Hey Everyone!
Sorry it took me a few days– was working all weekend, but finally got something down. I had plenty of questions after the reading, but I’m honestly more curious to see what you have to say than to ramble on ad nauseum. The questions I have down here are mainly jumping-off points…if you thought of a relevant example or question when reading the readings that I haven’t asked or referenced here, by all means, please include. As for a general idea of how many to answer, I’d like to hear what you have to say on at least two authors if not all three, but I’ll let you pick and choose which questions you’d prefer to address. Hopefully by the end of the discussion, we’ll have hit on all of them at least once. 
Thanks!
MaryAnn
Questions on the Medieval and Renaissance Readings—
Vico
- In “On the Study Methods of Our Time,” Vico examines not only the study methods of his time but those of the Ancients in an attempt to find the best methods to work toward, whether those methods were inspired by the past or present. He suggests that “to avoid both defects, I think, young men should be taught the totality of the sciences and arts, and their intellectual powers should be developed to the full; thus they will become familiar with the art of argument, drawn from the ars topica” (Vico 19). How does this idea compare to the views expressed in the Ramus reading?
- “It frequently occurs, in fact, that orators in a law court have greater difficulty with a case which is based on truth, but does not seem so, than with a case that is false but plausible” (Vico 13). Do you agree with this statement? Can you think of any real life examples to discuss?
- The idea of teaching students rhetoric through many disciplines is reminiscent to me of the constant struggle to get writing into other disciplines, not just English. Do you think writing across disciplines is an effective method? Do you feel the same way about rhetoric across disciplines? Do you tend to side with Vico or Ramus? Why or why not?
Ramus
- First off, Ramus is clearly, just by the title, arguing against Quintilian. What rhetorical strategies do you see at work in his argument? Is it effective, and does it convince you? Why or why not?
- When speaking of Quintilian’s assessment that a perfect orator must necessarily be a good man, Ramus uses the comparisons that “the grammarian is…not defined as skilled in speaking, writing, and singing” and “the geometrician is not defined as skilled in mea-surement and medicine” (4-5). Are these perfect syllogisms? Does virtue truly fall into the same category as singing or medicine?
- Ramus uses a constant flow of charged words, ones like “stupid” and “worthless.” How does that affect how you view his argument? Do you think that is part of his rhetorical strategy, and if so, is it an effective one?
Bain
- Bain puts plenty of emphasis in his chapter “The Paragraph” on the importance of word and sentence order. How important is order in an effective rhetorical argument? What connections do you see between Bain and the Ramus and Vico readings? Between Bain and what we’ve discussed in class so far?
Great questions MaryAnn. I’ll do my best to reply in full.
1. To answer your first question on Vico, I think that his view is completely different than that of Ramus. Ramus’s whole argument seems to go against the idea that one needs to know all sorts of other disciplines before one can be a good orator. You have pointed to some of Ramus’s arguments against these points in your second question under the Ramus section. It seems that Ramus questions what virtue has to do with being a good orator or even that virtue itself consists of knowledge in various subjects.
2. Responding to your 3rd question on Ramus, I didn’t like the style in which Ramus argued his points. It seemed from the very beginning that he used flattery when describing Cicero and Aristotle. I kept waiting for the “but” in his kind words. I didn’t believe him, and then he immediately asks me, the reader, to be unbiased in my judgement. I could see the point he was making in regards to Quintilian, but felt it was more of an attack than a seasoned argument. An argument for argument’s sake. Or as if he were arguing something that somebody else long before him stated because he couldn’t come up with anything on his own.
I could be wrong about him, but that’s the way I felt when reading him
Hi MaryAnn and Class! I am not sure if we are responsible for all of these questions individually but for starters, I will have a go at a couple.
Vico 1) I agree with Joel’s answer that the two authors greatly differ. Ramus’s text starts with a line in opposition to the Vico quote you provided with the question : “Most excellent Maecenas, the Greeks have a wise proverb which teaches that each man should practice the art which he knows” (Ramus, 1). This automatically isolates each man from arts they do not know. According to Vico, if one is to focus solely on natural sciences, “young men … are unable to engage in the life of the community, to conduct themselves with sufficient wisdom and prudence; nor can they infuse into their speech a familiarity with human psychology”(33-34). Thus, Vico advertises that “common sense” be developed first, then imagination/memory, followed by criticism which would provide the tools necessary to excel in “science… practical matters… eloquence… poetry,painting…memorizing legal studies”(19). I do not feel that Vico is advocating trying to study all disciplines, but rather starting students off on the right foot to be able to study all disciplines with an open mind, not an isolated, critiquing experience.
Ramus 1) From the onset of Ramus’s argument, I really disliked his text. Aristotle and Cicero were both born BC, Quintilian was born ca 35, and Ramus 1515. Is it a “good” rhetorical strategy to argue against individuals dead for 1500 years or more? However, one way to “make-a-name” for one’s self is to tackle the arguments of those made famous from said arguments. However, after attacking the three men, Ramus then turns to compliment each of them for their skills and influence. Had he not turned to “flattery”, he would of lost me…But does that say much for his argument?
Vico 1) Vico’s claim includes a broad range of disciplines compared to Ramus’ work. He also believes that students should learn imagination and memory before criticism. I found this to be an interesting assessment of education since we also seem to incorporate this method in our teaching. In earlier grades, critical thinking skills are not as emphasized until high school. With standardized testing, one may even argue that “criticism” doesn’t become a concentration until college. Ramus on other hand focuses a large part of his argument on reevaluating Quintillian’s definition of rhetoric. The distinction between morality and rhetoric is central to his work as he argues against Quintillian’s notion that a true orator is a good man. For Ramus, rhetoric does not include other arts as geometry does not include skills in medicine. Mostly, Ramus proves that Quintillian erred in his understanding of invention.
Ramus 2) It was quite puzzling reading this claim. Of course, geometry doesn’t necessarily apply to medicine; however, Ramus’ syllogism acts more like an enthymeme because he ignores the fact that discourses cross into one another. More to the point, the definition of rhetoric may not include virtue and vice, but surely rhetoricians confront these issues using their art; therefore, they should have knowledge in various areas.
Ramus 3)This is quite a comical observation that I am sure all of us noticed. The old ad hominem argument is a very ineffective strategy. Frankly, I find it insulting that Ramus would include this language as though he takes his audience for biased, unintelligent fools. Nevertheless, this type of language really does have an effect on certain individuals for particular arguments. Generally, it creates humor or stirs the crowd giving the speaker more support. In Ramus’ case, such language may have been effective depending on the culture, which I am assuming he considered when composing his piece.
Thanks for some interesting questions, MaryAnn, and greetings to everyone.
Question on Bain:
Bain puts plenty of emphasis in his chapter “The Paragraph” on the importance of word and sentence order. How important is order in an effective rhetorical argument? What connections do you see between Bain and the Ramus and Vico readings? Between Bain and what we’ve discussed in class so far?
My comments:
First let me say, despite its electron-microscopic analysis of paragraph writing and sentence ordering, I really enjoyed my exposure to Bain’s textbook English Composition and Rhetoric. I feel an improvement already in my compositional skills! I must read more of Bain. However, with due deference to the difference in tastes and time, I can’t help feeling that some of his advice seems excessively pedantic to the point of overworking the material—in a couple of cases actually creating monotony with his revisions. When he recommended rewriting the “Lord’s Prayer” to preserve parallelism, I think he had lost sight of larger issues.
As far as how important order is in an effective rhetorical argument, I would say it is every bit as important as Bain makes it in paragraph writing. As we have seen argued since Socrates, the practice of rhetoric aims at persuasion. To achieve that end, a speaker or writer must present material to an audience or reader palatably and understandably. That means pleasing order and generally sticking to the topic.
Where does Bain fit in with our other readings for this week, Vico and Ramus? The two earlier writers go to great lengths to make their cases for either including or excluding certain tangential subjects in the study of rhetoric. Is rhetoric separate from dialectic? Is virtue even relevant to a discussion of rhetoric? How closely can rhetoric or oratory be with other diverse academic disciplines? Bain completely ignores such concerns as ethics and dialectic. He concentrates on mechanics. As I read the Bain chapter, I began to see the paragraph as a machine that must have all its gears intermeshed efficiently or it will fail to run properly. Perhaps this is predictable for a textbook written in the late 1800s when the Industrial Revolution was in full swing.
The arc of opinion that this week’s selected readings shows in the understanding of rhetoric’s value and values seems to me to illustrate a great shift in academic thought on the subject.
Question on Ramus:
Ramus uses a constant flow of charged words, ones like “stupid” and “worthless.” How does that affect how you view his argument? Do you think that is part of his rhetorical strategy, and if so, is it an effective one?
Ramus’s supercilious tone and his use of what seems to me to border on ad hominem attacks—the name-calling you mention—is certainly a notable feature of “From Arguments in Rhetoric against Quintilian.” How did it affect my view of his argument? In some ways it made his piece more interesting, more lively, and it certainly gave me the impression that Ramus wrote from real passion about his topic. That said, if I read some modern academic piece that used the same denigrating tone and verbal assault on another writer’s work, I would feel extremely put off by such a style. I would say that if the writer’s argument had any real validity, he or she would not find it necessary to employ such tactics. They seem a little childish and ill-tempered, and they do nothing to reinforce the logical arguments presented.
Why then do I find them charming in Ramus? Maybe it is because such a piece as Ramus’s could be very dry indeed, and his is not. Or maybe I just enjoyed his spirit. Also, I tried to make allowances for what must have been a different accepted style five hundred years ago. I do feel a little bad though for poor Quintilian who is the object of Ramus’ literary ire and can do nothing to defend himself against the attack. I think that Ramus might have been well-advised to see the differences between his opinion and Quintilian’s—a man from a different culture and separated from Ramus by more than a millennium—as partly stemming from those differences, not simply a product of faulty reasoning on Quintilian’s part. But them I must remind myself that the document Ramus is criticizing had likely been highly influential for a long time. Maybe Quintilian was a balloon full of hot air that Ramus thought needed puncturing with some logic and some irreverence.
Question on Vico”
“It frequently occurs, in fact, that orators in a law court have greater difficulty with a case which is based on truth, but does not seem so, than with a case that is false but plausible” (Vico 13). Do you agree with this statement? Can you think of any real life examples to discuss?
I think Vico makes a valid point about the nature of judging circumstances surrounding events which inevitably include ambiguity. Also, I think that the phenomenon Vico describes is the basis for nearly every TV show about lawyers and courts from Perry Mason to Law and Order. When I read this question, my first thoughts went to the trial of O. J. Simpson. I am always a little sheepish to admit this, but I followed that media circus through all its gavel-to-gavel coverage. I read numerous books by the participants—all the arguments from prosecutors, defense attorneys, jury members, and journalists. The prosecutors believed that they had mountains of hard evidence, tight time lines, reliable witnesses, and above all, truth on their side. It all went out the window when Johnnie Cochran chanted, “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit,” referring to the murder gloves which had seemed too small for the football player’s large hands. I do not make a judgment myself about the validity of either side’s case, only that there was a clash between plausibility and actuality in that courtroom. On the whole, my experience is that plenty of people are more convinced by plausibility than facts, by emotional arguments than logical ones.
Anne, I really enjoyed your comments :). I, too, enjoyed Bain, but then I’ve always been a bit of a freak about grammar… I really think you had a valid point with the fact that Bain is pedantic to the point of losing sight of the larger issues. His comments on the “Lord’s Prayer” seriously make me quirk up an eyebrow. I also think you put it very well that the different readings show a shift in academic thought on the subject.
As far as your response to Ramus, I can understand that you find charm in his style and your wonder whether this type of ad hominem argument would have been accepted then. However, I can’t reconcile his ad hominem tactics to an age peppered by knowledge and reason. To me, his tactics don’t fit. I felt terrible for poor Quintilian. But I must admit, his argument is somewhat effective, and if an ad hominem argument against someone long dead is somewhat effective, I suppose it really must be true–virtue isn’t necessary in a good orator, haha.
Your answer on Vico made me laugh, Anne, because that was the exact case I had in mind when I wrote it! I, too, am a sucker for law shows and the OJ case. Your line “On the whole, my experience is that plenty of people are more convinced by plausibility than facts, by emotional arguments than logical ones” is seriously golden to me. I completely agree. I also think it works the other way. Plenty of people have been convicted wrongfully, and emotional arguments and preconceived biases play a pretty big part in that.
Thank you for some great responses! I love reading them, Anne
Jocias,
You brought up some very valid points here. I agree with your Vico response, in fact, that was pretty much the idea I had in my head when I wrote the question. I really liked your comment about standardized testing, too. It seems very true to me that “criticism” doesn’t become a concentration until college given the fact that teachers have to have students study for tests instead of studying for actual academic topics.
On Ramus, yeah I completely agree that he ignores the possibility of discourses crossing into one another. That was pretty much what I thought when I read it, too. As for the ad hominem argument, I found it a very insulting tactic as well. However, your point about the argument being effective and emotionally stirring is also very true. Anne said something similar when she mentioned that regardless of his tactic, she found his passion on the subject pleasing, and his emotional approach helped to hold her interest.
Thank you for the responses, I really enjoyed and agreed with them!
Hey Kyle,
Yeah, I didn’t expect you guys to answer them all, I just wrote down all the questions that came to mind when I was doing the reading, lol. I really enjoyed your responses, though! I, too, could see Joel’s point about the authors differing greatly, and I really liked your point that you “do not feel that Vico is advocating trying to study all disciplines, but rather starting students on on the right foot to be able to study all disciplines with an open mind, not an isolated, critiquing experience.” That is a brilliant observation, and I really agree. I didn’t think about it that way at first when I read it, so thank you for the observation :).
And your response to Ramus made me smile, lol. I doubt I’m supposed to pick sides with these responses, but I can’t say I was much a fan of Ramus’ text, either. I also can’t say that turning to flattering after constant attacks says much for his arguments, but at least with the flattery, he puts his more ad hominem claims in perspective (thankfully, because I really felt like I was losing perspective after hearing how “stupid” Quintilian was for twenty something pages).
Thank you for your responses, Kyle! I felt more like I wasn’t completely alone in my assessments after reading them, haha.
Joel,
Thank you for your responses :). I really enjoyed reading them and I agreed with a lot of the points you brought up.
Yes, Vico seems to have a completely different view than that of Ramus, and you mention the main distinctions in your response. As for Ramus, yeah, the style of his argument is much different. His flattery of Cicero and Aristotle seems false- I, too, was waiting for the “but.” I expected that if he was flattering them that much, he’d at least have something more constructive to add. However, then with Quintilian, it really did feel more like an attack, like you said. “An argument for argument’s sake,” you said, and I really agree. I think you were quite right about him, actually
Thanks MaryAnn for putting some thought provoking questions.
Question on Vico
In “On the Study Methods of Our Time,” Vico examines not only the study methods of his time but those of the Ancients in an attempt to find the best methods to work toward, whether those methods were inspired by the past or present. He suggests that “to avoid both defects, I think, young men should be taught the totality of the sciences and arts, and their intellectual powers should be developed to the full; thus they will become familiar with the art of argument, drawn from the ars topica” (Vico 19). How does this idea compare to the views expressed in the Ramus reading?
My Comments:
I agree with Vico that the totality of the science and arts can develop the intellectual faculties of students. Pursuing knowledge is a continuous struggle. One needs to have knowledge of all the subjects, the knowledge of the past and present as without it one cannot plan for future. Knowledge is a like a cycle of life as one person contributes in the world and goes away and gives place to the next person and cycle goes on, same is the case with the knowledge of the ancients and moderns. The ancients have contributed their parts and to excel in their field it is really important for rhetoricians to have the knowledge of science and arts and, of present and past, and of ancient and moderns. Besides that modern world is a global phenomena and it is dare need to know as much one can. The basis of knowledge comes from the ancients. As for Ramus I think he is biased in his approach toward the ancients.
The idea of teaching students rhetoric through many disciplines is reminiscent to me of the constant struggle to get writing into other disciplines, not just English. Do you think writing across disciplines is an effective method? Do you feel the same way about rhetoric across disciplines? Do you tend to side with Vico or Ramus? Why or why not?
My Comments:
Again I agree with Vico’s interdisciplinary approach. I think writing is present in all the other disciplines but with different approach and pattern. Look at the different kinds of wiring like academic, business, journalistic, report writing practiced in the modern age. In the same way rhetoric across discipline can widen the scope of the argument and make it influential and forceful.
Question on Ramus
When speaking of Quintilian’s assessment that a perfect orator must necessarily be a good man, Ramus uses the comparisons that “the grammarian is…not defined as skilled in speaking, writing, and singing” and “the geometrician is not defined as skilled in mea-surement and medicine” (4-5). Are these perfect syllogisms? Does virtue truly fall into the same category as singing or medicine?
My Comments:
As far as the argument of good man is concerned I interpret Quintilian views in the different way, not a good man in the sense of virtue but a man who has sound knowledge and knows who to inculcate his understandings to others, as in the words of Quintilian “I have undertaken to form a perfect orator whom I would have, above all, to be a good man, return to those who have better thoughts of the art.(44)” In my opinion it has nothing to do with virtue as interpreted by Ramus. I think Ramus has made his mind to write against Quintilian without analyzing his thoughts objectively and at the same time trying to force his opinion on others by using the words like stupid, worthless, and useless. Yes very right that he is using these words to convince his readers and these can be called rhetoric devices but I think not a kind of rhetoric devices that can impress readers. I think Ramus is biased in his approach towards Quintilian.
Question on Bain
Bain puts plenty of emphasis in his chapter “The Paragraph” on the importance of word and sentence order. How important is order in an effective rhetorical argument? What connections do you see between Bain and the Ramus and Vico readings? Between Bain and what we’ve discussed in class so far?
My Comments:
All the tips given by Bain are really effective but if I can remember them all when I am writing a paragraph. The emphasis on word and sentence order is really crucial in the paragraph writing but it is really interesting to read some of the readings that violate the rules of paragraph writing but are still very effective. Strange!
Mary Ann, these are great questions! I really like the comparisons you make between things and how you connect them to things relevant today.
Vico, 3: As a writing tutor, I’ve been a fan of writing across the disciplines. I think writing is a skill that is needed for any profession; people always need to write. I also think that writing is another way for people to express themselves. It can enhance the articulate ability of an individual. While some may laugh at the idea of writing in a subject like Math or Chemistry, I think that it’s a skill that is more beneficial than harmful to know. If a person in Math or Chemistry has to write an article presenting information about research, wouldn’t it be best for that person to be skilled in writing? Wouldn’t it be more convincing if the person who did the research wrote about it eloquently? I think that rhetoric across the disciplines is an interesting perspective. I think it would be an effective method. While I’m not in agreement with Vico when he says that “I would suggest our professors should so co-ordinate all disciplines into a single system so as to harmonize them with our religion and with our spirit of the political form,” I do agree that being knowledgeable about rhetoric in all disciplines would do more good than harm. To me, being smart isn’t just about knowing a lot about a single subject, it’s about being able to talk about that subject, to explain different components of it, in a way that everyone can comprehend. I think that this is a key element of rhetoric; the language used is something that everyone can understand, regardless of their specialty. I also think that rhetoric being a part of every discipline would only increase the knowledge people have about a particular subject.
I tend to side with Vico, because I think that true rhetoric encompasses all disciplines. I don’t think that rhetoric is something that stands on its own. How often do people use rhetoric to talk about rhetoric? It’s used to talk about other subjects, to persuade people in a wide variety of areas. For rhetoric to be separate would disregard all of the subjects that it covers. For a person to be truly believable, I think a knowledge of different subjects is necessary, unless the audience isn’t familiar with the various topics. But I don’t think ignorance is something that can be preyed on in every situation, so rhetoric across the disciplines needs to be implemented to succeed.
Ramus 1 & 3: My thoughts on questions 1 and 3 for Ramus are pretty much one in the same. I thought that Ramus used a rhetorical strategy that I would call “bullying” for lack of a better term. Basically, he used words like “stupid” and “worthless” against Quintilian to prove his point; he put Quintilian down while bringing himself up. It also came across as unoriginal to me. Can’t this guy think of a better way to convince me than using second grade language? I don’t think he appealed to the audience. When he addresses the audience in saying, “Listen to me with willing and impartial minds to the extent that unwavering reason will convince, to the extent that certain conclusion will estab-lish, finally to the extent that truth itself – which cannot be refuted or disproved – will hold firm;” I felt like he was being bossy, telling the audience to “Listen” with a specific frame of mind. It came off as pushy, like the audience had no other alternative, like we couldn’t think for ourselves. As Joel suggested, it also seemed a little hypocritical. We’re supposed to be unbiased, but he isn’t? He definitely isn’t leading by example.
Needless to say, he didn’t convince me. His pushy and conceited attitude turned me off to his whole perspective. I found his strategy to be distracting and condescending. In another situation, this might work. Maybe if the bullying was subtle, if I didn’t know anything else about rhetoric, or if I already thought a little bit that Quintilian was all wrong in his ideas, Ramus would have been successful, but in this instance, it fell flat, leaving me more annoyed than persuaded.
Bain: I like how you raise the question about order in effective rhetorical arguments. I think it’s interesting what Bain has to say about different mechanics of language being implemented in different parts of rhetoric, but I wonder if the importance of these ideas and the order would vary from one culture to the next. For example, in the writings on rhetoric from Plato, it seemed like a lot of the arguments jumped around or made a circle, there wasn’t necessarily a linear order that they took. Maybe this was part of the culture, maybe it was a reflection of the times, whatever the reason, it isn’t the same sort of style that’s used in effective rhetoric today. I think that in our society, order is incredibly important, a linear order to be specific. People seem to like things that they can follow, that build up or make sense. We like things that are logical and lead us to a point, rather than looping around to get there.
I think that the ideas Bain discusses especially connect with the Ramus reading. The syllogisms Ramus uses seem to relate to this idea of order and logic, of connecting ideas together. While Ramus did have plenty floating around in his speech, he also used a lot of, “Quintilian said this, and he should have said that.” To me, this is a type of order that Bain touches on. Ramus is showing how things are connected; he’s leading up to his ideas.
As far as the connection to the Vico reading, he uses some connective discourse. Saying things like “Furthermore, I believe,” and “In addition..” I think that while the topic Bain discusses may not connect to the topics Vico and Ramus discuss, the techniques he recommends are demonstrated in the other two readings. Vico and Ramus put Bain’s plans into action.
Hi Everyone.
Thanks for the Questions MaryAnne
Question on Ramus: Ramus uses a constant flow of charged words, ones like “stupid” and “worthless.” How does that affect how you view his argument? Do you think that is part of his rhetorical strategy, and if so, is it an effective one?
“I assert indeed that such a definition of an orator seems to me to be useless and stupid: Why? Because a definition of any artist which covers more than is included in the rules of his art is superfluous and defective”
Ramus directly attacks Quintilian’s arguments in an aggressive manner. He not only implies that his definition of rhetoric is “stupid”, but using the term “defective” makes one wonder if Quintilian’s arguments were faulty. I feel Ramus’ charged words are apart of his rhetorical strategy but are effective to a certain extent. His use of attacking terms makes his piece confrontational, as if he is not afraid to attack Quintilian. His charged words give him power but also make him appear as a bully. Aristotle and Plato appear to bully their audience also, but do so in the confinement of their own argument. Ramus directly insults Quintilian, “Yet now Quintilian follows Aristotle’s and Cicero’s confusion of dialectic and rhetoric. In-deed he makes it worse by fabrications of his own, and by including in his teachings”. It’s humorous how Ramus asks his audience to not judge his accusations but he completely judges Quintilian’s entire argument, that the orator needs to be seasoned in all disciplines. He feels this theory is outrageous and attacks Quintilian for using too many syllogisms. His references to Quintilian’s use of syllogisms are effective because he gives concrete examples, but his other arguments are just insults.
Alex I like your response on the Bain reading, I would like to elaborate on your ideas with some examples. Bain requires a specific structure to argument, which I feel is contradictory to many of the philosophers we have read. Plato and Socrates’ arguments are filled with syllogisms and ideas that have no linear structure. For example, Ramus implies that Quintilian, Aristitle and Cicero, make claims that don’t make sense:
Ramus: “For the artist must be defined according to the rules of his art, so that only as much of the art as the true, proper principles cover – this much is attributed to the artist, and nothing further”.
Example:
The grammarian is defined as skilled in speaking and writing cor-rectly; he is not defined as skilled in speaking, writing, and “singing”.
Ramus also comments on the syllogisms used by many of the Greek philosophers “dialectic is a virtue, so therefore is rhetoric”. The Greek Philosophers make claims that do not fit the structure Bain implies in his writings.