The subject of the reading in ARCS evaluated the value and purpose of extrinsic proofs in rhetoric. Extrinsic proofs were described as testimony and facts that are often considered to be beyond reproach in legal cases in society today. I thought that the skepticism with which some ancient rhetoricians handled these proofs to be extremely wise, and certainly I agree that extrinsic proofs should not be taken at face value. There is too much objectivity in human nature to count on a purely empirical stance in cases that very well could have excited a number of emotions and experiences in the witness. The various examples featured in the chapter exemplify this point, such as the Supreme Court case dealing with hateful speech that involved a burning cross. Controversy to such an extent is unlikely to merit emotionless testimony from witnesses directly involved in the happenings.
The reading also defined the difference between community and proximate authorities, which was a new concept to me, though I feel that it was simply relabeling certain people in society in a rhetorical lens. Community authorities wield a high level of ethos that make them credible in the context of a specific community, and proximate authorities are eyewitnesses to certain events. Proximate authorities are directly related to the aforementioned legal cases in that they are the ones who provide testimonies. I think that it is a mistake to take such testimonies at face value, without giving any consideration to possible biases. To me, the priority placed on empirical evidence, and the general understanding that it is usually without reproach in America's court system today is not the most pragmatic manner to deal with cases. All evidence should be extensively evaluated.
The notion of empirical evidence as absolute leads into number 3 of the rhetorical activities in the chapter as it relates to biased arguments. 3. The example argument of "I'm a Catholic so I should know the Catholic meaning of abortion" lends unmerited weight to the idea that just because an individual fits within a certain distinction they automatically assume all of the knowledge and standpoints of that group. I feel assumptions of this nature are unrealistic and can lend a positive or negative advantage to a person depending on the situation because they do not have to define their arguments themselves. The ancient rhetors would undoubtedly refute such arguments for lacking clear rhetorical values.
I definitely agree with the arguments you made about community and proximate communities, in that they are merely rhetorical devices to categorize people in society, which may not be a valid process of categorization. I found a lot of the information on empirical evidence to be subjective, in that, like you, assumptions are oftentimes solely unrealistic and not rightfully applicable to an argument. Your analysis is thoughtful and extensive, especially with the examples you provided to support your own thoughts and opinions on the text.
ReplyDeleteThanks Katie. I also found that my understanding of the concepts was enriched in the class discussion today in that I had further history to contextualize them with. For instance, understanding the works in the Rhetorical Traditions was far easier with the background knowledge of the tumultuous persecution of religion that existed in the time period of both Margaret Fell and Thomas Wilson.
ReplyDelete