Response to Chapter 10, style and appropriateness

For this week’s reading response I was quite interested in kairos and style. Chapter ten of ARCS begins by discussing appropriateness of oration.  “Appropriateness probably derives from the Greek rhetorical notion to prepon, meaning to say or do whatever is fitting in a given situation” (331). Although, appropriateness heavily relates to Gorgias’s notion of kairos, Cicero argues “the universal rule, in oratory as in life, is to consider propriety” (331). And “Cicero defined propriety as “what is fitting and agreeable to an occasion or person; it is important often in actions as well as in words, in the expression of the face, in gesture and in gait” (331).  For the rest of the reading response I will briefly go over the importance of understanding your audience and how it relates to the optimal performance of a speech.

Before giving a speech, it is essential that one develops and has a grasp of their surroundings. That is, an understanding of their audience. In most speech giving situations, this is extremely vital because it allows the speaker to become relaxed, and ultimately prepare the style he or she will used throughout the whole oration.  For example, before I gave my speech with the first assignment in this class, I quickly analyzed my audience. In this case, I knew that it was a classroom situation where people were just as nervous as I was about giving their speech. Therefore, I had to lighten up the classroom by asserting more of a humorous speech. Not only did giving more of a humorous style oration lighten up the classroom, but it allowed me to focus, and relax throughout it.  Depending on your audience, the style of your speech will alter.

Response to Chapter Nine/ Exordium and Introduction

Yet again, I decided to dedicate this blog to one major aspect of speech in classical oration. Chapter nine of ARCS begins by examining exordium. Both Quintilian and Aristotle have two different concepts on exordium, which in my opinion are relatively the same. Quintilian urges that, “The sole purpose of the exordium is to prepare our audience in such a way that they will be disposed to lend a ready ear to the rest of our speech” (295).  Aristotle contends that exordium is “to make clear what the end (telos) of the discourse is” (295).   Having a captivating introduction is an essential component in almost everything we do as humans; performing speeches, writing essays, or even greeting others, generally include an introduction of some sort. But before an introduction, “The quality of the rhetors case determines the kind of exordium required: honorable, difficult, mean, ambiguous, and obscure” (Crowley and Hawhee, 296).  Woah, that is a lot to grasp before giving an introduction to a speech.  Of course it is important to recognize the personality of your audience, while examining the situation before orating, or writing an introduction.  For example, if I’m writing a statement of purpose that I will be handing in to the English department, there are some things to consider when developing my introduction. First, I want to thank the department for reviewing my application. Next, I write a very brief description of myself kind of relating it to my major. Third, I want to create a thesis, in essence, of my goals in life, ultimately explaining why the major supports my career goals.  And in many ways, this way of creating an introduction exemplifies Quintilian and Aristotle’s concept on Exordium.  In class, I will ask about introductions, and how important Cicero’s cases are to classical oration, and modern oration.

Response to October 14th/ Extrinisic proof!

                                                                                    

 “Extrinsic proofs include empirical evidence such as facts, data, artifacts, and the testimony of authorities and witnesses” (Crowley and Hawhee, 267) All of these aspects of extrinsic proofs remind me of a typical case in a courtroom. For Thursday October 14^th’s responding response I will analyze a courtroom hearing I had concerning an MIP charge.  I will briefly go over the extrinsic proofs used against me in the courtroom, while explaining the significance of technology when discovering the validity of a book or document through extrinsic proof.

About a year ago I was involved in a bench trial where I pleaded innocent to an MIP charge I received in the fall of 2009. In fact, if you have never been involved in a court case where you are pleading innocent, they are actually quite informative.  The evidence against me was over whelming. Very much like Aristotle’s definition of extrinsic proof, facts, data, objects, and testimonies of authorities and witnesses were all used in deciding my sentence.  Facts were presented to the judge explaining the situation in which I received my MIP. First, background information of the event, as far as when, where, who, what, were all explained to the judge.  Next, data was given to the judge, and this is what ultimately deciphered my case. The data used against me was a pen test that the officer initiated on me at the scene.  And later I would go about saying the pen test was inaccurate due to the fact that I had misplaced my contacts that day. Finally, testimonies were given by me, my witnesses, and the officer.  I will not go over the specifics, but as you can see, Aristotle’s extrinsic proofs are used today in a typical court case. Other than using extrinsic proofs to decide a case in a courtroom, we need extrinsic proof to decide whether books are valid as well.

The other day I was wondering around the old Terrell library and just couldn’t help but notice the wear and tear of some of these books. While I opened one of the books to check the date published, an odd looking bug crawled out that must have been eating lunch. How can we trust a book that was published in the 1800’s? Well, we have extrinsic proof, purpose, context, points of view; all of these go into the process of evaluating the validity of a book or source. In ancient times, credibility from a rhetor was either situated or invented. People had to determine the credibility of a rhetor by understanding the background of the rhetorician; exploring his character, personality, financial stability, etc. Today, we are able to type the title and date of a book, or author into a search bar and receive numerous facts on that book, allowing us to induce whether or not the book is valid.

Response to Boethius

I’d have to admit, I love the medieval times. I can remember of a time when my parents took my brothers and me to Medieval Times for dinner in California. Oh yes, plenty of great memories: knights in armor, jousting, sword fights, romance, and feasting. I would never have thought there was so much emphasis on rhetoric and oration lying in the depths of this time period.  Boethius, a well known Christian Philosopher in the 6^th century believed, “…to philosophize rhetoric by treating it only in the most general way, in a series of definitions that analyze its parts” (487, Bizzel, and Herzberg). Later in the Rhetorical Tradition, Boethius explains how oration is divided into six parts: the introduction or exordium, the argument, the partition, the proof, the refutation, and the peroration.  Throughout the rest of my blog, I will examine these six parts and how and why we still use them today through writing and speech.

Most people would agree that generally in writing, the author is simply attempting to pose an argument or topic, and then defend his argument with concrete evidence or facts.  This is true, but in order to successfully prepare an essay or speech concerning a controversial topic, it is essential to apply Boethius’ six parts of oration.

The first part of oration is the introduction. Like many arguments, an introduction of a paper or speech is a topic that raises an issue, while introducing (keyword) a context and understanding of what you may discuss later. The introduction is one of the most difficult sections of a paper or speech to create because it is the opening statement that should in effect, intrigue the audience.  The second part, argument, is also important because it is essentially the heart of your issue and a thesis is needed to prepare your audience of what will be analyzed in your paper/speech. The third section of oration is the partition. This is my favorite part of delivering an argument because it touches on common assumptions and opinions of people toward my specific topic. The fourth section is the proof, and this is where evidence is implemented to defend your topic and thesis. This is the meat of the paper, and ultimately serves to protect the author’s opinions. Fifth, is refutation, this is where the author is anticipating on coming warrants and argues against them with his final blow. The final section of oration as a rhetorical tool is peroration. Peroration is the conclusion.  In class, we talked about conclusions, and how many people struggle with them.  A well argued conclusion contains closure, therefore summarizes the paper. While also including an extension, or new assertion if you will that leaves the writer thinking.  Overall, Boethius’ six parts of oration is critical in developing a paper or speech.