being in the universe that was omniscient and free from the faults of ignorance and malice” (Deshpande). The West does not cling so tightly to spiritually, often disproving the connection at all between God and logic. Simultaneously, “Ny-āyá-Vaiśeṣikas were primarily into logic, epistemology, and ontology, and argued that a valid sentence was a true picture of a state of reality,” which refutes the idea that spirituality and logic must exist mutually exclusively (Deshpande). Ny-āyá does rely on issues of spirituality, but it is no less reputable than Western logic that is not spiritual.
Ny-āyá is also referred to by its codified treatise Ny-āyá Sutra. Keith Lloyd, a major scholar and proponent of Ny-āyá and Indian rhetoric, has conducted
…show more content…
Though Lloyd argues in the previous article that we must not force a square peg into a round hole by squeezing Indian rhetoric into the parameters of Western rhetoric, he contextualizes Indian Rhetoric within our Western framework in order to understand how and why it works. Our ignorance of Indian rhetoric, according to Lloyd, “steps from a misperception that the East is more mystical, less interested in systematic thinking” (367). Philosopher A.H. Ritter goes so far as to argue that it is “tedious, loose and unmethodological… proof of the incapacity of its expositors to enter into the intrinsic development of ideas” (qtd. in Lloyd 373). Lloyd diffuses that misconception and affirms how it is in fact systematic, but with different motives. Ny-āyá 's system, in English terms, is comprised of the proposition, the reason, the example, the re-affirmation, and the conclusion (370). Though it is not as simple and deductive as Aristotle’s three-part syllogism of major premise, minor premise, and conclusion, this rhetoric is equally as systematic in its rhetorical …show more content…
Indian rhetoric shares similar goals, but the overall motive is “discussion, inquiry, and consensus” instead of “self-expression, persuasion, or winning… [it is rather] a seeing-together” (375). Quoting Rogers and Jain, Lloyd includes that “in ancient India the rhetorical end could only be a common search by speaker and hearer for enlightenment, through penetration of unified truth which encompasses them both and all else besides” (375). Simply put, Indian rhetoric seeks to understand and to share conclusions whereas Western rhetoric, mainly in earlier texts, seeks to self-express and to convince the audience of the one correct end. Indian rhetoric both complements and contrasts some of the notable figures in rhetoric, such as Kenneth Burke and Stephen Toulmin. Lloyd notes that Ny-āyá applies “somewhat to how we make decisions while Toulmin’s model might explain how we ‘justify’ them” (379). Lloyd continues to compare Ny-āyá to Toulmin’s rhetoric by noting Toulmin’s assertion that “new ways need to be found that answer our needs” (qtd. in Lloyd 380). Ny-āyá, Lloyd argues, “is far from a ‘new way,’ but it certainly provides some perspective on how we make practical arguments, how we make and describe immediate decisions… it challenges the rhetoric to consider motives” (380). This description resembles Kenneth Burke’s theory of rhetoric, among other Postmodern
Lloyd F. Bitzer’s article, “The Rhetorical Situation”, is an account of what he calls the “rhetorical situation” as what he believes to be the conditions necessary for compelling a rhetorician to engage in rhetoric (35). It is Bitzer’s position that a work of rhetoric comes into existence as a response to the call of a certain state of affairs in the world (32). Furthermore, Bitzer claims that when we find ourselves in such “situations”, we are compelled to engage in rhetoric in order to restore the balance that we find lacking (34). He identifies three interconnected elements of situational rhetoric: exigence, audience, and constraints (35). Bitzer argues that a rhetorical discourse, which consists of an engagement with an audience for the purpose of compelling that audience to modify the world so as to repair the problem which is presented (35), is required to solve the problem as the world presents it (34). This lack of balance in a rhetorical situation or state of affairs in the world leads to what Bitzer calls exigence, which he defines as “an imperfection marked by urgency” (36). Bitzer also expands on the notion of a rhetorical audience, which is central to his theory of situational rhetoric. Bitzer defines a rhetorical audience as persons who, through discourse, are subject to influence and as persons who can be compelled to bring about the change called for by a rhetorical situation (37). Bitzer also identifies constraints as being a vital component to his theory, which he defines as anything within the rhetorical situation which has the power to “constrain decision” (38).
The framing used in this essay was much better in comparison to one of my first essays, and shows how Professor Ghosh properly taught us, and instilled in us that framing an essay is extremely
Throughout history arguments and debate have been used to decide the fate of kingdoms, challenge a ruler’s authority or even decided where homes would be built. Without arguments our world would be bland and nothing like it is today. Being able to form a well built argument and use it properly is known as rhetoric. Ancient Romans and Greeks considered rhetoric to be one of the most important skills for students. Even today rhetoric is considered a great feat for all scholars. Two great men who were able to use rhetoric and excel at using it were Cicero and Machiavelli. They both argued in some of their most famous works that at times injustice was defendable. Cicero did this in his piece called The Defense of Injustice. Machiavelli did this in his work called The Prince. Each of these men was from completely different times in history, yet both were able to use rhetoric to help make people support their argument. Although rhetoric has many rules and many different formats one of the most well know and organized format is known as the Toulmin method. With the two pieces of work and using Toulmin’s method of rhetoric we can evaluate and discover who makes the best argument and why.
Scholars and historians of rhetoric consider the Greek philosopher, Aristotle, one of the great contributors to our present understanding of this art which, since its early origins and until present, has been a controversial field of study because of its association with persuasion and influence. However, readings of the many ancient and contemporary texts and analyses of the origins and the developments of this ancient art marginalized the role of the Sophists, who were the first to introduce rhetoric to Greece, and usually associated them with the bad reputation rhetoric has acquired over the years. Undoubtedly, Aristotle developed rhetoric in a more comprehensive and systemized explanation than what the Sophists offered, but an examination of how this great philosopher reached his findings, and what elements formed his theory on rhetoric points out that the Sophists, who initiated this art, deserve a re-evaluation of their role and an explanation of their “unethical” perspectives. In this essay, I consider the Aristotelian rhetoric to be a progression of the Sophists’ nascent teachings in rhetoric. Arguably, the “disdained” Sophists introduced a novel field of study that constituted a base for Aristotle’s theory. My argument is based on a chronological reading of the origins and development of rhetoric and recent studies on the Sophists and their discredited achievements almost since the great philosopher, Plato, staged his battle against them. I also regard the platonic versus sophistic approach to the definition of rhetoric, its goals and purposes, and its relation with the public as consequential factors of development of this art. Accordingly, I assume that this rivaling situation could not have existed without the sophisti...
The impact and effectiveness of using proper rhetoric was a strategy of “good” writing that I was not aware of until my senior year of high school. While taking AP Language and Composition my junior year, my fellow students and I believed that we had survived countless essay workshop activities and writing assignments with emphasis on word choices, grammatical structure, syntax, punctuation and spelling. By the time we had entered AP Literature our senior year, we felt we could achieve success; we already knew how to write in the correct format and structur...
Aristotle believed that rhetoric is a skill habit of mind that is, in itself, morally neutral and can be used for good or ill. He believed th...
(5) See The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way: Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamkakarika, translation and commentary by Jay L. Garfield (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995).
In this essay, I will be analyzing the Traditional method of rhetorical criticism and the Narrative method of rhetorical criticism.
In her essay, Mukherjee uses several rhetorical devices such as figurative language and exemplification in order to lead the audience to believe her argument. She believes in assimilation of culture, but it should not be forced upon any one. Throughout the essay, she goes through a logical thought process that leads the audience to realize this argument and even feel guilty of forced conformity.
In the story, What is Rhetoric by William Covino and David Jolliffe, there are a wide variety of topics discussed that are inextricably interwoven with the concept “rhetoric.” Rhetoric, as defined by the authors, is “the study and practice of shaping content.” Consequently, my first thought was: Ok, this is a rather broad and opaque description; my successive thought, however, was one of astonishment, inasmuch as the authors went on to further elucidated this jargon. In doing so, the authors distilled the most crucial elements of what is rhetoric— the prevalence of discourse community, and how appealing language is often a precursor to persuasion.
The author’s main argument in “Rhetoric: Making Sense of Human Interaction and Meaning-Making” is that rhetoric does not need to be complicated if writers incorporate certain elements to their writing. Downs further analyzed the elements that contribute to rhetoric such as symbols and signals, motivation, emotion, ecology, reasoning and identification. The author emphasized that writers can learn how to deliver their writing effectively once they are more aware on how rhetoric works. Downs constantly assures that rhetoric is quite simple and does not need to provoke fuzziness. Even though the term rhetorical is applied to everything, the author of the article made it clear that the “rhetorical” thing is situated. The example provided by the author in this article, further guides our understanding on what rhetoric
Smart, Ninian. "Blackboard, Religion 100." 6 March 2014. Seven Dimensions of Religion. Electronic Document. 6 March 2014.
Rhetoric is the art of effective speaking or writing, and persuasion. Most people use rhetoric numerous of times in their everyday life without their concern or knowing.
The quest for identity in Indo-English writing has emerged as a recurrent theme, as it is in much of modern literature (Pathak preface). Indeed, often the individual's identity and his quest for it becomes so bound up in the national quest for identity, that the individual's search for his identity becomes allegorical of the national search (Pathak pr...
History proves that as Buddhism spread throughout the Asian world in the early 1st century, it was occasionally altered to fit the specific needs and beliefs of people it touched. Mahayana Buddhism is one such example of this gradual evolution. It was primarily a movement started and kept alive by monks that slowly gained popularity amongst lay people but was in no way a unified movement. Mahayana Buddhism still adheres to the basic fundamental beliefs presented in the Pali Canons, however, it Sutras often expand upon these basic ideas and traditions in order to answer the questions of a later generation. After closer study of the Mahayana texts the “A Sutra for Long Life” and “The World Universe as a Sutra”, it seems evident that, although Mahayana Buddhism is based on the teachings of the traditional Pali Canon, it places a larger emphasis on philosophical inquires; and ultimately creates a more accessible version of enlightenment, and the Buddhist faith in general, for all.