In the reading of “Rhetoric is Synonymous with Empty Speech” was written by Patricia Roberts-Miller. The primary audience for this text is the general public due to her talking about philosophers own definitions of rhetoric. The text says that different philosophers have different definitions of rhetoric in their own way. Aristotle described it as a discipline and a skill that enables you to see the available means of persuasion. Plato used rhetoric in terms of speech-making as opposed to arguing in small groups and wasn’t opposed to argumentation. Socrates relied heavily on some logical moves in the dialogues. The main message of the text was to show that these philosophers all didn’t agree the same meaning of what rhetoric is. The first texts primary rhetorical purpose is to show the audience how philosophers understood their meaning of what rhetoric actually meant. In the reading of “The Rhetorical Situation” was written by Lloyd F. Bitzer. I think that the primary audience is again the general public. The text implies that rhetoric is persuasive, alters reality, a natural context of persons, events, objects, relations and an exigence which strongly invites utterance. The main argument/message of this text is to show and make the audience understand what rhetoric situations are and how that are used during interactions with others and with the presence of discourse. The texts primary rhetorical purpose is to teach the audience about what is rhetoric situations and by giving examples to show how they can be used. It talks about different situations with how rhetorical situations can be used in a courtroom for example and it says the speech of accusation, the speech of defense, and the charge to the jury.
For your blog on Roberts-Miller’s article, I really liked how you went into an analysis of the three ancient philosophers (Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates). Since I just took philosophy last semester and viewed their works from a philosophical perspective rather than one associated with rhetoric, I found it interesting to associate the scholars with rhetoric. It is something that I looked over in earlier studies of them because I did not realize how wide the field of rhetoric expands.
Your analysis of Bitzer’s work made a complex journal article much simpler. The only disagreement I have with your interpretation is with the audience. Because of the language used and how dense the article was, I do not believe that the intended audience was the general public, but rather fellow academics who study and understand rhetoric.
LikeLike