Philosophy Statement Thoughts

        For the upcoming assignment I must say I've thought heavily about using multimodality to complete it. Specifically speaking, I am a huge movie person and there are a lot movies that come to mind specifically to outline my rhetorical philosophy. However, I think the way I'd like to go about it might be to compare/contrast certain ideals with the ways in which certain scenes and dialogue are delivered. It seems to me that I fall specifically in Gorgias and Aristotle when thinking about the rhetoric that I, myself, like to employ. I like that Gorgias argued that one could use rhetoric to argue just about anything, but Aristotle valued virtue to justify why rhetoric is important. I think the combination of these two things, as well as my Ethics course, help me to situate myself in the rhetorical landscape a bit more solidly than in the previous years.

        Scenes that specifically come to my mind are the dialogic scenese between Hans Landa and every single character in Inglorious Basterds. The secondary reason this could work in my favor is the fact that Landa is a SS officer for Nazi run Germany in WWII. Instantly, we see that his virtues are out of whack, however, his level of articulation and rhetorical usage are so high that he can manipulate and control just about any situation with just his speech. This brings up a valid point in theory that just because rhetoric can be used for any situation, should it? In Tech Comm. we struggle with this point all of the time. Especially in the case of Katz's "Ethics of Expediency" where perfectly good rhetoric and tech comm. is used to basically hide the fact that mass killings were happening. These types of situations I think help me justify my rhetorical stance further and I want to use something that is heavy in dialogue as well to help me prepare for the Platonic dialogue we are to write later as well.

Rhetoric and its Purpose (to me) + 9/11 Rhetoric Thoughts

        What we've seen this week is a historical look in to some of the greater rhetors of the classical period and their works. In these works we see everything from the ideal (Plato) to the situational (Sophists). I would like to take this post to analyze or try to situate myself among these rhetors. It seems I share a lot of values and beliefs about what rhetoric is with Aristotle and the sophists simultaneously. Isocrates comes to mind when trying to place myself. It seems that as a great educator Isocrates was concerned with being pragmatic as well as adhering to some sort of "good" virtue. In his piece, Against the Sophists, he makes a point to say that merely teaching a man of no values how to use rhetoric does not qualify him as a rhetor (as many "bad" Sophists might have done). Instead, Isocrates pushes for an education in which those who have a natural affinity for rhetoric develop those skills and round themselves as people to most effectively use rhetoric. This view closely mirrors my own. I think that the Sophists were right in that rhetoric can be taught to just about anyone, but should it? And if it should, what separates a good rhetor from a bad rhetor? The values and principles that a person holds should be taken in to account when developing a personal rhetoric. The pragmatic side of me says anyone can learn it, but to apply it one needs some sort of ethical core that isn't corrupt or void of any affinity for the art.

In addition, the question of what types of rhetoric were involved in the 9/11 attacks is very broad. There are many classical rhetors that come to mind, specifically Gorgias. Gorgias' view of language closely parallels that of the language and rhetoric used in the 9/11 attacks. Particularly, the hate speech and slurs that came afterwards. The news and media at the time used vague, broad language to change the meaning of the situation and the people involved. Although 9/11 was very devastating, language was manipulated in such a way to apply the actions of a small radical sect of Islam to an entire nation's worth of people. This sort of distortion of language seems to be in alignment with Gorgias' views on how language and rhetoric can be picked up and used in such a way to distort and argue points just for the sake of argument.

Non-Traditional Rhetoric

        Okay. So you've got me. Non-traditional rhetorics are my bread, butter and jam. The Borcher's chapter on these rhetorics has illuminated many aspects to non-traditional rhetorics that I haven't been exposed to before. Borcher's does such a good job of being transparent and very thorough in his treatments of these rhetorics in the little amount of space he uses.

        I'd like to focus specifically on the African rhetorics for the purpose of this post seeing as I'd like to  possibly tackle Web 2.0 and African rhetorics for my dissertation work. The main thing that I encounter when I think of incorporating African rhetorics or any non-cannonical rhetorics that don't specifically relate to me is the terror of appropriating texts in such a way that is disrespectful to the people who've created it. That being said, Borchers handles these rhetorics with the utmost care and respect. The Afrocentric movement described by Borchers is one that really intrigues me. The inclusion of things such as style and rhythm (not in the classical sense) really give the African rhetoric such deeper emotional and spiritual meaning. His use of hip hop as the contemporary example for this type of rhetoric resonates with me personally.

        Growing up I had always had a great attraction to hip hop artists because of the intricacies of their lyrics and the interwoven beats that went with those lyrics. Clever wordplay (indirection by Asante) was always the center point focus of many of the hip hop artists I listened and still listen to today. Although many rappers have become more aggressive and straightforward in their delivery there is still a heavy emphasis on using language to "stalk" around the real issues or meanings meant to be conveyed in the music. It is in these spaces I feel most at home discussing rhetoric. The deep spiritual and emotional roots that are inherent in African rhetorics seems to strike a chord with me unlike any other rhetoric. The classics are classics in the Western tradition (Aristotle, Plato etc.). However, it seems that not a lot of consideration is given to the melding and fusing of the African tradition with that of the Western tradition. Not with one being lesser or more than the other, but a complete binding of the two on an equal plane to produce a string of rhetorics that are wholly unique the landscape of rhetorics.

        This melding has stirred me greatly in my formative years as a graduate student and I'm sure that I'll be moving in the direction of incorporating that in to not only my teaching philosophy, but my position as a scholar as well.