Certainty vs. Confusion on a grand scale

Well, deconstructionists have decided to take the pendulum of thought and swing it in the completely opposite direction (and push it really hard). There are a few ideas that I do embrace. The idea of uncertainty is one of them. The philosophical aspect of deconstruction where "[t]here are no facts, only interpretations" (61) really hit home. I have trouble as a teacher in presenting only one interpretation of a text (which later is undermined by the state mandated standardized tests). I am, just as many philosophizers, "skeptical by nature" and question pretty much everything.

I also believe that "meanings are fluid" and that the "meaning words have can never be guaranteed one hundred percent pure" (to a point). I agree with this just simply based on the fact that languages evolve. When a language ceases to change it dies (for example Latin).

I also feel that reality is somewhat relativistic in that it is subject to an individuals interpretations as well as the extent in which the individual is "governed by the system" linguistically (according of couse to the structuralists).

Questions I would like to discuss as a class include:

What is the point of doing either a structuralist or deconstructive analysis of a text when both can be done on the same piece of writing thus "proving" a unified and disunified text?

What happens to power? (not just in the text but in reality which is created either by language or by the readers or interpreters of language)?

Rhetoric: The New Weapon of Mass Destruction

I had to post again after commenting on Marilyn's blog because I have a few more thoughts now on what happens when we mix the rhetoric of politics with the rhetoric of religion. Plain and simple rhetoric can and is a weapon of mass destruction when used to ascertain "truth" or "certainty."

Turbulance

Trebizond felt that "rhetoric was...devoid of the requirement that the orator be a good man, in the moral sense. Rhetoric was, rather, a pragmatic political art indifferent to morality" (115). This comes just in time for some of the most politically turbulent times in Europe, and also when rhetoric could be used and somewhat manipulated in order for change. Trebizond also felt that memory and delivery were a natural talent not necessarily something one could learn. Since of course he "borrowed" almost all of his writings on the works of Hermogenes without giving him proper credit, it a lot easier to see just how morality seems to have become more of an idea rather than a practice and scholars seemed conflicted about which way to go.

Erasmus set the pendulum of morality swinging again back in favor when he wrote about his views on education. He felt that education should develop "eloquent persons of character" which was rather an idealistic view to say the least. He basically in Praise of Folly makes the reader begin to question traditional wisdom (at least according to Conley as I have not finished reading it myself). This questioning of the traditional is what led reformers like Luther to begin their own writings which questioned things foremost among them the abuses within the Catholic church. What is most interesting about Erasmus is that in Diatriba de libero arbitri he is not promoting his own agenda but merely pointing out the facts that flaw Luther's "certainties." This may have been fascinating to many who read this work, it makes me question the point. It is easy to point out the mistakes that others have made, but by not countering with an alternative, Erasmus can be seen as only playing devil's advocate not really intent on adding anything to the discussion (again here I can only rely on what Conley points out not my own reading).

The other thing that is fascinating is the discussion of certainty that pervades the readings. Augustine felt that the scriptures were "certain," and Luther's writings question Catholic dogma which were at one time "certain" while Erasmus questions Luther's certainty with regard to the scriptures. Then we get Ramus, whose Dialectic aims to critique the ancient rhetoricians and provide us with a "sure method for attaining certainty, and a set of criteria for judgment that enabled one to test the validity of the certainty" (133). But with all of the political evolutions taking place as well as with the advances of civilization this period seems fraught with uncertainty and rhetoric is the only means to navigate it.

Rhetorica ad Herennium

As I made my way through this week's readings, I was yet again struck by the manipulative nature of rhetoric. Even physical movement and facial expression is included in the art form. Despite how contrived and manipulative rhetoric is, I suppose it is the nature of the pesuasive beast.

So I spent time looking for connection to current theory, and I see a bit of Marxist thought emerging especially in the opening of Rhetorica ad Herennium within the descriptions of our Direct openings. "We shall make our adversaries unpopular by setting forth their violent behavior, their dominance, factiousness, wealth, lack of self-restraint, high birth, clients, hospitality, club allegience, or marriage alliances" (165). Sounds like the poor proletariat has some issues with the Roman bourgeoise. This makes me appreciate the power of rhetoric as it pertains to giving a voice to those who are oppressed.

Another bit of Marxism that emerges is with Quintilian who when discussing arguments, says that rank can be employed in the "defense of the accused, or...may be employed to prove his guilt on the ground thathe trusted to his rank to secure impunity" (219). While this in no way secures Quintilian as a Marxist, it does show the social stratifications based on wealth and how those same divisions in society have been used to the advantage of those in power (for most of us a big duh). This also reminds those who are studying/ practicing/ philosophizing about rhetoric the power of speech in rectifying those social injustices.

Classical Greek Rhetorics

Since I haven't received my other book I will comment on the first chapter of Rhetoric in the European Tradition. I was struck most by how seriously all of these schools were not only taken but criticized then reformed. I also saw a connection in thought between Aristotelian ideals and the foundations of our legal system. Unfortunately, it also occurred to me just how far away from these ideals within the judicial system. I am thinking more along the lines of the practice of rhetoric as far as lawyers are concerned. Basically, the idea is that lawyers use their support (evidence) to persuade a jury of a person's innocence or guilt. However, today's lawyers practice rhetoric in respect to cases in a more Gorgianic way where a win is more important than truth or reason.