Rhetorical argument

O f the suggestions for composing encomia within texts of progymnasmata exercises, among the most common is to begin with praise of a person's ancestry and origins-elements of a category called by the progymnasmata authors "external goods." 2 Within the framework described by these texts, ancestry is positioned as an important locus communis for the composition of speeches, particularly encomia and panegyrics in praise of a notable person or a deceased relative. As an important element of ceremonial and epideictic rhetorical practice, consideration of ancestry and other external goods was integrated into the rhetorical education program represented by the progymnasmata exercises and rhetorical handbooks, reflecting the importance of such speeches in wider civic and ceremonial culture. As Marc van der Poel notes, it was customary that during funeral ceremonies for deceased men of prominent families, a son or another relative delivered a speech to honour the virtues and successful achievements of the deceased and to foster a spirit of bravery in the audience. 3

There are passages in Wittgenstein where he compares his method to psychotherapy and one or two where he seems to suggest that the ‘patient’ has the last word on his ‘illness’ and ‘cure’.  This paper tries to take these seriously, especially in connexion with the idea that victims of philosophical confusion talk nonsense.

Philosophical accusations of talking nonsense made in a polemical spirit are bound to fail, since the only way one can effectively criticise another’s utterance is by attaching some meaning to it.  But if the other acknowledges the possibility that his puzzlement arises from his having been taken in by nonsense, then perhaps a co-operative investigation of this suggestion might be fruitful.  Indeed self-diagnosis ought in principle to be possible.  Ought it not to have happened at least once in the history of philosophy if philosophical nonsense has ever been exposed? 

But there are difficulties.  For example:
a) We must ask whether or not philosophical nonsense, when exposed as such, is supposed to lose all appearance of meaningfulness.  Either answer is problematic.
b) The acknowledged similarity of the methodology under investigation to that of psychoanalysis exposes it to many of the familiar objections to the methodology of psychoanalysis, especially those that draw attention to the misleading influence of suggestion by an authority-figure.
c) The proposal that relentless cross-questioning of a suspected nonsense-talker will eventually lead her to ‘dry up’ (if she really is talking nonsense) seems to involve a version of the so-called Socratic Fallacy.

This paper describes an undergraduate course on practical rhetoric, based mainly on the theory of issues as taught by Hermogenes and other later Greek rhetoricians (2nd-5th centuries AD). It outlines the theory, and demonstrates its application through a worked example. It concludes with a discussion of whether, and in what sense, rhetorical argumentation of this kind is rational argument.

This essay examines four disciplinary challenges that faculty from broad, diverse disciplines such as rhetoric and composition encounter during tenure, promotion, and reappointment (TP&R) and highlights the arguments and rhetorical strategies that can be utilized to demonstrate scholarly worth and significance.