The relationship between the study of rhetoric and the development of virtue or an ethical sense has been debated since classical times.
A1. Discuss how views of this relationship have changed over time, or compare the issue across the Greek/Roman, Indian, and Chinese traditions we’ve discussed.

Over the course of history there have been many differing perspectives on the study of rhetoric and development of virtue. There have been many different opinions on just how rhetoric and morality come together. Rhetoric can be a powerful force, one that can insight people to actions they may not have otherwise done. As such one must discuss the proper use of rhetoric and what constitutes a moral usage of rhetoric.
The Greeks, especially Socrates, understood the power of rhetoric and as such feared its improper usage. During a conversation related by Plato between Socrates and Gorgias, Socrates questions Gorgias about the usage of rhetoric and whether the rhetorician is inherently just or moral. During this discussion Gorgias gives an example of the power of rhetoric.

On several occasions I have been with my brother Herodicus or some other physician to see one of his patients, who would not allow the physician to give him medicine, or apply a knife or hot iron to him; and I have persuaded him to do for me what he would not do for the physician just by the use of rhetoric. (Plato)

This sort of power is what Socrates fears if a rhetorician were to behave in an unjust manner. As Socrates points out, what Gorgias has told him is that “the rhetorician will have, greater powers of persuasion than the physician even in a matter of health[.]” (Plato) If those who practice rhetoric are not themselves moral they can use this ability to hold more power then those who are actually studied in the field. As such they must be taught morality but at the same time Socrates implies that though a rhetorician may be taught just behavior this does not guarantee that they will make a just decision. In Phaedrus, another conversation related to us by Plato taking place between Socrates and Phaedrus, Socrates describes what may occur should a rhetorician not be able to distinguish the difference between a good and an evil action.

And when the orator instead of putting an ass in the place of a horse, puts good for evil, being himself as ignorant of their true nature as the city on which he imposes is ignorant; and having studied the notions of the multitude, falsely persuades them not about ‘the shadow of an ass,’ which he confounds with a horse, but about good which he confounds with evil,—what will be the harvest which rhetoric will be likely to gather after the sowing of that seed? (Plato)

He ends by asking Phaedrus what would be the result, which Phaedrus responds that it would be evil. A rhetorician without the guide of morality can use his powers to bring evil unintentionally because he knew no better. It becomes of paramount importance that those who seek to convince others do so from a moral standpoint.
Aristotle, another Greek thinker, had slightly different views on rhetoric. Where Socrates viewed the practice of rhetoric with some concern and mistrust Aristotle talked about the uses of rhetoric. In a society such as the Greeks of this time it was very important to be able to argue your point in court so that you would not be taken advantage of. However, Aristotle still worried about that misuse of rhetoric. He believed that it was important to understand all sides of an argument so that one could defend against unfair arguments. He states:

…we must be able to employ persuasion, just as strict reasoning can be employed, on opposite sides of a question, not in order that we may in practice employ it in both ways (for we must not make people believe what is wrong), but in order that we may see clearly what the facts are, and that, if another man argues unfairly, we on our part may be able to confute him. (Aristotle)

If someone seeks to argue a point unfairly, or to make others believe something that is not true, then by studying rhetoric we can more ably defend ourselves from these attacks so that justice is observed. Where Socrates worried about the moral strength of the rhetorician Aristotle seems to believe that rhetoric itself can stop someone from misusing the powers of persuasion that they have.
When we compare Greco-Roman thoughts on the importance of morality to rhetorical traditions from other countries we can see similarities as well as differences in the thoughts of other countries. Largely this is because the focus of these other rhetorical traditions is different from those of the Greeks. The Nyaya Sutras, an Indian rhetorical form, has perhaps the greatest difference with that of the Greeks. The Nyaya Sutras are primarily concerned with the problems of the real world and the discovery of the truth of the world around us. Nyaya believes that “it is
fully possible to perceive rightly (prama), both on an individual and societal level, provided one is willing to apply the methods and look beyond desire and fear.” (Lloyd 369) Where Greco-Roman rhetoric was largely centered around convincing others of your opinion, and thus winning the argument, Indian rhetoric is more concerned with the discovery of truth in the world around it.
By focusing on the discovery of truth Indian rhetoric avoids much of the problems regarding the misuse of rhetoric which Socrates so feared. They do, however, have some concerns regarding the morality of the participants in a debate. Since the focus of Nyaya is on the discovery of truth there are different concerns. The style of debate which is most to be desired is what is termed vaya or honest debate. (Lloyd 368) Vaya focuses on striving to find the truth by using debate. Rather then trying to convince an audience of the truth of your argument you are seeking to come to a greater understanding of the world around you.
In contrast the two types of argument which may be employed by an unscrupulous rhetorician are jalpa and vitanda. Jalpa, which can be translated as “tricky” argumentation, is where one rhetorician attempts to win an argument by proving that he is the one who is correct. Rather then seeking truth jalpa is about winning, by fair means or foul. (Lloyd 368) In comparison vitanda is not about proving your point but rather destroying your opponent. One is not concerned with the strength of the argument but rather in discrediting the opponent. Victory is achieved when your opponent no longer has any credibility. Both of these are seen as a failing on the part of a rhetorician. As with the Greco-Roman concerns a person who was immoral would be able to use his debate to convince others of a falsehood, contrary to the goals of Nyaya. 
 In comparison to both the Greco-Roman and the Indian ideas about rhetoric the Chinese had their own concepts on the forms in which rhetoric should take. Though early Chinese rhetoric focused largely on the repetition of ritualistic communications in order to reinforce the cultural values of China, this was not its sole purpose, despite much misconceptions in the west, there was a large focus on the use of rhetoric as a means of politics. (Lu 6) As language became more and more important to the running of the nation a discussion began on the impacts of persuasion on the thoughts and actions of others. Moral arguments were often made based on the Mandate of Heaven, a concept which declared that actions of rulers would be rewarded on punished depending on their moral conduct, as well as by the moral example of ancient kings. (Lu 7) As such in order for an argument to be persuasive one must have a strong understanding of morality. If one could not make an argument that showed the moral truth if your reasoning then you would not be convincing, thus making a strong moral consciousness important. Certain schools of thought in China took a keen interest in the affects of speech. “The School of Confucianism, represented by Confucius, Mencius, and Xunzi, concentrated on issues of morality, in particular the moral impact of speech and moral character of the speaker on the cultivation and transformation of ethical behavior and social order.” (Lu 7) The Ancient Chinese recognized the importance, and power, of rhetoric to affect the thoughts of others and deemed it an important topic of study.
Though these three systems of rhetoric were created separate from one another we can see how each believed in the importance of understanding morality in respects to the practice of rhetoric. Though the precise views on what constituted moral behavior may have differed from nation to nation each understood that certain concepts of proper behavior were important for in order for rhetoric to be used to achieve good.
Looking at Western, Indian and Chinese classical rhetorics, we can see both similarities and differences.
B1. Is it possible to really understand the rhetorical tradition of another culture?  Explain why or why not, based on the arguments of Ezzaher Yameng Liu, Lu Xing and using examples from these texts and the Wenxin Diaolong, Nyaya Sutra’s and Incoherence of the Incoherence as needed.

The question of whether we can truly understand the rhetoric of another culture is a difficult one. Since we do not share the same cultural background we may have difficulty understanding the reasons behind the rhetorical style of another country. Some may even argue that there is no reason to study another countries rhetoric, that there is nothing that can be gained by looking at the rhetorical traditions of other countries. I, however, believe that not only are we capable of understanding the traditions of other countries but that this is a chance for us to expand our understanding of rhetoric as a whole.
In Liu Yameng’s article “To Capture the Essence of Chinese Rhetoric” we see an example of the difficulties in trying to understand another cultures rhetorical traditions. In this article Yameng discusses some of the misconceptions that have become prevalent in the west in regards to Chinese rhetoric. The commonly held perception of Chinese rhetoric based around the repetition of “…set phrases and maxims, following patterns, and imitating texts…” (Yameng 318) and that the primary goal of Chinese rhetoric is “…’[to] achieve social harmony and to express the views of the group by referring to tradition and relying on accepted patterns of expression…’” (Yameng 318) These ideas, however, were based on very little scholarly study. Yameng reveals that the assertions made by Matalene in her article were based upon the observations of some of the students in her classes. From these observations she generalized about all Chinese rhetoric. This is particularly worrisome in that China is a very diverse country comprising approximately 56 different ethnic, religious and linguistic groups. (Yameng 322) A country that is so diverse, especially one that has experienced such massive political upheavals, is more complex then Matalene makes it appear. Even amongst countries with the same cultural background in rhetoric we can see differences in rhetorical methods. For instance, in England it is more likely for an argument to follow an inductive approach while in the United States we are more likely to follow a deductive approach. Even though both of our nations have a similar cultural background, both being grounded in Greek rhetoric theory, we have come to different understandings of how to achieve those goals.
Attached with this problem of little actual evidence is a lack of study on the part of western rhetoricians. For some time there was a belief that Chinese rhetoric was not a “…well-conceptualized, textually based rhetorical tradition…” (Yameng 325) This was due to the lack of dedication on the part of western rhetoricians in their examination of Chinese rhetorical study. In the 1980s two books were released providing a collection of early Chinese rhetorical texts in chronological order. Not only did this disprove the belief that there were no written accounts of Chinese rhetoric, but also shows the thought behind the methods of Chinese rhetoric.
Much of the difficulty in understanding Chinese, or any other rhetorical tradition, comes from our conception that Greek descended rhetoric is the superior form. This is accompanied with a preconception of Chinese thought and culture and the differences between what is termed by Edward Said as Orientalism and Occidentalism. (Lu 14) These cultural preconceptions color much of our thought towards China. During the 19th century China became, in the western mind , a “weak, backward, and filthy country.” (Lu 15) This preconception of China extended to the quality of Chinese thought in areas such as rhetoric. Though knowledge of China has since become more plentiful it is still often portrayed in a dualistic light, western thought against eastern. This dualism still emphasizes the differences between the two rather then trying to seek a synthesis of thought. The vehemence with which any deviation from western thought can be found in an example from Keith Lloyd. In describing the criticisms of the Nyaya Sutras, an Indian text describing the practices of rhetoric from an Indian perspective. Lloyd quotes one such criticism: “Indeed the whole form of this philosophy is a proof of the incapacity of its expositors to enter into the intrinsic development of ideas, whatever knowledge they may have possessed of the external laws of composition.” (Lloyd 373) Not only is it implied that the form of rhetoric espoused in the Nyaya Sutras is inferior, but that this is because of the inability of those who created it to examine such ideas.
Despite this, I believe that some of the concepts of the Nyaya Sutras can actually lead us to understand other rhetorical traditions. One of the tenants of the Nyaya Sutras is vaya or “honest” debate. (Lloyd 368) This concept regards the goal of a debate on a subject. Traditionally a debate is viewed as a competition between the participants in order to prove that one or other of them is correct. Vaya, however, is a belief that the ultimate goal in any debate is the discovery of truth. All debate should be about increasing knowledge of that which is true, rather then seeking to win (jalpa) or to destroy your opponent (vitanda). (Lloyd 368) If we look at the discussion of eastern rhetoric as a sort of discussion we can see that generally the goal of the discussion has been to highlight the differences between western and eastern rhetoric. By accepting the concept of vaya we can turn the discussion from one of difference to one that seeks to create a greater understanding of the goal of rhetoric, not just here in the west but for all countries around the world. While this goal will be difficult, learning to think differently is not an easy task, but if we can learn to accept other traditions and to learn from them we advance our knowledge of rhetoric and perhaps come to a new understanding of both its purpose and it’s practice.
We can understand another culture and their rhetorical tradition. Though we may come from different perspectives we can still learn to understand both the culture behind the philosophy. Though this will not be an easy task it is far from impossible. What it requires, more then anything is a willingness to put aside ones own preconceptions and to be willing to put in the effort to not only learn about another culture but to engage in a dialog with others in order to create a greater understanding of the role of rhetoric in the world.