that day, as a more democratic view arose. This is probably why the aristocracy opposed its teaching.
Today’s society still asks many rhetorically related questions. What is rhetoric, more specifically does it include both writing and speaking? How is rhetoric used and how should it be used? Politicians often have speeches that sound great and make sense (pathos and logos); however, sometimes other people feel as though their character cannot be trusted (ethos).
The debate between laws of man and laws of nature also took place (p.8). These views may limit, as laws might exist outside or transcend the laws of man and nature. Also the question of whether truth was relative or absolute became a matter of importance. If truth was relative, it didn't matter which "side" one choose, and any search for the complete truth would be in vain as it was always relative to a time, place, or person. If truth was absolute, then there was a possibility of finding it, and thus searching could prove a worthwhile endeavor.
Rhetoric could also be a way to go about understanding or questioning the truth. This was done by way of the dialectic process or dialogue. (p.16) Rhetoric was also seen as a tool for a successful speech or for persuading courts or the people one way or the other; despite that some thought using rhetoric to make a particular idea sound better was wrong because rhetoric may make anything sound good. Rhetoric also had a practical purpose in the politics of that day, as a more democratic view arose. This is probably why the aristocracy opposed its teaching.
Today’s society still asks many rhetorically related questions. What is rhetoric, more specifically does it include both writing and speaking? How is rhetoric used and how should it be used? Politicians often have speeches that sound great and make sense (pathos and logos); however, sometimes other people feel as though their character cannot be trusted (ethos).
blog 3
Although I found this reading very interesting, I dwelled on the incredible importance and unusual circumstances teachering writing in the post-post modern era will be. Wilson's statement early in the reading; "How we prepare students to use language MATTERS; our instruction shapes not only who they are , but who they become" stuck in my mind through the rest of the reading.(Williams 3) In one sense I like knowing that what I am preparing to do as a career is valuable work, in another sense it is daunting to know that as teachers we are given the opportunity and privilege to influence those who will shape the future , and we are facing challenges with our students, teachers never encountered before in history. Williams discusses the decline in of recent decades and that the students are using "restricted code - language characterized by a limited vocabulary and an inability to communicate abstract ideas-that is painfully unsuited to conveying anything but the most shallow concepts." (2) Does the immediate- gratification, technology-infused generation have even a need or inclination towards understanding that which is intangible? How do we teachers help them see the necessity of learning it, or even begin to instill the desire to do so? How do teachers turn students to concepts beyond their chosen limited comprehension and keep society moving forward, when visionary poets' and sage philosophers' words have been replaced by redundant, repulsive music video rants and staged brawlselevating reality show hosts' advice.
If they are not able to convey these ideas, can they understand the sage literature we as English majors know have shaped and moved society forward. as English majors the literature
If they are not able to convey these ideas, can they understand the sage literature we as English majors know have shaped and moved society forward. as English majors the literature
Something Different
…and now for something completely different. I hope everyone enjoys history. It may be due to all of the philosophy courses I’ve taken over the years, but I have such a romanticized idea of Plato-era Athens. Probably similar to the way many have of Paris. It is a bit strange, but I am intrigued by the philosophical views that have come from there. So for me, a history of rhetoric that begins here is not what I would consider an enormous task… but I have a cold, and I am very cranky. I’ve sat down three times to begin this over the past two days and nothing comes. I’ve considered going Peter Elbow all over this page, but feel it will not serve its purpose here. I’m going to work with a few premeditated ideas and we’ll see if we get cooking.
It appears that Williams believes that if we are ever to become truly great teachers of writing, we must have a concise knowledge of where it all came from. While I normally ague that one must have historical context for everything, I am not certain it creates a great teacher. Perhaps, it creates a greater student. For example, if someone is writing a review of The Clash’s 1979 album, “London Calling,” it is almost impossible to call the album essential if someone has no knowledge of this era. In fact, a critic’s knowledge should extend far beyond the sonic achievement contain within the 30-60 minutes of a typical album. But one correlation I’ve tied from the text and credibility, is that what is considered good is always debatable. Like Protagoras would say, “a man was the sole judge of his own sensations and beliefs, which were true for him so long as they appeared to be so.” Sure, collectively rock critics argue that “London Calling” is one of the most important albums of all time, but philosophically, the Sophists would say something along the lines of “importance does not exist, just choose a side, stick with it, iron out the flaws, and sell! sell! sell! your product. Anything can we right, if you take the time to convince others.”
This is why we have lawyers. We are unable to collectively agree to what is right and wrong (let alone act upon them) or good and bad. We can speculate on the correctness of everything. For instance, some would consider the 1950s to be the good ‘ole days: simpler times, kinder people, less commotion, greater respect for the family, greater reliance on religion, etc. etc. etc. But those who were the victim of race/discrimination crimes, or poverty stricken, or divorced, or had non-Christian beliefs, or had a child out of wedlock may see this era completely different. That is why I would consider the modern era to be the finest for one great reason: we are able to witness many ideas that have come and gone. Some have failed, some were unsuitable for the time, some have stood the test of time, some fall in and out of favor, etc.
The fortunate thing for students is their teacher will be introducing them to a plethora of ideas. They will hear history and respond to it with their modern ideologies. They may even be using techniques to review a piece of classical literature or philosophy with the technique prescribed by the philosophers in question. That is o.k. I think many teachers have open-minded philosophies. We cannot decide what is ethically right in the world half of the time, so how are there any credentials for judging a students work?
It appears that Williams believes that if we are ever to become truly great teachers of writing, we must have a concise knowledge of where it all came from. While I normally ague that one must have historical context for everything, I am not certain it creates a great teacher. Perhaps, it creates a greater student. For example, if someone is writing a review of The Clash’s 1979 album, “London Calling,” it is almost impossible to call the album essential if someone has no knowledge of this era. In fact, a critic’s knowledge should extend far beyond the sonic achievement contain within the 30-60 minutes of a typical album. But one correlation I’ve tied from the text and credibility, is that what is considered good is always debatable. Like Protagoras would say, “a man was the sole judge of his own sensations and beliefs, which were true for him so long as they appeared to be so.” Sure, collectively rock critics argue that “London Calling” is one of the most important albums of all time, but philosophically, the Sophists would say something along the lines of “importance does not exist, just choose a side, stick with it, iron out the flaws, and sell! sell! sell! your product. Anything can we right, if you take the time to convince others.”
This is why we have lawyers. We are unable to collectively agree to what is right and wrong (let alone act upon them) or good and bad. We can speculate on the correctness of everything. For instance, some would consider the 1950s to be the good ‘ole days: simpler times, kinder people, less commotion, greater respect for the family, greater reliance on religion, etc. etc. etc. But those who were the victim of race/discrimination crimes, or poverty stricken, or divorced, or had non-Christian beliefs, or had a child out of wedlock may see this era completely different. That is why I would consider the modern era to be the finest for one great reason: we are able to witness many ideas that have come and gone. Some have failed, some were unsuitable for the time, some have stood the test of time, some fall in and out of favor, etc.
The fortunate thing for students is their teacher will be introducing them to a plethora of ideas. They will hear history and respond to it with their modern ideologies. They may even be using techniques to review a piece of classical literature or philosophy with the technique prescribed by the philosophers in question. That is o.k. I think many teachers have open-minded philosophies. We cannot decide what is ethically right in the world half of the time, so how are there any credentials for judging a students work?
blog 3
Reading this week's assignment, I kept thinking about how this was relevant to my preparation as a teacher, and also how I would potentially use this in my classroom. What do a bunch of dead guys matter to me or my students? Furthermore, with all these definitions of rhetoric crashing into each other, how is anyone supposed to get a solid idea of what the word really means?
I'll focus of the second question first. my saving grace for a definition of rhetoric came on page 2: "the focus on examining how people use language to attain certain ends." I felt that all Williams' other definitions were not really clear. I think this was because there are so many different uses and different definitions of the word that it's hard to nail down a single definition, but the one on page 2 nailed it.
I began to think how this definition related to the rest of the chapter. By looking at different orators throughout history, we see how people influence others. This, to me, is rhetoric. And this is what any writer is trying to do. As we've learned in class, we are always writing for an audience, so we are always trying to write to have some sort of influence on our audience.
So now the first question: why should we care about a bunch of dead guys? Well, I think we can learn a lot from them. They influenced so many people with just words. And that is the skill we are trying to teach kids: writing to express an opinion and trying to persuade people to listen to their views and maybe believe them.
I'll focus of the second question first. my saving grace for a definition of rhetoric came on page 2: "the focus on examining how people use language to attain certain ends." I felt that all Williams' other definitions were not really clear. I think this was because there are so many different uses and different definitions of the word that it's hard to nail down a single definition, but the one on page 2 nailed it.
I began to think how this definition related to the rest of the chapter. By looking at different orators throughout history, we see how people influence others. This, to me, is rhetoric. And this is what any writer is trying to do. As we've learned in class, we are always writing for an audience, so we are always trying to write to have some sort of influence on our audience.
So now the first question: why should we care about a bunch of dead guys? Well, I think we can learn a lot from them. They influenced so many people with just words. And that is the skill we are trying to teach kids: writing to express an opinion and trying to persuade people to listen to their views and maybe believe them.
Do the Evolution
Do the Evolution
In our reading, Williams showcases the evolution of rhetoric. For Williams, this is important because it establishes the foundations for what we will presumably learn in the chapters that follow. Before heading out to Ancient Greece, Williams defines rhetoric as both, "…the field of study that examines the means by which speakers and writers influence states of mind and actions in other people…", and as "the application of those means" (1). Also of concern for Williams is the spreading of what he labels the 'restricted code'. Williams admonishes contemporary students lack of vocabulary and their "inability to communicate abstract" ideas (2). Williams believes the ideas presented in this book might work as an antidote to this lack of erudition. Refreshingly, Williams does not place the sole blame on the student. He makes astute observations about the complexity of teaching writing and therefore solidifies the urgency of his work.
It was somewhat rewarding to ride along with Williams and his tour of the history of rhetoric. When reading the section on Classical Greek Rhetoric, Rhetoric and the Greek Philosophers, and on the Sophists, I couldn't help but think that Williams was purposely holding up a mirror to contemporary western culture and politics. This notion is amplified by the fact that we are in an election season and therefore find ourselves being bombarded with political rhetoric from both the left and the right. What perhaps gave the liberal in me the most visceral pleasure was the discussion on how Greek aristocrats would have been opposed to democratic ideas that usurped their sphere of power and influence. Through my progressive lens, that is exactly the behavior I observe in today's economic elite and the party charged with defending them: The GOP.
The ancient Greeks' dogmatic belief that personal excellence was tethered to civic duty and the greater good Рthe concept of aret̩ Рalso holds great appeal to the Liberal in me. Part of the reason I joined the military was because I on some subconscious level shared this sense of civic duty for the greater good and that was somehow a necessary thing in order to become a well-rounded citizen. What came as a surprise Рparticularly because I dedicated quite a few semesters in undergrad to studying him Рwas the notion that Plato, politically, was conservative/anti-democratic. It is as if Plato was the ancient Greeks' version of Glenn Beck! Perhaps I was not overly observant all those years ago.
From the Sophists and Plato, Williams picks up the journey with Aristotle and we see a shift (or evolution) from oral traditions of rhetoric to written traditions of rhetoric. Aristotle's concepts of ethos, pathos, and logos are a metaphorical garden of fruitful thought for discussion and contemplation.
I didn't really get much out of the section on Roman Rhetoric other than the idea of rhetorician as philosopher statesman and Crassus's division of rhetoric into "invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery". With talent being the "most important requirement" (27). Isn't this exactly what we experience with the modern politician? I may not like Sarah Palin (at all), but I cannot deny the fact that she has a charisma that moves and motivates likeminded individuals.
I can't leave without discussing Christianity. Wasn't it interesting to read how Christianity felt it was necessary to co-opt (or assimilate) pagan beliefs, symbols, and so on? Now that the foundation has been laid down, it will be interesting to see where Williams takes us.
Williams 1-44
Although this week's blog assignment consisted of reading quite a bit of history which I personally dislike but I still enjoyed reading about some of my favorite philosophers. The first page talks about how important composition is that some professionals refer to rhetoric as "rhetoric and composition." Think about it what ever we write for assignments, reports for a job or internship or anything at all it is to persuade or influence someone or an audience. That is how important composition truly is, we need it at every aspect of our daily life.
As a student I would have to agree myself that teaching writing is becoming more and more complicated today. I feel that half the time teachers are expecting students to focus on methods without fully understanding those themselves. That leads to a serious discrepancy. It is true that a good teacher will always try to influence a student in a way that will improve his/her performance. Then comes my favorite part - "the greek philosophers." My most favorite has to be Protagoras. I actually put up his quote as facebook status about men himself being the sole judge of his beliefs the moment I read it!
I think his teachings are so straight forward and most importantly it relates to justice and respect for others. That is me or at least I try to be that way, respect everyone and judge no one but yourself.
Aristotle is definitely my all time favorite. I loved how Aristotle called rhetoric an art and that produces something specific. And the fact that he unlike his teacher, Plato, did not obsess over using rhetoric only for the common use for speakers. Rhetoric is an art it is an art of persuasion...the art of rhetoric.
The last few pages talks about contemporary rhetoric and composition. It basically gives us an idea of how conditions are only getting worse now. I will go back to my first statement of how teachers expect students to focus on methods that the teachers are not fully sure of themselves. We see how the Harvard model failed to to change the situation of reducing unsatisfactory writers. I think another problem with teachers is that they try to teach the way they were taught as students. I think that is a big problem simply because each student is different and they have different styles that need to be approached differently.
As a student I would have to agree myself that teaching writing is becoming more and more complicated today. I feel that half the time teachers are expecting students to focus on methods without fully understanding those themselves. That leads to a serious discrepancy. It is true that a good teacher will always try to influence a student in a way that will improve his/her performance. Then comes my favorite part - "the greek philosophers." My most favorite has to be Protagoras. I actually put up his quote as facebook status about men himself being the sole judge of his beliefs the moment I read it!
I think his teachings are so straight forward and most importantly it relates to justice and respect for others. That is me or at least I try to be that way, respect everyone and judge no one but yourself.
Aristotle is definitely my all time favorite. I loved how Aristotle called rhetoric an art and that produces something specific. And the fact that he unlike his teacher, Plato, did not obsess over using rhetoric only for the common use for speakers. Rhetoric is an art it is an art of persuasion...the art of rhetoric.
The last few pages talks about contemporary rhetoric and composition. It basically gives us an idea of how conditions are only getting worse now. I will go back to my first statement of how teachers expect students to focus on methods that the teachers are not fully sure of themselves. We see how the Harvard model failed to to change the situation of reducing unsatisfactory writers. I think another problem with teachers is that they try to teach the way they were taught as students. I think that is a big problem simply because each student is different and they have different styles that need to be approached differently.
PTTW: Chapter 1: The Foundations of Rhetoric
"Teachers who are concerned about helping students become better writers tend to be pragmatic. They want ideas and suggestions that they can use immediately to improve student performance. Although this trait is admirable, it can make discussions of the history and theory of rhetoric seem like obstacles that delay grappling with practical issues," (Williams 2, 3). Yes, I consider myself to be a pre-service English teacher, desiring to provide my students with the best education possible. I think that in relation to this quote, teaching, as a practice, is also the same. It is a marathon, not a sprint. If it was easy, everyone would be doing it. The conflict lies within the inner-struggle involving instant gratification. For ourselves. For our students. If we could snap our fingers, we would be out of college, in our field, and influencing the lives we touch. However, I do see the value in Williams including the origins of rhetoric. You have to walk before you can run.
The historical figure I identified most with was Protagoras. "Protagoras taught his students to take either side in a legal case. . . For Protagoras, there was no such thing as falsehood. . . Protagoras taught that 'a man was the sole judge of his own sensations and beliefs, which were true for him so long as they appeared to be so,'" (Williams 11). I think what I love most about Protagoras is that he wanted his students to own their view. I consider one of my philosophies of education to be equipping students to be independent thinkers and do-ers. Regardless of what the absolute truth may be, if a student can substantiate whatever point they present, it doesn't matter what the truth may be for you or me.
In keeping with the trend of applying this text to my position as an English teacher, I do not fully agree with Socrates' perspective, regarding demonstrating the ignorance of those around him. "'And so I go about the world. . . and search and make inquiry into the wisdom of any one, whether citizen or stranger, who appears to be wise; and if he is not wise, then. . . I show him that he is not wise,'" (Williams 17). Of course this refers to a different time and place, but placing Socrates' beliefs in present-day classrooms, I do not believe my job is to point out the lack of wisdom in my students. I think a better tool would be to model wisdom. Wisdom is not just knowledge, but it is also having the humility to admit to not knowing the answer and then seeking to find it. I can only imagine how quickly I would lose my job if I would point out that my students or colleagues are "not wise".
The final aspect of this chapter that caused me pause regards the Harvard teachers who saw their students as "intellectual midgets" and no expectations for creating any sort of knowledge. Then, the chapter mentions that colleges and society is blaming the public school system, stating failure in effective training of composition. With the "Harvard method" having failed (gee, I wonder why?!), I am anxious to see what methods have worked and will continue to work to increase both teacher and student success. I believe, unlike the Harvard snobs, that every student is capable of learning. They may learn at different paces. They may not learn the way you want them to, but they can still do it. Hopefully, we can break the cycle of teachers who "abandon nearly everything [we] learn about writing pedagogy" and start serving our students better, mostly, by simply believing in their ability to succeed.
The historical figure I identified most with was Protagoras. "Protagoras taught his students to take either side in a legal case. . . For Protagoras, there was no such thing as falsehood. . . Protagoras taught that 'a man was the sole judge of his own sensations and beliefs, which were true for him so long as they appeared to be so,'" (Williams 11). I think what I love most about Protagoras is that he wanted his students to own their view. I consider one of my philosophies of education to be equipping students to be independent thinkers and do-ers. Regardless of what the absolute truth may be, if a student can substantiate whatever point they present, it doesn't matter what the truth may be for you or me.
In keeping with the trend of applying this text to my position as an English teacher, I do not fully agree with Socrates' perspective, regarding demonstrating the ignorance of those around him. "'And so I go about the world. . . and search and make inquiry into the wisdom of any one, whether citizen or stranger, who appears to be wise; and if he is not wise, then. . . I show him that he is not wise,'" (Williams 17). Of course this refers to a different time and place, but placing Socrates' beliefs in present-day classrooms, I do not believe my job is to point out the lack of wisdom in my students. I think a better tool would be to model wisdom. Wisdom is not just knowledge, but it is also having the humility to admit to not knowing the answer and then seeking to find it. I can only imagine how quickly I would lose my job if I would point out that my students or colleagues are "not wise".
The final aspect of this chapter that caused me pause regards the Harvard teachers who saw their students as "intellectual midgets" and no expectations for creating any sort of knowledge. Then, the chapter mentions that colleges and society is blaming the public school system, stating failure in effective training of composition. With the "Harvard method" having failed (gee, I wonder why?!), I am anxious to see what methods have worked and will continue to work to increase both teacher and student success. I believe, unlike the Harvard snobs, that every student is capable of learning. They may learn at different paces. They may not learn the way you want them to, but they can still do it. Hopefully, we can break the cycle of teachers who "abandon nearly everything [we] learn about writing pedagogy" and start serving our students better, mostly, by simply believing in their ability to succeed.
Williams 1-41
I am having some difficulty responding to what I thought to be a very dry read. Williams is vastly different than Elbow in his writing style and I feel as though I have to switch gears in order to respond. William’s feels as though a person must be well versed in the history of rhetoric in order to become a good teacher. I agree that the school system is failing. Too much emphasis is being placed on the teacher to churn out good test scores. This comes at the expense of the children’s natural creativity. Certainly order is needed in order to satisfy the curriculum but I feel as though the gaps that it creates need to be addressed. Many schools are ill equipped to address the students that fall behind the rest of the class.
On another note, I find it interesting that the Sophists were ridiculed for their ability to argue for the worst side and win. It is financially rewarding to have these abilities and to use them in this society. Defense attorneys are able to argue successfully despite hard evidence given by the prosicutor in many more instances than the Simpson case cited by Williams. Marketing and advertising industries are billion dollar enterprises skilled at the art of deceiving by using clever marketing schemes and eye candy. Sex sells. As well as placing dogs in commercials, cute babies, and so forth. Rhetoric is alive and well. Great communication skills are sought after by students, recruiters, and teachers.
On another note, I find it interesting that the Sophists were ridiculed for their ability to argue for the worst side and win. It is financially rewarding to have these abilities and to use them in this society. Defense attorneys are able to argue successfully despite hard evidence given by the prosicutor in many more instances than the Simpson case cited by Williams. Marketing and advertising industries are billion dollar enterprises skilled at the art of deceiving by using clever marketing schemes and eye candy. Sex sells. As well as placing dogs in commercials, cute babies, and so forth. Rhetoric is alive and well. Great communication skills are sought after by students, recruiters, and teachers.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Post 3- Williams
Reading so far, is like reading a history book. It is a nice change from Elbow, but it is venturing into territory of which I am not familiar(philosophical) ...so please, bear with me...
First, on page 1, it is defined that rhetoric is the ability in each {particular} case to see the available means of persuasion. Then there is the difference between physis (nature) and nomos (man), which are the different laws ancient Greeks believed in. Williams also mentions numerous names, some of which I have heard before: Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle (to name a few). However, I remember these guys from my astronomy class not from any of my English classes (So I was kind of surprised to see them mentioned). I have never learned about the Sophists and all of their beliefs which include: the truth being relative, pragmatism, and probability. It is fascinating (although I honestly do not truly understand the full extent of it) that Socrates and Plato were completely against the Sophists because they held opposing beliefs. Then there is Aristotle who studied rhetoric and developed the original idea of Proof.Next, there are the differences between the Rhetoric of Rome and Athens which is because of different sociopolitical agenda.
Basically I got from this reading that we need to determine how rhetoric has changed in the Western culture from the times mentioned in the chapter up to today.
First, on page 1, it is defined that rhetoric is the ability in each {particular} case to see the available means of persuasion. Then there is the difference between physis (nature) and nomos (man), which are the different laws ancient Greeks believed in. Williams also mentions numerous names, some of which I have heard before: Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle (to name a few). However, I remember these guys from my astronomy class not from any of my English classes (So I was kind of surprised to see them mentioned). I have never learned about the Sophists and all of their beliefs which include: the truth being relative, pragmatism, and probability. It is fascinating (although I honestly do not truly understand the full extent of it) that Socrates and Plato were completely against the Sophists because they held opposing beliefs. Then there is Aristotle who studied rhetoric and developed the original idea of Proof.Next, there are the differences between the Rhetoric of Rome and Athens which is because of different sociopolitical agenda.
Basically I got from this reading that we need to determine how rhetoric has changed in the Western culture from the times mentioned in the chapter up to today.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Blog 3 - Williams 1 -40
WOW – what a change this text is from Elbow! I haven’t decided if that’s a good or bad thing yet because Elbow was much easier to read, but at least there isn’t anything to agree or disagree with in Williams’ text (yet?).
Throughout the entire reading, two main things stuck out to me. One is how interrelated rhetoric seems to be to what was happening in a given historical time period, or it’s kairos, as I learned in another rhetoric class I am currently taking (and how completely out of touch I am on historical facts), and the other being how different each rhetorician’s thoughts and rhetorical methods are.
I am especially struck by what ideas have and have not survived into modern rhetoric. Certainly Aristotle’s ethos, pathos, and logos (21) have survived as well as the “five offices”: invention, argument, style, memory, and delivery, (27) but to see the way everything else has either changed or been abandoned is very interesting to me.
I also wonder what, exactly, modern rhetoric does have to say about certain issues. The idea of rhetoric as a “theory of knowing” (7) vs. “to argue probability” (13) vs. “the discovery of truth” (18) vs. “transmitting knowledge” (38): what do we now believe the point of rhetoric is? Or do we believe that all four, and even more definitions are possible? I tend to agree with Ramus’ view of dialect as the modern definition of rhetoric, “not merely a means of determining truth and falsehood; […] it also was the art of speaking decisively on matters that were in question.” (37)
Another important idea that repeated itself throughout the text was the idea that rhetoric and writing require talent, practice, and instruction. I think this is perhaps the most interesting part of the chapter because I have always very much attributed good writing to talent. I know many would disagree and say that writing is merely taught, but I think that in order to be a really good writer you have to have a natural talent for it. Grammar and syntax can be taught and organization and content can be forced through outlines and other invention strategies (like Elbow’s), but for writing to really be considered “good” I think an extra element has to exist. The element of talent that can’t be taught or mimicked. The idea made me think of this article which suggests that both talent and skills are needed. I agree 100% and I think that much of the idea of writing “talent” comes from the simple desire to write. You either like it or you don’t, you are either good at it or you aren’t. You need grammar and mechanics and syntax, but most importantly, you need an interest in writing. I think this could easily be applied to the idea of rhetoric as composition that the book discusses.
Throughout the entire reading, two main things stuck out to me. One is how interrelated rhetoric seems to be to what was happening in a given historical time period, or it’s kairos, as I learned in another rhetoric class I am currently taking (and how completely out of touch I am on historical facts), and the other being how different each rhetorician’s thoughts and rhetorical methods are.
I am especially struck by what ideas have and have not survived into modern rhetoric. Certainly Aristotle’s ethos, pathos, and logos (21) have survived as well as the “five offices”: invention, argument, style, memory, and delivery, (27) but to see the way everything else has either changed or been abandoned is very interesting to me.
I also wonder what, exactly, modern rhetoric does have to say about certain issues. The idea of rhetoric as a “theory of knowing” (7) vs. “to argue probability” (13) vs. “the discovery of truth” (18) vs. “transmitting knowledge” (38): what do we now believe the point of rhetoric is? Or do we believe that all four, and even more definitions are possible? I tend to agree with Ramus’ view of dialect as the modern definition of rhetoric, “not merely a means of determining truth and falsehood; […] it also was the art of speaking decisively on matters that were in question.” (37)
Another important idea that repeated itself throughout the text was the idea that rhetoric and writing require talent, practice, and instruction. I think this is perhaps the most interesting part of the chapter because I have always very much attributed good writing to talent. I know many would disagree and say that writing is merely taught, but I think that in order to be a really good writer you have to have a natural talent for it. Grammar and syntax can be taught and organization and content can be forced through outlines and other invention strategies (like Elbow’s), but for writing to really be considered “good” I think an extra element has to exist. The element of talent that can’t be taught or mimicked. The idea made me think of this article which suggests that both talent and skills are needed. I agree 100% and I think that much of the idea of writing “talent” comes from the simple desire to write. You either like it or you don’t, you are either good at it or you aren’t. You need grammar and mechanics and syntax, but most importantly, you need an interest in writing. I think this could easily be applied to the idea of rhetoric as composition that the book discusses.
Teaching Perfection
I really enjoyed reading this week’s assignment. I thought that it was insightful and enjoyed the historical perspective. For the past two weeks, we have been discussing ways (growing and cooking) which have challenged traditional educational views on writing and sought to find ways that will engage and inspire our students. This week’s reading showed the historical flaw of education: teaching only to the perfect (the Honor/ “A” Student) and how its impact is still felt today. Williams’ discussion of the history of education both directly and indirectly supports many of Elbow’s claims, especially those concerning the subject of writing as punishment and that only the talented can write. Thus, Williams and Elbow both believe that all students should be allowed to write without fear. In this blog, I will discuss how writing is not merely for the talented but for all.
For years, scholars have argued the great Literature canon is bias and exclusive. In a world, in which diversity is embraced and emphasized it is still shocking to find that many voices are left out of the classroom and the curriculum. This single minded view allows for an elitist attitude to develop in the classroom. After all, are not the canon books known as the “great texts” or “classics”? Thus, one is already being influenced by the term “classic” to believe that this text is superior to others. Williams mentions this idea several times in the chapter. For example, he writes that “it seems more likely that the goal of the Sophists was not to advocate democracy but rather to get those outside the aristocracy to embrace certain aristocratic values” (9- The italics showcase my own emphasis and are not from the text). In this brief statement, Williams is discussing how in Ancient Greece, Sophist aided their “inferiors” by making them accept the superior ideals. They did not allow them to use their own voice, but forced on them this alien voice, the voice that Athens and Ancient Greece recognized as valuable.
Williams also discusses the importance of ethos to both ancient and modern scholars. He writes that “Citations associate writers’ ideas with those of published scholars, which makes those ideas seem more credible” (22). This idea again showcases the argument of superiority. A person can only be an intellectual and author if he or she has been published so that his or her opinion can be discussed in classrooms, conferences and student papers. Thus, they are the experts and we, the students, are to fully soak in their knowledge. Students are expected to fully agree the text and not to argue or point out its weaknesses since the student is inferior to the author. This idea of superiority is also seen in student assignments. Often times, students are given their paper topics and set about fulfilling those requirements. This idea of giving students paper topics is as old as Rome. Williams writes that “Students increasingly concentrated on ‘declamations’ on set themes…” and that “what was important was style and delivery” (33). Thus, the importance of the exercise was hitting the predestined marks that the teacher had outlined. Once again, these students were to forget their own thoughts and arguments. Hence many of these exercise started to “become ‘more bizarre and artificially contrived, [and] the exercise was especially associated with the scholasticus or ‘schoolman,’ and was called a ‘scholastic theme’” (33).
My last point is that for years, education has set up a label system and operated under it. There has always been the talented vs. the talentless, the honor vs. the general and the advanced vs. the remedial student. Williams writes that “he [Isocrates] admitted that he could not provide anyone with talent. This view dominated Western schools until modern times, resulting in higher education that was primarily for the intellectual elites” (16). At the end of the chapter, Williams also talks about how the Harvard Influence affected the American educational system. Thus, one is able to see that education has for years been tailored for the talented and that the idea of writing has been elevated to a pedestal (while writing itself has been demoted) which for many students toady remains out of reach because they have been taught to fear writing (that superior trait for scholars) or because they have never really been allowed the chance to cook and grow their works.
I really enjoyed this chapter and I apologize for the larger post. I have a lot to say about this topic, especially the Harvard Influence! I am looking forward to discussing this chapter with you all on Thursday! There really is a lot of great info in this chapter!
For years, scholars have argued the great Literature canon is bias and exclusive. In a world, in which diversity is embraced and emphasized it is still shocking to find that many voices are left out of the classroom and the curriculum. This single minded view allows for an elitist attitude to develop in the classroom. After all, are not the canon books known as the “great texts” or “classics”? Thus, one is already being influenced by the term “classic” to believe that this text is superior to others. Williams mentions this idea several times in the chapter. For example, he writes that “it seems more likely that the goal of the Sophists was not to advocate democracy but rather to get those outside the aristocracy to embrace certain aristocratic values” (9- The italics showcase my own emphasis and are not from the text). In this brief statement, Williams is discussing how in Ancient Greece, Sophist aided their “inferiors” by making them accept the superior ideals. They did not allow them to use their own voice, but forced on them this alien voice, the voice that Athens and Ancient Greece recognized as valuable.
Williams also discusses the importance of ethos to both ancient and modern scholars. He writes that “Citations associate writers’ ideas with those of published scholars, which makes those ideas seem more credible” (22). This idea again showcases the argument of superiority. A person can only be an intellectual and author if he or she has been published so that his or her opinion can be discussed in classrooms, conferences and student papers. Thus, they are the experts and we, the students, are to fully soak in their knowledge. Students are expected to fully agree the text and not to argue or point out its weaknesses since the student is inferior to the author. This idea of superiority is also seen in student assignments. Often times, students are given their paper topics and set about fulfilling those requirements. This idea of giving students paper topics is as old as Rome. Williams writes that “Students increasingly concentrated on ‘declamations’ on set themes…” and that “what was important was style and delivery” (33). Thus, the importance of the exercise was hitting the predestined marks that the teacher had outlined. Once again, these students were to forget their own thoughts and arguments. Hence many of these exercise started to “become ‘more bizarre and artificially contrived, [and] the exercise was especially associated with the scholasticus or ‘schoolman,’ and was called a ‘scholastic theme’” (33).
My last point is that for years, education has set up a label system and operated under it. There has always been the talented vs. the talentless, the honor vs. the general and the advanced vs. the remedial student. Williams writes that “he [Isocrates] admitted that he could not provide anyone with talent. This view dominated Western schools until modern times, resulting in higher education that was primarily for the intellectual elites” (16). At the end of the chapter, Williams also talks about how the Harvard Influence affected the American educational system. Thus, one is able to see that education has for years been tailored for the talented and that the idea of writing has been elevated to a pedestal (while writing itself has been demoted) which for many students toady remains out of reach because they have been taught to fear writing (that superior trait for scholars) or because they have never really been allowed the chance to cook and grow their works.
I really enjoyed this chapter and I apologize for the larger post. I have a lot to say about this topic, especially the Harvard Influence! I am looking forward to discussing this chapter with you all on Thursday! There really is a lot of great info in this chapter!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)