Lauren Painter

9/20/12 REFLECTION
In class, we continued from Tuesdays class, where we were divided into groups and chose between three lenses to analyze from the text. On Tuesday, our three lenses were exigency (the purpose of the text), theory analysis comparisons, and difference in definitions of rhetoric between each theorist. We chose those three topics because we figured they would all be equally as interesting to analyze and present to the class, as well as how informative each topic would be. After the lens (pardon me if I am incorrectly spelling this word) was decided, the class voted for us to analyze the different definitions of rhetoric each theorist spoke of. My group was enthused and ready to work on this for Thursday. On Thursday, our group got together with an addition of two people. We discussed the difference in definitions for all four theorists. Before presenting, we had to construct a map of these, as we have done in the past. The four philosophers were Socrates, Gorgias, Polus, and Callicles. All of them had vastly opposing views on rhetoric and what it really is and means; some of them agreed with each other. Socrates creates a difference between rhetorical practice and philosophical discourse. He argues that rhetoric is a producer of persuasion and its whole business is to do just that. Socrates also claims that the problem with Sophists was that they claimed to teach justice without knowing the meaning of justice at all. Gorgias defines rhetoric as the persuasion of ignorant masses within the courts and assemblies. Both him and Socrates agreed that rhetoric should be used responsibly. Polus, the next theorist, debates that rhetoric is the greatest power in the country. Him and Socrates agree that rhetoric is just a knack for creating persuasive speeches without foundation in justice nor truth. Callicles, the last, believes that mannerisms of rhetoric will make him a powerful man and assure him personal security against any threat. For their maps, all the other groups drew trees as their maps. Ours was probably more boring, but with more informationa normal, basic web. We did this to get across as much information as possible, and to demonstrate efficiently how the theorists opinions differed, and where they agreed (and on what, as stated above). I enjoyed this exercise a lot. It is nice and refreshing to see other takes on rhetoric from these theorists, since I have yet to decide how rhetoric really relates to my everyday life and come up with my own definition. Some of these philosophers stated how rhetoric was used as a form of persuasion while the others warned to use it with caution (responsibly). The most difficult part of this exercise was working with the group members. The text had a lot of informationit was hard to cut it down and make the definitions more concise. This led to my group to debate on what parts to use and what not to use. We used the most important concepts and put them on the map. I liked the other groups presentations, but they were all trees which made it hard to tell them apart and fully remember what they spoke about. This was a fun group exercise as usual, and I have more knowledge on rhetoric, mine-in-the-making compared to the philosophers.