I started reading “ the art of rhetoric” and I was convinced that it was purely for philosophy majors but your videos are really helping me understand that. Keep up the good work!
So much useful insight packed into so little time. Thank you! Watching Andrew's videos remind me of an old, second-hand book I found. It was on a very deep subject and I thought I got the subject, but then wasn't sure. The previous owner had scribbled some notes in the margins. I started to read them and thought; yeah, of course - that's what it means. It clicked instantly. Andrew's videos are like finding those really helpful margin notes in a detailed text. He just hits the key points again and again and again.
Interesting video, with a valiant attempt at legitimizing the use and purpose of rhetoric. Perhaps I am premature in my assessment as subsequent presentations may bear out, but there is also much abuse in the use of rhetoric. I am pleased to see that certitude was clearly stated as not being constituent to rhetoric. Just because Socrates is wise, does not mean that he is inherently virtuous, he mad be wise and caddish. Also, the use of rhetoric could also be defined as "the practice of employing seemingly sound reasoning, in the defense of a conclusion that is inherently false or subjective by nature". It's an every day manifestation. It should be used responsibly but often times nefariously.
I read Aristotle as responding to philosophy's position that rhetoric was exactly that--"seemingly sound" manipulation--by pointing out that it is indeed useful in ways that philosophy isn't. He also complains that we only have the same word, "rhetoric," for both the good and bad. In the end, it's just a tool--but knowing how to use it will make you more alert to those who abuse it.
That's not quite the distinction. Dialectic is a philosophical method, a way for trained philosophers to weigh the truthfulness of ideas through back-and-forth questioning. Rhetoric is a separate method for a different purpose: where dialectic works best between two trained experts, rhetoric is suited to communicating. with and motivating large audiences of nonspecialists (i.e., regular people). Because of that, rhetoric involves emotions, reason, and perceptions of character as means of persuasion where philosophy relies on stricter rationality to ascertain different kinds of truths.
It's troubling that people who make videos like this and give lectures in universities usually use trivial examples (and the same ones that have been used for 2000 years!) rather than apply what they are talking about to a real-world, current issue. Is this because, once you try to apply this clever stuff, the theory falls apart?
Certainly not: there's robust scholarship in rhetorical theory being done all over, but it's generally found in the literature and not in introductions to the discipline. As with anything, it's helpful to learn the basics that are held in common before venturing into more complex specialties.
This is the same open-ended, vague, meandering runaround that everyone engages in while pretending that there is some fundamental science to Aristotle's Rhetoric when there isn't .
This is the kind of toothless, generalized critique that's commonly made by commenters with more unearned confidence than actual knowledge. I don't think anyone's really making the claim that an ancient philosopher's treatise on rhetoric is trying to do anything scientific 🤷♂️
@@WritingwithAndrew Well, first you would have to bother yourself with understanding the terminology that you use. If you had a deeper literary background, you would understand the term "scientific" in the context of Aristotle's own time and his other works, rather than in the context of what the sorority girls in communications departments think. You could claim (as you already did) that Aristotle's non-stop analysis, deconstruction, and cataloging of a great many analyzed subjects was not an attempt to be scientific, but you would be at odds with pretty much every accredited philosophy department on the planet.
@@WritingwithAndrew The historical reality is that Aristotle's Rhetoric is either ignored completely in philosophy departments, or treated unquestioningly as received wisdom by communications types, who teach students how to be effective BS artists (just as Plato anticipated). A broader critique and cross-examination would be the scholarly approach to this subject.
Hopefully, you can appreciate why I wouldn't be too receptive to being told what would or wouldn't count as a scholarly approach to my own discipline (especially in the decidedly non-scholarly context of RUclips). If it makes you feel any better, Aristotle's Rhetoric is a standard part of rhetoric curricula for the sake of historical context, but contemporary scholarship has mostly left it behind except for the occasional critique. Popular misapprehensions of rhetoric persist, and the hand-waving dismissal of "communication types" betrays a fundamental detachment from the contemporary reality of rhetorical scholarship and practice. These complaints are often addressed in the introductions of basic rhetoric textbooks and are regarded only as misunderstandings of the discipline. As such, I don't feel a particular need to relitigate the thousands of years of philosophy vs. rhetoric debates that have only ended with both coexisting at institutions around the world as robust and productive academic disciplines engaged in very different projects.
![ARGENTINA vs. BOLIVIA [6-0] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 10](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/C3wPtKNbAOA/mqdefault.jpg)
I started reading “ the art of rhetoric” and I was convinced that it was purely for philosophy majors but your videos are really helping me understand that. Keep up the good work!
Thanks--I'm glad to hear it! Sometimes, the texts make it all sound more complex than it really is
I wish this had more views. It is insanely helpful with helping me understand what rhetoric is and whats it's used for.
Hey, me too! But seriously, I'm glad it helped--thanks for watching!
So much useful insight packed into so little time. Thank you! Watching Andrew's videos remind me of an old, second-hand book I found. It was on a very deep subject and I thought I got the subject, but then wasn't sure. The previous owner had scribbled some notes in the margins. I started to read them and thought; yeah, of course - that's what it means. It clicked instantly. Andrew's videos are like finding those really helpful margin notes in a detailed text. He just hits the key points again and again and again.
Wow, that means a lot--I love the idea of finding helpful notes in a used book. Thanks!
Great explanation. Your skull friend was especially savage today. haha :P
I apologize for nothing...
very well put together video, 18 years old here willing to learn about rhetoric and philosophies until the end of my life
Hey, thanks--that's awesome!
Man, I love this channel
You're too kind--thanks a bunch!
I've just found this chanel while studying and I've became extremely invested. What a great video!
Hey, thanks--glad to hear it!
Thank you for taking the time to make these videos.... Wish you success
Thanks so much!
Fantastic video. Thank you for helping me understand this topic.
Thanks so much--I'm glad it helped!
Very informative. Thanks, Andrew.
You bet--thanks for watching (as always!)
Thanks my guy, this was really useful!
Hey, you're welcome--I'm glad to hear it!
This really helped me with my grad. paper. Thank you!
Yes! So happy to hear it--go get 'em!
Comm student here, this video was super helpful keep up the good work!!
That's great to hear--glad it helped!
Love the word play at the end :)
What a good channel! Glad I found it.
Thanks--I'm glad you found it too!
Interesting video, with a valiant attempt at legitimizing the use and purpose of rhetoric. Perhaps I am premature in my assessment as subsequent presentations may bear out, but there is also much abuse in the use of rhetoric. I am pleased to see that certitude was clearly stated as not being constituent to rhetoric. Just because Socrates is wise, does not mean that he is inherently virtuous, he mad be wise and caddish. Also, the use of rhetoric could also be defined as "the practice of employing seemingly sound reasoning, in the defense of a conclusion that is inherently false or subjective by nature". It's an every day manifestation. It should be used responsibly but often times nefariously.
I read Aristotle as responding to philosophy's position that rhetoric was exactly that--"seemingly sound" manipulation--by pointing out that it is indeed useful in ways that philosophy isn't. He also complains that we only have the same word, "rhetoric," for both the good and bad. In the end, it's just a tool--but knowing how to use it will make you more alert to those who abuse it.
Thanks for your help!
You bet!
Great video
Thanks!
So is Aristotle's rhetoric about persuading people through their emotions, and Arostotle's dialectic about persuading people with facts or logic?
That's not quite the distinction. Dialectic is a philosophical method, a way for trained philosophers to weigh the truthfulness of ideas through back-and-forth questioning. Rhetoric is a separate method for a different purpose: where dialectic works best between two trained experts, rhetoric is suited to communicating. with and motivating large audiences of nonspecialists (i.e., regular people). Because of that, rhetoric involves emotions, reason, and perceptions of character as means of persuasion where philosophy relies on stricter rationality to ascertain different kinds of truths.
@@WritingwithAndrew Ah, that's more clear!
It's troubling that people who make videos like this and give lectures in universities usually use trivial examples (and the same ones that have been used for 2000 years!) rather than apply what they are talking about to a real-world, current issue.
Is this because, once you try to apply this clever stuff, the theory falls apart?
Certainly not: there's robust scholarship in rhetorical theory being done all over, but it's generally found in the literature and not in introductions to the discipline. As with anything, it's helpful to learn the basics that are held in common before venturing into more complex specialties.
He made you think
This is the same open-ended, vague, meandering runaround that everyone engages in while pretending that there is some fundamental science to Aristotle's Rhetoric when there isn't .
This is the kind of toothless, generalized critique that's commonly made by commenters with more unearned confidence than actual knowledge. I don't think anyone's really making the claim that an ancient philosopher's treatise on rhetoric is trying to do anything scientific 🤷♂️
@@WritingwithAndrew Well, first you would have to bother yourself with understanding the terminology that you use. If you had a deeper literary background, you would understand the term "scientific" in the context of Aristotle's own time and his other works, rather than in the context of what the sorority girls in communications departments think. You could claim (as you already did) that Aristotle's non-stop analysis, deconstruction, and cataloging of a great many analyzed subjects was not an attempt to be scientific, but you would be at odds with pretty much every accredited philosophy department on the planet.
In the face of such a self-certain assertion of your deeper expertise, the only reasonable option is to defer, I guess. I suppose we're done here.
@@WritingwithAndrew The historical reality is that Aristotle's Rhetoric is either ignored completely in philosophy departments, or treated unquestioningly as received wisdom by communications types, who teach students how to be effective BS artists (just as Plato anticipated). A broader critique and cross-examination would be the scholarly approach to this subject.
Hopefully, you can appreciate why I wouldn't be too receptive to being told what would or wouldn't count as a scholarly approach to my own discipline (especially in the decidedly non-scholarly context of RUclips). If it makes you feel any better, Aristotle's Rhetoric is a standard part of rhetoric curricula for the sake of historical context, but contemporary scholarship has mostly left it behind except for the occasional critique. Popular misapprehensions of rhetoric persist, and the hand-waving dismissal of "communication types" betrays a fundamental detachment from the contemporary reality of rhetorical scholarship and practice. These complaints are often addressed in the introductions of basic rhetoric textbooks and are regarded only as misunderstandings of the discipline. As such, I don't feel a particular need to relitigate the thousands of years of philosophy vs. rhetoric debates that have only ended with both coexisting at institutions around the world as robust and productive academic disciplines engaged in very different projects.
Very bad interpretation
Thank you
Anytime!