Much of the rhetoric that we have read up to now dealt with historic perspectives famous rhetoricians such as Aristotle, Cicero, Socrates, etc. However, this week’s reading took a turn for the better. I felt that for once it was easy for the authors to get to me with something simple but meaningful: “Samsaya, doubt, ‘an uncertain knoweledge’ (Singh 22), establishes the need for debate, leading to the arguer’s puporse (prayojana), to properly undestand the matter.” (Lloyd, 369) What a concept! To aruge is defined as to try to understand. How many of us have conscienciously entered into an argument thinking that? Don’t we most of the time argue (specially if it is a heated argument) with the purpose of making others understand our point or getting them to think like me? I find that not very often people tend to think or argue with the honest hope of understanding others. Our rhetorical world would be very different we follow that premise expressed in the Nyaya reading. Another point brought up by Lloyd is the idea of discussion (vada) being a way for others to seek agreeable solutions using the method of arguing (369). That is also rather different from what we have been reading. In fact, reading Gorgeas was more of a batching of Socrates’ oponent while Quintilian took a more peaceful approach to teaching rhetoric. I find most useful the idea of seeing rhetoric as a tool to engage others in the art (really the art) of understanding those who question our way of thinking or being. It may also be used as a way of looking for solutions, which is rather rare when thinking of an debating others. In deed, do any of us think of our daily rhetoric as a tool to find solutions, one that can be used in our school, professional, and personal life?
Most interesting, I find the fact that Indian rhetoric (as well as Chinese rhetoric) have been misrepresented in many cases ignored in the Western societies. Many may argue that it was lack of knowledge, and I am sure we can find others that may come up with some sort of pedagogical conspiracy theory as to why the East is not well studied/taught in the west or vice-versa, but for me, I wonder if the fact that rhetoric is the described as a tool of discovery but only as a tool of arguement in the Greece and Rome has anything to do with the fact that even today, western societies know very little about the Eastern culture in general.
Although the genesis of both eastern and western rhetoric can be attributed to religion and philosophy, it would be interesting to figure out where they departed thier own ways or how. We know that a misperception of the East may have affected the study of Eastern rhetoric, and gotten it catalogue as mystical or of less value. However, know that we know that those were misinterpretation, don’t we want to dig into them and try to rescue as much as possible from it, really get into it, and find out if that systematic system would be of any value to western rhetoric and the teaching of it? How about them? Have they studied us?
In addition, the study of the Nyaya was also a facinating reading. The idea of determining right and just being considered a science is indeed intiguing. The sixteen categories for determining the honest debate also become a great tool for rhetoricians. Who said we need to stick to the old syllogistic thinking that we inherited? That is not to imply that we should all together stop using it, but why not trying something new.
From this reading I also gather other important information.