mid 19th century: from French répertoire, from late Latin repertorium

When prompted with the indeterminable, a (good) rhetor reframes the discussion to something more concrete.

Perhaps something like a "fence" between friends, or "unlocking" one's potential?

Rhetors are creative, but are limited by sme constraints, which Vatz neglects to discuss in much detail.

And why literate are usually much more advanced and longer-lasting than purely oral cultures/

I would hope that my rhetoric professor thinks that rhetoric and composition still exist!

Def. adjective

1. digressing from subject to subject.
2. relating to discourse or modes of discourse.

TIL this a thing.

I'm now tempted to start a new movement called post-postism (or maybe afterism), which would be a satirical take on what seems to be a lack of originality all across modern academia (why is everything "post"? Can't we be a little more original?)

Feminist writer known for her "Cyborg Manifesto".

Also, she had a cameo appearance in Episode 2 of the anime "Ghost in the Shell" (which is appropriate given her academic background), albeit a somewhat satirical one poking fun at her haughtiness.

Society itself is post-human, but computers and mechanical technologies just make it increasingly apparent. I would make a similar argument for our understanding of postmodernism as well.

Money has been (and will always be) the greatest unspoken persuader, so it is better to find new and interesting uses for it than to be completely resentful of it.

This sounds like the most post-humanist rhetoric I've ever heard.

Living in society disrupts the more natural state of us. Like canaries in coal mines, caught someplace where we really shouldn't be.

It took me longer than I like to admit to realize that this was not Hypothesis Is's highlighter.

Mid 17th century: from French naïve, feminine of naïf, from Latin nativus ‘native, natural.’

A thing is not just the "thing" that it was made to be, but is instead a cumulation of many other "things". Such as how we, human beings, are made of billions of little living things, which they themselves are made up of even smaller things. It's things all they way down.

In my own apartment, I have many things from all around the world. A TV made in Japan. A seashell from the Atlantic. A vinyl record that I bought in New Orleans. My St. Louisian dwelling is more than just a thing to live in. No, it is much, much more than that.

Technology threatens our ability to see the bigger picture (in Heidegger's view).

The "things" in our lives have more than one use, even if they were originally only designed for just one anyway. In the bridge example, not only is it a practical means of crossing rivers and ravines, but it also seeps into our modern day vocabulary as a symbol of compromise (building a "bridge" between people).

Home is where the heart is?

Def. adj. 1) relating to the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being.

2) showing the relations between the concepts and categories in a subject area or domain.

What do we imply when we assert that one is "computer literate"? How is this different from traditional literacy?

Not really related but...

One could see this with how she writes in this very text. Alternating between English and Spanish phrases and sentences, mixing and matching the words a la Spanglish - her twin identity emerges within in the very text.

What? Spanish is easily the biggest secondary language taught in the US nowadays. Was it really that looked-down upon back then?

etymology: borrowed from Latin terraemotus (earthquake)

In this scenario, meaning "rocks/earth".

Ah, now I know where the "Chicano" part of "Chicano Batman" comes from (They are

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3k9TVfnHH8Q

“When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.”

George R. R. Martin (through Tyrion Lannister)

noun. a person's social environment.

If you ever want to waste hours of your life learning about tropes in popular culture, feel free to visit this website

I find it interesting how, in the black congregation, the sermon serves as building up the communal aspect of the church, while in more white congregations the sermon is reserved for the priest and the priest alone. I wonder how this impacts the rhetorical traditions of each?

noun. formal. pl people who take part in a dialogue or conversation.

nonun - 1) the study of the nature of value and valuation, and of the kinds of things that are valuable.

2) a particular theory of axiology. "all consequentialists start with an axiology which tells us what things are valuable or fitting to desire"

A call for all women to write about how they feel - to not feel limited by some old standard...

That's an awesome phrase.

Of course, it's also a song from this metal album!

Gestures (which is another form of symbolism) give weight to words that may otherwise go unnoticed in a purely written sense. Words, by themselves, carry significantly less rhetorical weight.

Symbols can both help us elaborate on topics, but they also hold us back from intrinsically understanding them.

Rhetoricians neuter the traditional aspects of masculine and feminine language as a means to accomplish their end goals... or am I reading this wrong?

Reminds me of Burke and his elaborations on the role figurative language plays in rhetoric - and how that impacts such ratios as act-scene, agent-scene, agency-purpose, etc.

There is more to humanity than being "moist robots", as modern day rhetorical critic and philosopher (and cartoonist) Scott Adams might purport.

To Weaver, all humans have, in the least, a "soul", it is important that that soul is recognized and catered to.

Something tells me that Weaver would love Trump and his populist rhetoric, if for this reason alone.

Also, is he advocating for the weak or strong defense here? I would assume the weak, but I could see a case be made for him pushing the Strong.

I've never thought of it quite like that, but that's exactly what it is.

Reminds me of how Nathaniel explained to us how at first dictionaries were just lists of words, but evolved to become the mighty canons of language that they are today. Nowadays, they contain the bulk of rhetorical essence that our modern tradition utilizes.

1800's biologist, supporter of Darwin and avid fighter of extremist Christian interpretation. Weaver uses him as an example of how scientific rhetoric utilized logic and reason to dominate debate, especially with the religiously inclined as their opposition.

Also, was it a requirement for writers of the 1800's and early 1900's to have bad ass hairstyles? I mean, my God. Mustaches, beards and sideburns everywhere.

Not everything intrinsic is unique - hell, it's probably quite the opposite. Commonality is more likely than the wholly separate.

adjective. Tending or aiming to exhort.

the central bank relied on hortatory messages and voluntary compliance

Engels was a German philosopher, and one of the two folks who founded Marxism and wrote The Communist Manifesto... with that other guy, what was his name again?

Interesting how Burke weaves him in to his work and uses him as a portrait of expressing a secular (albeit impressively negative) account of history.

noun, plural casuistries. 1. specious, deceptive, or oversubtle reasoning, especially in questions of morality; fallacious or dishonest application of general principles; sophistry.

2. the application of general ethical principles to particular cases of conscience or conduct.

Ugh. Good point.

early 15c., from un- (1) "not" + past participle of perturb (v.)

perturb

late 14c., from Old French perturber "disturb, confuse" (14c.) and directly from Latin perturbare "to confuse, disorder, disturb," especially of states of the mind, from per "through" (see per) + turbare "disturb, confuse," from turba "turmoil, crowd" (see turbid). Related: Perturbed; perturbing.

Nice alliteration. On another note, she's making reference to how female writing seems to only prop up every few centuries. There were various reasons for this, but oppression and silence of opinion were major components. But a renaissance of female fiction helped kick this trend into the dust.

Writing can provide a living, but maybe not quite the most luxurious one.

People spend their money on frivolous things, such as stories, yet she's also the one who just bought a Persian cat. Humans will tend to financially support the superficial, but these things can also have unseen deeper meanings, such as the companionship a cat provides or the rhetorical experience a novel brings.

As to be expected by someone with the last name of "Woolf".

I'll see myself out now.

She's advocating for meritocracy?

If so, I'm all on-board!

Women having greater intellectual prowess shouldn't be seen as a curse by men, but as a blessing.

Women are much more saintly and spirited than a vast majority of men, so why can't they be the clerics?

Reminds me a lot of Stewart's argument for greater female participation in the Church, despite St. Paul's often-referenced passage. I do think it's funny just how much power this one passage has, and how it is so often either challenged or cited by Christian feminists or Christian traditionalists, respectively.

On a side note, I also find it a source of pride that it was through Christian theoretical rhetoric that women began the push for greater equality and independence.

A person skilled in exegesis

exegesis

Critical explanation or analysis, especially of a text.

Quite ironic, if I have to say.

Metaphors must be simple... so what then would Spencer think of Nietzsche's argument that it's just metaphors all the way down?

Again, here is Spencer with the idea of humans maintaining an economic mind. Brown horses are typically most common, so that is what our brain defaults to until more information is added.

Couldn't this also be a good case for why adjectives should come before nouns?

Smaller words better capture our direct thoughts, at least in Spencer's eyes. I wonder then, does he also find humans less advanced than we would like to consider, or even more so, since our language is so on-point?

Tristram Shandy is the titular character of a novel written by Irish author Lawrence Sterne, a humorous and satirical novel that somewhat takes the piss to those who prided themselves on extreme eloquence (Tristram's birth, usually the first passage of a biography, isn't described to chapter 3).

Interesting how, even a century ago, fictional characters made for eye-catching introductions.

Quick, someone get out the Hume!

Def. noun. Concealment of one's thoughts, feelings, or character; pretense.

Def. noun, pl. The attribution of human traits, emotions, and intentions to non-human entities and is considered to be an innate tendency of human psychology

Nietzsche uses Chladni's sound plates to demonstrate the arbitrary nature of what humans understand sound (and thus language) to be.

It's just metaphors used to make us feel more in control of a chaotic world.

To the gnat, the universe is all about him. We'd like to think they same about us, although we tend to consider ourselves far more superior and meaningful than a "lowly" gnat.

Old English gnæt "gnat, midge, small flying insect," earlier gneat, from Proto-Germanic *gnattaz (source also of Low German gnatte, German Gnitze); perhaps literally "biting insect" and related to gnaw.

The gnatte is a litil fflye, and hatte culex he soukeþ blood and haþ in his mouþ a pipe, as hit were a pricke. And is a-countid a-mong volatiles and greueþ slepinge men wiþ noyse & wiþ bytinge and wakeþ hem of here reste. [John of Trevisa, translation of Bartholomew de Glanville's "De proprietatibus rerum," 1398]

Gnat-catcher, insectivorous bird of the U.S. woodlands, is from 1823.

From Middle English hiderto, corresponding to hither +‎ to.

hither

Old English hider, from Proto-Germanic hideran (source also of Old Norse heðra "here," Gothic hidre "hither"), from Germanic demonstrative base hi- (compare he, here). Spelling change from -d- to -th- is the same evolution seen in father, etc. Relation to here is the same as that of thither to there.

Humans desire to feel the need to create the illusion of order in what is actually a chaotic world..

Looks like Nietzsche isn't the only one who loves the potential that metaphor provides.

Although Nietzsche's argumentation is quite emotionally cold, so I wonder if Hill would find him using simile more appropriate. Or does Nietzsche's burning zingers and exhaustive outlook give him a better case?

Paragraphs need to create a plan and stick to it! No ramblin' men!

Descriptivists describe, systematically recording and analyzing the endlessly changing ways people speak and write. Descriptive advice is, as Jesse Sheidlower put it, almost an oxymoron.

Motif of fire...

It's interesting how both Astell and Stewart, two of the oldest female rhetoricians we have studied, were very overt in their expressions of Christian spirituality, something that their male counterparts were less keen to do in comparison.

I wonder if this may have had something to do with their (relative) success as rhetoricians? Being female, especially one of color, is challenging enough, but bringing Christianity into it may have granted them an avenue to be discussed hundreds of years after their words first graced paper...

Discussing prejudice ironically keeps it alive; it is only through action and relationships that prejudice can be phased out.

This sentiment is slightly concerning, though. If one never discusses how they may be prejudiced against, will they ever be able to recognize it and act appropriately? Can prejudice by solved through action and character alone?

Interesting how this correlates to her call for free American persons of color to be more ambitious and hardworking a few pages ago. To decrease prejudice, she seems to be saying that the marginalized community must meet it head-on. While she does at least partially blame prejudice for giving birth to the loss of ambition in the black community, she is still advocating for them to rise to the challenge so that their descendants' lives will be much easier.

I also want to point out that the Mr. William Garrison is the very same who was such a great influence in Stewart's life.

It was a long and spirited effort that began in his youth with Mrs Auld, but his patience and determination powered through. He was really exceptional in many ways, but without the proper guidance and aid he may never had the historical impact he ended up having.

Proves that great rhetoricians need great resources to get them started!

Ignorance may be bliss...

But intelligence can change society.

When one breaks legality by educating a child, one must know that society needs to be reforged. I wonder how much this singular incident inspired Douglas to become the historic individual he eventually became.

An example of how great rhetoric can shift human history. It's crazy to consider what the U. S. could've looked like had there been a mass exodus of African-American people as Lincoln originally advocated for...

The Church is feminine, so why can't her hierarchy be?

Some might argue that a woman loses her character the more she follows the Holy Spirit, yet Palmer insists that nothing could be further form the truth. Religion, she argues, actually strengthens a lady's resolve.

I would personally wager that she was one of the greatest female rulers of all time (maybe only ousted by Russia's Catherine the Great), and monitored an extraordinary era of Britain's history that many, even today, reminisce and romanticize over.

If you're going to chose any one woman to demonstrate how good of leaders they can be, you're not going to get much better than the Britain's beloved matriarch. So good example, Palmer.

It does beg the question, though: Is she really such a good example if Palmer is advocating for greater female involvement in the church? Are an imperiastic queen and a hypothetical female priestess inherently compatible?

I think this is the crux to her whole argument throughout all of these letters - she is making appeals to Christian men to reconsider their views on women through using the Bible 's teachings against them. I find that to be excellent rhetoric, because it starts with pacing with the opposition's views ("I'm a Christian, just like you!") and then subverting traditional dispositions ("As a good Christian, I wonder how men and women can be equal in God's eyes when this part of the bible disputes that claim?", etc.).

She's ecstatic that women, like the slaves, will be able to fight for more rights and free themselves from oppression, even if that end result is still far down the road. At least people are starting to "wake up" to how subservient and lower class women are seen as in this time, even those most adamant on keeping those customs.

A hauntingly beautiful city, if I may add.

n. Def. the fact or condition of being magnanimous; generosity

Magnanimous - adj. very generous or forgiving, especially toward a rival or someone less powerful than oneself.

adj.& adv.

Def. Based on the first impression; accepted as correct until proved otherwise.

I quite like this. A man is not "innocent or guilty" during his trial, but is instead just an observer to his accusers and the evidence that is put against him. We shouldn't determine one's innocence or guilt by their argument or appearance alone, but instead look at the total case and find the more logically supported argument. We should use similar presumption in rhetoric, and challenge those presumptions only when our Burden of Proof is too big to ignore.

It's basically a call to support the more sound arguments.

It can generally be agreed that the composition of an argument also befalls under the general umbrella of rhetoric.

early 15c., "to inform, to give assurance," from Anglo-French acerteiner, Old French acertener "to assure, certify" (13c.), from a "to" (see ad-) + certain "sure, assured" (see certain). Modern meaning of "find out for sure by experiment or investigation" is first attested 1794. Related: Ascertained; ascertaining.

late Middle English: from Old French ethimologie, via Latin from Greek etumologia, from etumologos ‘student of etymology,’ from etumon, neuter singular of etumos ‘true.’

"When objects of any kind are first presented to the eye of imagination, the sentiment, which attends them, is obscure and confused; and the mind is, in a great measure, in-capable of pronouncing concerning their merits or defects. " - Hume

"Those who found morality on sentiment, more than on reason, are inclined to comprehend ethics under the former observation, and to maintain, that, in all questions, which regard conduct and manners, the difference among men is really greater than at first sight it appears." - Hume

"The imagination is addressed by exhibiting to it a lively and beautiful representation of a suitable object." - Campbell

Jet fuel can't melt steel beams...

"Accordingly, in all tongues, perhaps without exception, the ordinary terms, which are considered as literally expressive of the latter [material subjects], are also used promiscuously to denote the former [spiritual subjects]." - Campbell

Hey that sounds familiar...

Rhetoric and logic are linked, or, in other words, words and thoughts are linked.

The soul is as much part of nature as the body is, and thus needs to be included taxonomically.

It is what differentiates humans from all other living things, and how God "made us in His image". A soul creating souls. This is also why humans are the only known thing to routinely be persuaded by moral reasoning.

So weak orators who fuse the lofty with the vehement become much stronger…

(Although, probably not much of a cheap trick).

To Campbell, every rhetor needs to strive to be like JOHN CENA… well, figuratively speaking.

It's a good word.

A speaker's goal is to eliminate idiocy or carelessness, and how he goals about solving either one determines how he dispels the lies. Ignorant people need to be shown observable and repeatable evidence, careless people need their conviction to the lie to be broken. To Campbell, knowing the difference is crucial to the power of one's rhetoric.

As it has always been and always will be.

Mmm. Perhaps this is true in a perfect world in which humans were more inclined to be totally logical and rational. Although his idea of a "moral" reasoning is interesting, as it seems to play into the mode of human emotion, specifically empathy, or the fact that some would rather stand up for the hypothetical individual even if that may compromise humanity's "greater good".

Is Campbell's "moral reasoning" just another way of saying pathos?

There is more to rhetoric than just eloquence (but that can certainly help).

In it's own way, the body also engages in rhetoric. I find it interesting that Austin tried to document it in such a visual manner, although the execution was... meh.

When you forget to annotate your readings

That's pretty beautifully worded. A good life philosophy for anyone, I'd wager. True joy isn't found in the parties or the get-togethers, but in the little things, such as reading, walking and thinking.

There's no excuse for willful stupidity.

Dare to be different.

It is better for a woman to receive scrutiny and criticism prompting publication denial, as opposed to being somewhat praised but still denied a chance at publication.

Basically merit vs. sexism, and Astell argues that merit is far superior. I don't think very many would dispute that.

Now that's just rude.

Prejudice clouds fair judgement. Interesting, coming from Hume.

They were both subjectively in the right, but the objective truth was something unexpected. Is that a fair assessment of this anecdote?

Especially not his...

lol

Sorry I couldn't resist.

Joe Schmo will probably not be able to understand the nuance and context of ancient authors due to their obscurity. Only seasoned academics deep in the subject will be able to establish that.

Words are inherently inferior to the larger ideas they represent?

Where's the fun in rhetoric if seemingly all people have a concrete definition of it? To my knowledge, rhetoric is one of the very exclusive words that means different things to different people. Unfortunately, in my experience, it seems that very few seem to care about it at all.

Since Locke proposes that our ideas are just the end result of all our senses coming together and words our attempt at conveying this, I wonder then how he would view those with handicaps. How would Locke find somebody who was deaf, blind or mute? Are their thoughts, ideas and words on par with one who has all five of the classic senses? Or is their capacity for knowledge in a unfortunately permanent state of disrepair?

Although I now also wonder, who would win in a rhetorical duel: a blind orator or a deaf one?

Pulpit and homily-related rhetoric is always an interesting area of study, as it is usually so different when compared to other rhetorical traditions. I find it interesting how it was oft made a target of for being overly ornate. It also seems that Archbishop François's wishes have come true in the modern Americana, as today most modern Christian sermons start off with silly and relateable jokes, utilize natural and emotional stories throughout and display a deep, deep understanding of the texts being read and how they apply to daily life. Whether this is actually more effective rhetoric than the ornate style remains to be seen, but few can deny the shift. Why do you all think this occurred? What influence did Vatican II have on it? I'd say probably quite a bit.

Funny how, at least in this election season, it was the candidate who used more plain, direct language who ending up winning the presidency, while his more ornate opponents bit the dust.

And yet, there it is once again!

There it is again...

That is too say, are the good orators that frequently shuffle through universities necessarily good people? Is a radical professor of history a good person? Is a flamboyant provocateur an otherwise nice individual? A revolutionary protester a decent man at heart?

I also find it interesting how Lanham brings it back to this very course. How do we, as a class, tackle the "Q" question through our very (unique) curriculum?