He felt that rhetoric would dominate in arguments that involved concerns and skills (174). Belletristic Movement's, however, were interested in the language of rhetoric, much like Georgia and Longings. The 18th century sees rhetoric at the head of educational concerns. Going through chapter 8 of the textbook, it appears that rhetoric really never died out. It Just evolved into the next phase that it was needed in. Yet, we see still, that rhetoric is still studied Just as the people in Greece used it. It has become apparent that no matter how rhetoric changes, people still use rhetoric as it was intended.
These people are Just merely trying to find ways to enhance its abilities so it can be used throughout the country, and be shared with others. Warwick argues that rhetoric shifts from producing public discourse, to enhancing its consumption (peg. 184). Rhetoric, during the time of the renaissance, was used as a subject of study (peg 160). During this period, rhetoric was how people were educated. There was a movement known as the Italian Humanism, that helped with rhetoric's influence between 1300 and 1750 (peg 50). Rhetoric was given attention by important figure like, Patriarch and Villa.
Due to their attention to this subject it grew the status of rhetoric immensely, because of their status in society. These people used rhetoric as a way to argue against philosophical thinking. Going back to Humanism; it mixed principles from Christianity. It led to a search for new education. They ended up using rhetoric as a way to question the "status quo" (153). Patriarch, was one of many figures during the renaissance, who used rhetoric to refine culture. Rhetoric raised to a place of high importance by humanists because of what rhetoric was capable of doing.
It gave the potential to give new insight and it was able to preserve future values (160). Due to Cicerone's findings, Patriarch was big in liberal arts, and the life of political involvement. Rhetoric was able to help form an effective government during the renaissance. The renaissance, was probably the most important time for rhetoric. It was at its peak and used by public figures everywhere. There was never a greater time for rhetoric because it was used in importance, such as education, probably the most important subject of all.
Also, as the book states, rhetoric was used in more political terms like Cicero attempted to do. Thanks to the renaissance, rhetoric lived on and was taught throughout the years. There were four main ideas during these two era's that coincide with each other. The first two would be the education that went on during the renaissance era, and enlightenment era. These two subjects were huge for these era's. Along with, the differences between Whitey's view on rhetoric and George Campbell view on rhetoric.
Their different view on what rhetoric is, their ideas, pretty much made their separate era's. Whitley believe that rhetoric was really an art. Whitely also connects rhetoric with logic by defining argumentative composition as an offshoot of logic (World Press). Whitley also, believed that rhetoric could be used for evil purposes Just like Cicero did. This connects back to Augustine argument that rhetoric is to be sustained thin the church so it may not be able to be used with evil intentions. There is no amount of success that any student will have when studying rhetoric.
In Wattle's own words," learning more doesn't teach you to think well but that thinking well will help you to learn more (World Press). Whitley viewed that in order to know the educational side of rhetoric it has to be comprised exercises that are relevant to students' studies, current events, and personal lives. "Whitely argues that the systems help to improve natural abilities but they cannot supersede natural ability. Once a student has learned the system, he can manipulate it, but this again does not mean that his ability has improved (World Press). I believe in what Whitley believes in. I can see how rhetoric could be used for evil, if it was something that was so powerful among society back in his time. I also believe in his teachings, or at least the way rhetoric should be taught. It is in my understanding since taking this course, that rhetoric is a difficult subject to understand. The way that Whitley views rhetoric, it is not something that can be taught through a book. For someone to understand rhetoric they have to be taught wrought real life. Through trial and error, with examples or situations on using it properly.
Campbell, on the other hand, believed reasoning is a natural part of rhetoric. Rhetoric begins with the search for truth and then proceeds to persuasion, the attempt to move the will to ethical action. See, what Campbell saw rhetoric as, was the scientific side of it. He did not believe it could be used for evil like Whitley believed. According to our book, George Campbell was one of the most important rhetorical theorists of the 18th century (peg. 179). Campbell was open to new ideas, ND intended to develop a new rhetoric that incorporated insights of the Enlightenment period (peg. 79). He thought that he was laying a foundation of classical rhetoric, and hoped to one day be able to move past those traditions and create something his own. Campbell advanced beyond traditional scientific rhetoric, but science meant something different for him. The one thing, that Campbell and Whitley disagreed on, was argumentation. Whitley did not care about the larger philosophical issue's on rhetoric. Whitley was always focused on the issues of argument (peg 182). He was most known for his concussion of types of argument and debate (peg. 182).
Whereas Campbell, was only concerned to understand how the mind works. He believed that if you understood a person's mind, you had control over them. On this bases I truly agree with Campbell on the thoughts of argumentation. Reason being is I truly think that if someone knows someone mind, and knows how they thing, they ultimately know what makes a person tick. They will truly know the best way to win argumentation with another person, in the quickest way possible. Each person, during an argument, has some sort of weakness, a click that when shushed by someone else will ultimately give up.
When knowing a way someone thinks, you can reach that point a lot quicker than others. The Enlightenment era and Renaissance era, are two very different periods in history. The Renaissance era is put with the advances of certain subjects. Such as: literature, architecture, humanism, and world economy. Meanwhile Enlightenment era advanced, different scientific methods, industrialization, rationality, astronomy, and calculus (wise geek). While doing some research on both era's one name in particular kept coming up. His name, Marcus Tulips Cicero.
It was through him that the thinkers of the Renaissance and Enlightenment discovered the riches of Classical rhetoric. In the Enlightenment era, public figures, such as George Campbell, used some of Cicerone's works to help shape his own way of thinking. He helped guide the Scottish (though "Celtic" might be better since we need to include at least one Irishman in this list) Enlightenment and Common Sense movement of the 18th century. Cicerone's influence hung over Home, Burke, and Smith (Briber). Cicero also influenced a man named Giovanni Vice. A rhetorician also, in his days.
Vice found inspiration for this theory in Cicero and the rhetorical tradition rather than in the philosophers and logicians. Most of what the Enlightenment era took from Cicero, was his thinking of natural law. He helped develop their systems, due to his also theory on rhetoric. Cicerone's main influence though, was during the Renaissance era. His Ciceronian influence was around and noticeable during the Renaissance, it was limited to a degree. Like the Enlightenment era, his influence during these times was derived from a very small number of his works. Most notably for both era's, De Invention (peg 43).
Following the Greek sophists, Cicero represents language as the force that led humanity out of the wilderness into civilization, a political force through public speech that allowed peoples to make laws for themselves (peg. 149). This is directly associated with the Enlightenment era, because the Enlightenment era took language, and used it in argumentative rhetoric fashion. So, in essence the Enlightenment era used knowledge from the Renaissance era. Cicero, also had much influence on young philosophers/rhetoricians in the Renaissance era. Patriarch, used Cicero as a tool towards his own greatness.
He studied Cicerone's readings and added them to his literary education. Cicerone's rhetoric was the key to Italy's return to greatness (peg. 1 52). Villa sought to broaden the conception of proper Latin beyond the model established by Cicero (peg. 154). So in turn, he used Cicero as a starting block, which most rhetoricians did in these days, and try to go beyond what he had started. Lastly, Cicero had effect on the two written books, A Treatise of Schemes and Tropes, The Art or Craft of Rhetoric, and The Rate of Rhetoric (peg. 159). These were all key pieces of rhetorical text in this day and age.
All of which used Cicerone's views as a way to teach and provide information, in these books. I believe that rhetoric, was important as can be for these two periods. Not Just, Cicerone's views on rhetoric, but everyone's views that were important rhetoricians in this world, were used to shape those periods. I also, feel that at these times, the importance of education started to come about more. It would seem that at these times, people were better educated than in past years. In my personal opinion though, I think the Enlightenment era would be a personal favorite of mine.
The season being the Enlightenment era was all about argumentation. The book explains on how, that in that time, they used rhetoric as a way to win arguments. In my mind that is pretty fascinating because I do believe arguments are necessary in life. I really enjoyed though, how both era's used Cicero. He is by far my favorite rhetorician, and I feel that it is why, the two era's were so successful and important in history. His views helped shaped two era's, and help them be successful, and in my mind these era's were very successful, at leading the future to where we are today. Work Cited: