ERAU ENGL 143

Fisher writes of his narrative paradigm “the narrative paradigm advances the idea that good communication is good by virtue of the fact of its’ satisfying the requirements of narrative rationality, namely, that it offers a reliable, trustworthy, and desirable guide to belief and action.” The metaphor suggests that arguments are a species of narrative, and that all narratives have a rational structure that can be analyzed and evaluated. I would have to agree with Fisher’s position of categorizing arguments as a species of narrative. Arguments, as we know them through rhetoric, are thought out, planned, and typically “battle-tested”. By this belief alone, if they are planned then they must follow a structure making it possible to analyze and evaluate, fitting right into Fisher’s metaphor. What that evaluation and analysis finds is a whole different subject, and one that could easily differ from one audience to the other based on their beliefs and values. Arguments are a form of narrative...

    George Campbell's rhetoric of science was more of what we would consider philosophy; an organized and rational account of a subject. Through new discoveries, Campbell aimed to better understand the workings of the human mind followed by instruction on eloquence based on that understanding. He looked to incorporate ideas from the enlightenment period, but to ultimately create his own rhetoric and move past it. Campbell's "science" is far removed from what we term "modern technology". Modern technology is the application of systems, methods, and devices resulting from scientific knowledge for practical purposes. If Campbell had to address digital rhetoric, I think he would have a rather difficult time as he was experienced in rhetoric he witnessed in person through dialogue and preaching, which is vastly different from the majority of digital rhetoric of today such as social media posts/comments or pre-recorded videos that you cannot experience realtime di...

    When looking at Quintilian's system of rhetorical education, we see that he had his own ideas of what made a good orator, or as he described a citizen-orator. To be a great orator, Quintilian believed you first had to be a good citizen. This goes along the lines of thinking that there is some part of becoming a citizen-orator that can not be taught. Something that is inherent within the individual, quite possibly they are born with it. To witness a citizen-orator in modern time, we look no further than the commencement speech given by Steve Jobs to the Stanford graduating class of 2005.     His speech was very methodical and broken into parts similar to Quintilian's system. Steve told stories of his own to make things personal with his audience. He spoke of trials and tribulations that he made it through whether dropping out of college, getting fired, or getting diagnosed with cancer. In the end, he was able to "connect the dots" looking back to see how all the e...

     The three rhetorical settings that Aristotle taught were deliberative oratory in the legislature to debate laws, epideictic oratory at venues such as funerals or military honors, and forensic oratory such as arguments of innocence or guilt in a courtroom.       Deliberative oratory was often given in a fashion to weigh evidence for and against a plan or policy to determine what is in the best interest of the polis.     Epideictic oratory addressed virtue and vice dealing with the topics of praise and blame. It was the presentation of the virtue of an idea, a practice, or an action in order to get the audience to think, to reflect, or to embrace a new idea.     Forensic oratory is purposed to decide questions of justice, innocence or guilt, the severity of a crime, and the severity of a punishment. It focuses on what has already happened in the past rather than what may happen in the future.     I believe deliberative ...

         In the world today, we are plagued with making decisions on a daily basis of what is right and what is wrong. I want to explore the ethical and social responsibility amongst the masses and what I believe would be most ideal to benefit everyone. First, let us define the two. Social responsibility is viewed as an individual having the civic duty to decide and act in ways that are a benefit to society as a whole. To me, it pretty much means, don't be selfish; or using more positive framing, be selfless. Now, ethical responsibility is seen as the duty to follow a morally correct path. To me, this can vary all around the world based on your experiences and what you consider to be morally correct.      In my opinion, you can not have one of these without the other. I believe they go hand in hand. For individuals or companies to be socially responsible they have to be able to act on their ethical responsibility to do so, and vice versa. This is ...