Tracing the Production of Knowledge
Rhetoric is the art of discourse wherein a writer or speaker endeavors to inform or persuade his audience; it can present in a visual or symbolic form too as a subject of formal study or as a social practice. Ancient Greece and Rome highly appreciated the art of rhetoric; its most obvious definition came from the great Greek philosopher, Aristotle who deliberated it as a complement of both logic and politics and defined it as the ability to perceive the all available means of persuasion in any circumstances. Similarly, the new rhetoric has appreciated the value of discourse. However, the modern rhetoric has experienced many transitions since the classical era due to accommodate the societal appeals. Its most …show more content…
However, a Festschrift, “On Distinction between Classical and Modern Rhetoric” by Andrea A Lunsford and Lisa S Ede published in March 1982 to explore the correlation between classical and modern rhetoric. Lunsford is the director of the ‘Writing and Rhetoric’ program and professor of English emerita at Stanford University, and Ede has been teaching rhetoric and writing at Ohio State University. Lunsford and Ede write this essay to emphasized that the modern notions regarding classical theory often highlight the differences rather than similarities between ancient and contemporary rhetoric. They describe that classical rhetoric theory defines human as a “rational animal” who solves his/her problems with logic. Conversely, the modern rhetoric theory describes human “rhetorical, symbol using, or communal animal” (Lunsford 398). Another difference between classical and modern rhetoric is “logical proof and emotional proof” (Lunsford 398); according to classical rhetoricians, logic is the main argument to persuade the reader /audience, whereas the modern rhetoricians believe that oratorical or symbols are the main elements of rhetoric. Another difference between both discourses suggests that classical rhetoric emphasis on one-way supervisory communication and its goal is persuasion. On the other hand, new rhetoric emphasis on cooperative two-way communication, and its purpose is just communication. Conferring the difference of classical and modern rhetoric, Lunsford and Ede emphasized that these differences often lead to a deceitful rhetoric theory. By presenting the similarities between classical and modern rhetoric, Lunsford and Ede eliminate the false distinction between both Rhetorics. The authors suggest that both discourses share a common belief that human is a “language using animal” (Lunsford 405); therefore, Language is the primary source which incorporates logic and
Rhetoric is the art of discourse wherein a writer or speaker endeavors to inform or persuade his audience; it can present in a visual or symbolic form too as a subject of formal study or as a social practice. Ancient Greece and Rome highly appreciated the art of rhetoric; its most obvious definition came from the great Greek philosopher, Aristotle who deliberated it as a complement of both logic and politics and defined it as the ability to perceive the all available means of persuasion in any circumstances. Similarly, the new rhetoric has appreciated the value of discourse. However, the modern rhetoric has experienced many transitions since the classical era due to accommodate the societal appeals. Its most …show more content…
However, a Festschrift, “On Distinction between Classical and Modern Rhetoric” by Andrea A Lunsford and Lisa S Ede published in March 1982 to explore the correlation between classical and modern rhetoric. Lunsford is the director of the ‘Writing and Rhetoric’ program and professor of English emerita at Stanford University, and Ede has been teaching rhetoric and writing at Ohio State University. Lunsford and Ede write this essay to emphasized that the modern notions regarding classical theory often highlight the differences rather than similarities between ancient and contemporary rhetoric. They describe that classical rhetoric theory defines human as a “rational animal” who solves his/her problems with logic. Conversely, the modern rhetoric theory describes human “rhetorical, symbol using, or communal animal” (Lunsford 398). Another difference between classical and modern rhetoric is “logical proof and emotional proof” (Lunsford 398); according to classical rhetoricians, logic is the main argument to persuade the reader /audience, whereas the modern rhetoricians believe that oratorical or symbols are the main elements of rhetoric. Another difference between both discourses suggests that classical rhetoric emphasis on one-way supervisory communication and its goal is persuasion. On the other hand, new rhetoric emphasis on cooperative two-way communication, and its purpose is just communication. Conferring the difference of classical and modern rhetoric, Lunsford and Ede emphasized that these differences often lead to a deceitful rhetoric theory. By presenting the similarities between classical and modern rhetoric, Lunsford and Ede eliminate the false distinction between both Rhetorics. The authors suggest that both discourses share a common belief that human is a “language using animal” (Lunsford 405); therefore, Language is the primary source which incorporates logic and