Invention/ Knowledge

One of the perennial debates about inventio is where does the process of invention end and the basics of simple knowledge begin? In other words, where is the line between facts and their interpretation?

In Aristotle's conception, rhetoric is "the counterpart of dialectic," or philosophical reasoning. In other words, even if we have "the truth" or "verifiable facts," we must still call upon rhetoric in order to communicate them to others.

Aristotle divides rhetoric into three types of appeals -- the ways in which a speaker can appeal to shared sensibilities of others. These appeals, as we have seen, are ethos (good character), logos (reasoning), and pathos (emotion). By and large, these appeals often gravitate toward reason because not only did the ancient Greeks and Romans prize reason, but so did their commentators during the European Enlightenment and many in our own society today.

Many further read Aristotle to say that appeals to logos and using reasonable proofs can be classified as either examples, maxims, or enthymemes (a shortened syllogism or formal logical statement). All syllogisms, and therefore all enthymemes, use either "signs" or "probabilities" as their material (Rhetoric 1357a, 32ff - 1357b, 1ff). Aristotle provides examples as to how this helps guide reasonable proof-making, and thus ways to use rhetoric in the making of reasonable debate and discourse. By following reason, our discourse reflects truth, reality, and "the way things really are." We might represent Aristotle's schema thus:

Logos - reason Example Enthymeme Signs Probabilities Maxim

However, Rev. William M.A. Grimaldi, one of the past century's great commentators on Aristotle, proposes a different reading -- one that turns the received tradition on its head:

Artistic Proofs

Example Enthymeme Signs Probabilities Special topics General topics Ethos Logos Pathos Maxim

In this schema, reason becomes highly subordinated to the rhetorical appeals one can make based on probable, general topics. In other words, rhetoric is not for scholarly debate -- that is more properly the job of dialectic.  Rhetoric is really more for reaching non-specialists. Yet, this also makes the enthymeme "a general method of reasoning" that is shared, often in more syllogistic form, with dialectic. And this is a crucial detail because by making the enthymeme a general and shared form of reasoning, rhetoric insinuates itself into philosophy -- into any search for "truth." As Janet Atwill explains, seen this way, rhetoric "can longer be... a valuable, transferable techne [craft], which, instead of reflecting reality, is capable of creating new versions of the real and the valuable" (p. 206).

We can see here one of the main lines of division over the place of invention in Current-Traditional Rhetorics. Is writing supposed to simply reflect reality a student "discovers" in the books of the library? Or is writing supposed to be an opportunity for students to exercise their general ability to reason on a topic and present their version of it to others? If you believe the former, then all truth is a collection of scientific facts that can't really be questioned unless you are a scientist specializing in that area. Paradoxically, the latter allows any one to use rhetoric in order to question the knowledge produced through dialectic.

So, do you think anyone should be able to question science? If not science, then what about social order? Or even dissent over how to live your personal life? Where is the line? How does the line for you turn on where you think we, as a society or as humans or as some other category, ought to rely on persuasion and where we ought to rely on some consensual definition/ acceptance of "reality"?

Writing's Myths

We began our readings with Frank Smith's "Myths of Writing" and ended this unit with Socrates relating to young Phaedrus the "Myth of Theuth."Myths are very important because they are often unstated assumptions or tacit knowledge shared by a group of people. Often, people do not even know they believe these myths even when you point them out. Derrida, in his re-reading of the myth from Phaedrus, was simply trying to point out a myth of Western civilization. But myths are not benign fairly tales. They serve a function in that they help a group orient itself toward group goals and objectives. This is to say that they help structure activity as well as perception.

We have looked at the following myths, as well as others:
* writing is essentially good grammar and mechanics
* writing is separate from thinking
* writing is as a fairly linear activity moving from thought to handing someone else a piece of paper
* writing is not technological
* writing is just good speech or thought put on paper

 All of these things have a tremendous impact on the ways we teach others to write as well as ways we ourselves approach various writing tasks.

Given social media like Facebook, the comment feature on the Amazon Kindle, email, and regular computer-based internet fora, we are quite arguably writing more now than at any other point in human history. And it is attracting attention.

What do you think the future holds for writing? What will be considered "good writing" in ten years? Twenty? A hundred? What myths do you think will persist and which ones will perish? Why do you think that? Is anything needed to help writing's future or should it be content with laboring against these myths?

Welcome to Theory and Practice of Writing @ UNI

No, I am not going to repeat the syllabus here. Why make two documents exactly the same? Besides, as we will learn here and in other courses, content changes according to context. At least, it should...

Enough of the meta-discussion, though. There will be time for that later in the course. To quote Willy Wonka, "There is so much time and so little to do. Strike that -- reverse it!"

We will use this blog to post (approximately) weekly responses to the readings. These need not be fully revised drafts of sheer grace and stunning perfection which collect the light of wisdom and transmute it straight to our brains, but they should be something more polished than a poem written by an Neanderthal child on her first day of kindergarten. By that, I mean try to use correct punctuation and grammar, but beyond that really focus on the hard task of learning theory:

the task of taking risks with it and exploring its assumptions and orientations to the world it attempts to explain.

It is really that simple. If I could make it into a formula, it might be expressed as the following, where T = Theory, i = ideas, and r = reality:

T= i/r

As the syllabus indicates, we will examine various topics each week and apply those insights to our own writing in order to produce a final portfolio in which we explain those applications using revised and polished final products. Because each week could conceivably take up the whole of a semester,  (and it will, should you decide to pursue a graduate education) and because the work of theory is often to use "reality"to dig out tacit assumptions inherent in the ideas, then this blog will allow us to do two very important things:

1) post or link to our own responses to the readings, responses that demonstrate how we look at specific instances in the texts we read and begin to explicate them as part of our own understanding and

2) respond to others about their explications, helping to constructively guide them in their thinking and/or building off what others have said.

So, for #1, you can take a section, description, metaphor, or part of a single reading OR you might put two or more readings against one another and see where they match/ disagree and why. Alternatively, you may bring in knowledge from some other area/ course and apply that to a reading and see where that takes you. These should not simply be opinion pieces. You need to work with theory as an object distinct from your own predilections. It is grounded in the language used in the readings and should open that language, not impose your own language and ideas on it. Beyond that, everything is pretty much fair game. Poets often do well at this part.

W/r/t #2, teacher education students often get a chance to hone their response skills and professional writers often get to practice collaborative work. The main thing here is to be constructive and positive, looking at the ideas of the responder as objectively as possible and using language to display that. So, language such as "this is a bunch of racist trash, you moron" is NOT appropriate. However, one could point out that "while what you say could be very true or persuasive to the vast majority of Americans right now, I am not so sure it is persuasive to many of the disenfranchised. How would you address their concerns?"

In the first instance, there is a direct attack on the person. This is an accusation of the author -- not a focus on the idea. In the second, the emphasis is on the ideas, not the person. Further, notice how in the second instance, the writer takes on much of the responsibility for any action with "I am not so sure..." and ends with an appeal for more information and clarity. In other words, there is a give and take here where each writer takes responsibility for clarifying their own ideas through language. While this focuses on communication during times of crisis, it still has principles applicable for any open and free exchange of ideas that avoids personal attacks.

I look forward to these discussions and this semester. If you have any questions, please feel free to email me at david.grant@uni.edu.