Today’s Plan:
- Any thoughts on the paper?
- Lanham, Carter, Sullivan
- For Next Class
Lanham, Carter, and Sullivan
Let’s talk and review.
For Next Class
First, a number of y’all have already read Jim Corder’s “Argument as Emergence, Rhetoric as Love.” I’d like to talk about that reading on Thursday–so read the Corder and add that to the shared reading space (#6) on Thursday. Shared reading #7 is the Lahnam.
For Thursday, I’m going to give you a choice. This is tricky, so I’m changing the shared reading space a bit. If you are interested in “sophistry,” in a relativistic ontology/epistemology (in postmodernism or feminism, then read the second chapter in the McComiskey–I’ll get a .pdf of that up soon).
Or read the Grassi, which is really one of my favorites (he talks about the roots of Renaissance Italian rhetoric, which picks up Cicero and is more “sophistic” than Platonic/Aristotelian). If you dig the Lanham, then go to Grassi. Isocrates and civic fans will like this one. If you are interested in team Civics, but Grassi is too much, then read the Barlow on Cicero.
For those who are really struggling and want some sense of grounding, read the Herrick. I teach Herrick in 201 as an introduction to the basic foundations of rhetoric(s). Herrick traces four different understandings/purposes of rhetoric. As with Lanham, you will be able to play the “who goes where?” game.
Regardless of who you read here–simply understand that the “trickiest” theorist to categorize is Aristotle. Do you see him as close to Plato? Or is he closer to Isocrates? And what are the questions I need to ask to start making these comparisons? What questions matter? HINT #1: I have given you a list of these questions. HINT #2 (especially for the folks who read Grassi): Which question matters to you?
If you are on team Plato, then read this. And fear not, one of my former graduate students (I chaired his MA) is a true disciple of Plato. My job is to teach you how to think, what constitutes a thought, not what to think.
