I completely agree with what Joel has written about the sense of caring and sharing in the Nyaya rhetorical perspective. It appears that within that system of dialogue and debate, the goal is to come to a common understanding of a situation and not merely about defeating an opponent. While some of the readings for class have focused on how to win the debate/argument and provide better points than your opponent, Nyaya is a system that looks out for the community. Readings from Plato, Aristotle, Quintillian and the like, urge for debates among rhetoricians but the Nyaya perspective appears to push for more discussion instead of debate. While it has 16 categories to how arguments take place, the Nyaya perspective notes that the first 10 detail how arguments should take occur while the final 6 detail how arguments should not occur. Those final 6 categories are more focused on dealing with your argument opponent instead of on the issue at hand in the discussion. This emphasis on the to 10 section of the list shows an attention to the topic and the effect the solution will have instead of placing attention on the rhetorician and their skill.
The question that caught my eye toward the end of the article was, “How would rhetoric differ if rhetors sought to define their arguments beyond their desires and fears, to find sharable ideas, common perspectives?” (Lloyd 381). If rhetoricians were to define their arguments in this fashion the fields of debate and oratory might be more popular than they currently are. As we discussed in class, the majority of us instantly think of politicians or salesmen when we think of the power of rhetoric. We also seemed to agree that those rhetoricians appeared to not be in the highest favor of the class. We think this way about these orators because of the way they use rhetoric. They constantly try to elevate their own situation even when they claim to be working for the common good. Allowing “debates” to become “discussions”, as it appears they are in the Nyaya perspective, would possibly change the public’s view of not only the field of rhetoric but also their view on the people who practice rhetoric. It would not create a “new” rhetoric but change the current views of it. I think that rhetoric itself would not change much but the way it is used to manipulate and deceive people definitely would. The Nyaya usage of rhetoric would bring people together instead of alienating them.