Tag Archives: Rhetoric

BOOKS: “Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction” by Jonathan Culler

Posted on by
Reply
Literary Theory: A Very Short IntroductionLiterary Theory: A Very Short Introduction by Jonathan D. Culler
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Publisher site – OUP

This brief guide tries to bring some clarity to the question of what literary theory is, a question which is a great deal more convoluted that it is in science (or even the social sciences) where the scientific method shapes our understanding of the term. Often when one hears about literary theory it’s in the context of Marxists, Feminists, or Psychoanalysts, and one might be forgiven for wondering whether those scholars don’t have a discipline of their own (not to mention how much can a Marxist – for example – illuminate The Little Prince or the poetry of Li Bai.)

I thought the book was well-arranged to shed as much light on the topic as possible. Of its nine chapters, the first two explore competing ideas of what constitutes “theory” and “literature,” respectively. There is a chapter (Ch.3) that distinguishes the field from the overlapping discipline of cultural studies. The remaining six chapters cover topical components of the field, including: language / meaning, rhetoric / poetics, story, performative language, identity, ethics, and aesthetics.

This book does a good job of offering some clarity and has a sense of humor as it does so (notably through satirical cartoons that illustrate the book.) If you’re looking for a layman’s guide to the subject, this one is readable and insightful.

View all my reviews

Five Wise Lines (Jan 2024)

Posted on by
Reply

Every so often I run into a sentence that blows my mind a little bit. Here are a few recent examples:

We may be in the universe as dogs and cats are in our libraries, seeing the books and hearing the conversation, but having no inkling of the meaning of it all.

William james

One must read ten thousand books and travel ten thousand miles to be an educated man.

Old chinese adage (As Translated by ha jin in The Banished Immortal)

Poetry is an echo asking a shadow to dance.

Carl Sandburg

Distrust of grammar is the first requisite of philosophizing.

Ludwig wittgenstein

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.

John stuart mill

The Abyss [Free Verse]

Posted on by
6 
Nietzsche said:

“And if thou gaze long
   into an abyss,
  the abyss will also
    gaze into thee.”


I must admit
   the first several times
    that I read this quote,
  I couldn’t tell if it was wise,
    or just had the patina of
     wisdom that comes from 
     parallel sentence structure.

Crisscrossing subject and object
    lends a ring of sagacity.

“If you can’t take 
    Mohammad to the mountain,
  the mountain must come to
    Mohammad.”


“Ask not what your country 
    can do for you,
  but what you can do 
     for your country.”


“If you can’t get the carrots 
    out of the refrigerator,
  get the refrigerator 
     out of the carrots.”


Yes, that last one is nonsense, 
    but it’s not nonsense like:

“The banana pirouetted fuchsia
     all over the underside of
      an A-sharp chord.”

The carrot quote probably took
     your mind some time —
      if only milliseconds —
       to relegate to the
        trash heap. 

That’s why this sentence structure 
     is beloved by godmen &
      politicians: because you can 
       sound wise even if you’re 
       kind of an idiot.

So, I was ready to classify Nietzsche’s 
     quote pseudo-wisdom when I realized 
      that my smartphone was the Abyss, 
       and it was certainly staring back at me.

  It stared through all the data collection &
     neuroscientific and psychological
      research designed to keep 
       a person scrolling.

Maybe Nietzsche was on to something
    that even he didn't fully understand.

BOOK REVIEW: Gorgias by Plato

Posted on by
Reply
GorgiasGorgias by Plato
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Amazon.in Page

Project Gutenberg

This Socratic dialogue explores what rhetoric is, and whether rhetorician is a real job, like plumber or secretary, or whether it’s more like “bottled water sommelier” or “social media influencer” – i.e. an undertaking by which one can make loads of money without contributing society one iota. It starts out (as usual) with Socrates questioning someone, in this case the rhetorician Gorgias. This exchange can be summed up by the ideas that: 1.) rhetoric is persuasion; 2.) the ignorant are more persuasive to the ignorant than are those with knowledge. [Gorgias boasts that he has been able to convince patients to take actions that their physicians couldn’t. Because Gorgias had to admit he didn’t know as much about facilitating health as a physician, he was forced to agree to the sad absurdity that people will often comply with slick talkers who know nothing (a plight which may prove to be the downfall of our species.)] There’s a fine epistemological discussion of the difference between belief and knowledge that is used by Socrates to show that rhetoricians aren’t concerned with knowledge so much as beliefs.

Then Polus and Callicles (young rhetoricians) take up the questioning role, turning the tables and asking Socrates what is the art of rhetoric. [And we know they’re not going to like the answer.] Socrates denies rhetoric is an art, and calls it the counterfeit part of politics. Socrates compares rhetoric to cookery, where cooks pretend to be experts in what food should be eaten but, while people often love the cook’s meals, it’s the physician who actually knows what food is best. Socrates doesn’t consider rhetoric an art because it isn’t rooted in knowledge or virtue, but rather in momentary preferences. Much of the argument hinges on the fact that the young men believe it is worse to suffer injustice than to do injustice and that being able to exert control (be it for good or ill) equates to power and happiness. Socrates accepts neither premise, and systematically refutes both. Callicles’ tack is along lines of natural justice — the strongest do as they please and pursuit of pleasure is noble. [The truth is that while Socrates may have the more sound and supportable position, the rhetoricians describe the way the world operates more accurately.]

This is a sharp and insightful dialogue, and given its surprising relevance to the present day, I’d highly recommend reading it.

View all my reviews

BOOK REVIEW: Phaedrus by Plato

Posted on by
1
PhaedrusPhaedrus by Plato
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Amazon.in Page

“Phaedrus” is one of the middle Socratic dialogues of Plato (experts propose that the middle dialogues increasingly contain Plato’s own ideas [versus those of Socrates, himself.]) The subject of the dialogue is love and whether it is worth pursuing. Phaedrus has a speech by Lysias that he’s is quite excited about, one which claims that it’s better to have a “platonic” relationship than a loving one. As Phaedrus and Socrates walk, they debate about the speech. Phaedrus presses Socrates to deliver his own speech on the subject. Socrates delivers two; the first aligns with Lysias’ view and the second takes the opposing side.

Socrates concludes that, while love is a form of madness, it’s not the madness of human infirmity. Instead, it’s a form of divine madness, and – as such – should not be poo-poo’d too quickly. Socrates proposes that there are four varieties of divine madness (theia mania): prophetic, ritual, poetic, and erotic, and – of these – the latter is best and (again) shouldn’t be dismissed lightly.

After Socrates’ second speech and conversation that summarizes and clarifies it, the philosopher discusses how one can be led astray by elegantly formulated words, and how a philosopher should evaluate what is said to determine whether the speaker is wise or whether he (or she) just sounds sage by virtue of his (/her) poeticism.

While this dialogue can be a bit ethereal and mystic for my taste, it has some fascinating things to say. While I don’t necessarily believe in the “divine” part of divine madness, I do see that there are some people who are able to become unyoked from custom and convention, and to do so in a way that is not anxiety-riddled. I think this is a useful state to understand, and this dialogue is an excellent place to start.

View all my reviews