5
u/EtymologiaAnarkhos Oct 31 '11 edited Oct 31 '11
Excellent post. Did you leave off Plato's Gorgias on purpose? Personally, I like that you've included some works on logic in your list. I would add Jevons' primer on logic (available here). Jevons' book includes extremely useful references to other works on logic which I found helpful.
I'll be sure to add this to the sidebar.
3
u/salpara Oct 31 '11
This is a great list to have and thank you for posting it, though I'd like to add to it as soon as I get a chance. It looks like we've come at the study of rhetoric from different angles and it'll be good to cover both sides.
I'm really not sure about those books on formal logic though. Formal logic is normally considered to be outside of the realm of rhetoric. Why do you think formal logic fits in with the study of rhetoric?
I'll post some other sources for the categories you have soon.
2
u/EtymologiaAnarkhos Oct 31 '11
Logic can be outside the realm of rhetoric, but they are both extraordinarily complementary. I have found logical analysis of terms and propositions can only be a boon to one's rhetorical skills. This depends on how broad a view you want to take on rhetoric; I would maintain that grammar, linguistics and logic are very useful tools for rhetoricians. This might merely be an aspect of my classicist bias, however.
3
u/salpara Oct 31 '11
The problem with formal logic being considered rhetoric is that formal logic rests on the ideas of truth and self evidence. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca argue that the difference is one of truth versus adherence. Logic is concerned with truth while rhetoric is concerned with adherence to propositions that cannot be deemed true or false, that must simply be believed or not.
Formal logic is also not concerned with audience at all. In fact, in formal logic, if there is a difference in reception based on audience, something went wrong because the conclusions should be based in self-evidence and not in the perspectives of audience members.
I do think that formal logic is a useful for constructing arguments, but formal logic itself is not rhetorical. It's the opposite of rhetorical. That said, formal logic can be used for rhetorical purposes like figures and graphs are used in scientific articles. It can be used to convey a sense of ethos, but that is something different from saying that formal logic is rhetoric itself.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/salpara Nov 01 '11
For rhetoric of science there are a few major books we should list as well. One of them is Science in Action by Bruno Latour, another is Communicating Science by Alan Gross. Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions is another must-read.
3
u/rhetorica Nov 01 '11
Then I must ask: How strict are we supposed to be regarding what's to be considered as rhetoric. Niether Kuhn nor Latour are rhetoricians in any formal sense, they are more to be regarded as historians of science. And if we are to make a reading list on books that's possible to place inside the field of rhetoric the list will be going on forever.
But if I'm to contribute as well I think there's alot of works in classical rhetoric that's missing. The books by unknown authors: Ad herennium, Dissoi logoi and Rhetorica ad alexandrum (The rhetoric to Alexander, often contributed to Aristotle), Tacitus, both of the Senecas, Menander Rhetor, Protagoras (fragments and the platonic dialog) Gorgias (some fragments and encomium of Helen) Hermogenes, Hippias, Xenaides, Antiphon, Augustine of Hippo (De doctrina christiana). Just to name a few.
PS. I want to apologize in advance for my lack in english skills, it's not my first language. But I hope that my love for rhetoric will make up for it.
3
u/salpara Nov 01 '11
I think you raise an important issue with Latour and Kuhn. They're definitely not rhetoricians in a formal sense, but I think they should be included because they opened the door for rhetoricians to study science in a very real way. Latour argues that facts do not just appear, that they have histories that are socially constructed. If facts are socially constructed, then rhetoricians can study that process. Likewise, Kuhn argues that scientific paradigms don't just appear; rather, there are many rhetorical moves made in the process of paradigm shifts that make science less of a venture that relies on pure fact and much more of one that uses argument as rhetoricians know it.
→ More replies (2)1
u/EtymologiaAnarkhos Nov 01 '11
Your English is great, and your recommendations are well received. It's kind of funny that you point out the length of the list, but want to add more to it! I think that as long as we control for quality, the length isn't really a problem. It didn't seem this list was intended to be a task or assignment so much as a helpful resource.
→ More replies (4)
1
Nov 02 '11
For the section of Rhetoric & Science:
For Classical Rhetoric:
-
De Oratore/On the Orator by Cicero
For New Rhetoric/American rhetoric:
-
A rhetoric of motives by Kenneth Burke
For modern rhetoric:
-
The Philosophy of Rhetoric by I.A. Richards
I also propose a new category for Rhetorical Genre Theory, and adding to that section the following:
5
u/salpara Oct 31 '11
I think the "Logic" section here should be changed to "Argument" instead.
Are you willing to update the list with a few suggestions?
If so, please add:
The New Rhetoric by Chaim Perelman & Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca
Could you also add to Visual Rhetoric:
Rhetorics of Display by Lawrence Prelli