Through the reading I found that Toulmin to be yet another philosopher reluctant to assume the title of rhetorician. In his work The Uses of Argument, he analyzes Aristotle's approximations of logic, and reveals his own framework for arguments with the interweaving dynamic of claims and data. I agreed with Toulmin in his criticism of the distinction often made between logic and rhetoric as though the two were isolated entities when it comes to reasoning. Ultimately, he shies away from extensive discussions of rhetoric as he gravitates toward the philosophical side of arguments, but there is no denying the impact his work The Uses of Argument had on the field of rhetoric in terms of a clear proposal of how to use persuasive language effectively.
In reading the excerpt from The Uses of Argument I easily discerned the simplicity of the model's presentation that the Rhetorical Tradition referred to. A lot of it seemed to fall under the jurisdiction of common sense, with pointed statements that Toulmin classes in different "fields". I encountered the Toulmin model in my English 301 class and actually applied it in an exercise, so it was interesting to see the model's origin in text form rather than the chart I was familiar with. Accordingly, I thought it was useful to see a full definition of syllogisms because of their pertinence in rhetoric.
The reading also covered Foucault, another philosopher. I found Foucault's concept of "the will to truth" to be far more complex than the Toulmin model of argument. From what I understood, it was Foucault's opinion that discourse a source of truth, while the author, knowledge and meaning stem from discourse; Discourse is the communication of truth via these means. Knowledge is not an effortless continuation, but consistently shaped through active discourse through time.
I agree with your thoughts on Foucault. I felt his philosophical way of thinking was highly complex, and more fluid than that of Toulmin. I thought that it was necessary to acknowledge the time period: in a more modern time, it is important to realize that knowledge will constantly be shaped with time, rather than being a rigid aspect of society. I also highlighted Toulmin's method of argumentation, and felt that it was interesting that while he was clearly a rhetorician, there were more modern aspects to his ways of thinking.
ReplyDelete