Perelman brings up the issue concerning what value a text has beyond its temporal setting. One might argue, for example, that "all discourses automatically become literature once they cease to exert a persuasive effect, and there is no particular reason to distinguish different genres of oratory" (1388)."

Courses such as "The Bible as Literature" come to mind. Is, for example, the Bible mere literature given that its information is dated and intended for an audience that's been deceased for 2,000 years? Or, one could argue that the message is still applicable to modern day people, and that its persuasive effect is still strong? The Gettysburg Address is another example. We can either view it as literature, or at least a curious document to be studied, or we can still try to derive some value from its persuasive elements. If nothing else, a dated or no longer applicable text can be of value for its style and rhetoric. By that I mean we can learn how to craft current discourse by studying past successful discourse.

Since this course deals with some historic documents (examples of rhetoric), and because Perelman provides many examples or references of such work, I think it's also important to consider the value that studying older conceptions of rhetoric provides the current PhD student. Has the meaning of rhetoric changed? Has our conception of it changed? Also, have its positive and/or negative connotations undergone modifications? These are all questions we can ask ourselves that are not necessarily answered in the readings, but the more we read about rhetoric, the better we can attempt to sort out these issues.

Bethany

I noticed that rhetoric is frequently portrayed as a “victim” in some of the readings. Its importance has diminished, and it’s frequently considered less of a discipline than others, such as literature. Booth mentions how rhetoric has been neglected, and that “there were hardly any rhetorical terms in any of the journals” (24) he came across. I question whether we need mention certain terms for rhetoric to be present or implied. It seems that the disappearance of rhetoric as the most important discipline (which Weaver mentions in “Language is Sermonic”) is really a function of its remarkable ability to branch out. Now we have speech, communication, advertising, journalism, broadcasting, literature, and the list goes on. Are these not all forms of rhetoric? I don’t believe that concentrating rhetorical studies under a single department makes them any more significant or worthy. In fact, the opposite is true, since the colorful branch of disciplines that employ rhetoric show how much we actually value it.
Defining rhetoric seems to be an equally perplexing task according to this week’s authors. In “Gorgias,” on p. 91, the character claims that Socrates’ definition of rhetoric is “satisfactory,” and the two continue to debate its definition. Is it not enough that rhetoric exists, in quite a broad fashion across many situations? Also, as evidenced in Booth’s chapter two (“A Brief History of Rhetorical Studies”), the meaning of rhetoric is not static over time.
Rhetoric is frequently referred to as “the art of,” and the sheer number of situations and phenomena that can be considered the “art of” seem to suggest that the “thing” being described is rather vague. Weaver states that “Rhetoric seen in the whole conspectus of its function is an art of emphasis embodying an order of desire” (1355). The issue of defining rhetoric, as well as explaining its supposed contemporary neglect, were salient themes for me.