Lecture Notes Week 03
Below you'll find the most important information from our third seminar.
Last updated
Below you'll find the most important information from our third seminar.
Last updated
If anything, this course is for you as learners to try and make sense of this question specifically, but also in a broader context.
For this week's essay, respond to one of your peers' questions about the reading (a list of selected questions can be found below).
(P. 5) Does rhetoric have to "win people over" or is it enough to inform or make a personal statement (convincingly)?
How strong has the connection between Rhetoric and philosophy been throughout time? Is there even a connection?
I’m reading and trying to understand, but to me it seems silly how only written texts are viewed as important and influential. Rhetoric and composition were put together, but does that mean that rhetoric is ONLY composition? Is that why oral rhetoric was not “rhetoric”. Was rhetoric kind of just, forgotten and writing a text was now called “rhetoric” to replace the real meaning?
In reference to Hugh Blair saying that “students would improve their writing most effectively by studying good writing”, how can one decide what constitutes as “good writing”? (18 para. 1)
Something so elementary and past or human nature, would it not be beneficial to have the thoughts and opinions of someone who doesn't have any allegiances to theories, who could simply talk about what they and other students in the class value in writing? (Page 28, line 6-9)
According to the text, what is the difference between rhetoric and dialectic? How are they similar? (page 7 and 8)
Because of such high supply and demand, could rhetoric and composition as a degree skyrocket to one of the most popular degrees regarding the English Department in the far future? (Pages 27-28, “It is however…”?)
What are some of the current challenges and opportunities facing the field of rhetoric and composition in today's rapidly changing communication landscape? (just a general question)
This question is not directly related to the text but the paragraph starting with “Also, Aristotle says, rhetoric and its counterpart dialectic…” on page 8 made me want to ask the following: If we were to teach rhetoric and composition to all children since they were young and everyone was relatively good at “arguing” then would anyone ever really be able to win an argument?
Although rhetoric as one term is preferred, would it not be a good idea to still classify it further (such as the past, present and future classification) in the sense that rhetoric may be used in both a positive and negative way? (Page 13, Paragraph 1, starting with “Rhetoricians…”)