Taking A Closer Look At The Five Canons Of Rhetoric

This week we are going to familiarize ourselves with the western, ancient origins of Rhetorical Theory. As we move through our chapter readings and assigned media, we will begin to craft connections between what what Aristotle and the great Sophists have to do with argument today.

Particularly when we think of “making argument,” we should be considered what comes to mind. Conflict? Pro-Con? Winners and Losers? Compromise? Resolution? These are all ideas we will confront this week as we dive into the history of rhetorical theory and begin a framework of argument together!

Objectives
Discuss the classical origins of Rhetorical Theory
Identify the five canons of rhetoric
Classify the definition of argument

Sample Solution

Taking A Closer Look At The Five Canons Of Rhetoric

Rhetorical theory is the body of thought about human symbol use. Rhetoric occurs in response to an exigence or some kind of urgency, problem, or something not as it should be. Aristotle`s definition of rhetoric provides a starting point for understanding how rhetoric has been defined: the art of discovering all the available means of persuasion. Classical rhetorical theories were dominated by the ideas of Aristotle and Plato. Speaking out about state matters was likely to result in punishment, so rhetoric became largely concerned with matters of style and delivery rather than the substantive content of invention. In De Inventione, the Roman philosopher Cicero explains that there are five canons, or tenets, of rhetoric: invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery.

ué believes the main reason for the end of the Cold War was the lack of control Gorbachev had over the Eastern European countries. Ultimately, this led to the end of the Cold War because the countries broke away from the Soviet control, which further led to the rapid downfall of the Soviets. Levesqué argues Gorbachev tried to have “the best of both worlds” by having “change and relative stability” in the Eastern European countries. Gorbachev was too focused on the West, disregarding the Eastern European countries which led to their independence because “first priority was given to the East-West rapprochement”. Therefore, the Eastern European countries were a significant reason for the end of the Cold War because the Soviet Union lost control over them as their power was minimised.

Additionally, Levesqué depicts how historians in the past thought that Soviet Union leaders had “very poor information on the situation in Eastern Europe”. His argument is based on newly released documents, such as the report from the Bogomolov Institute, which clearly reveal problems at the time – they were just not acted upon. Eastern countries e.g Bratislava were looking to become independent because they disliked the Russian control, but this desire for independence was negative since it meant that the Soviet Union had less control over reforming them. Gorbachev wanted the leaders themselves to implement the changes, supporting the idea of freedom and democracy, but this ultimately led to the Cold War’s end as many were hesitant and refused to implement changes. “Gorbachev was convinced that reform could work in Eastern Europe, but he believed that the initiative had to come from the top leadership of these countries”, supports Oberdorfer’s central argument of his leadership being the main reason of the Cold War’s end, which is a narrow perspective. Levesque argues “the information was abundant and accurate, and the analysis was sophisticated”, suggesting that the Soviet Union’s leaders were aware of the situation and they should have taken action for the reforms to advance further especially as Poland and Hungary were “evolving very rapidly” reflecting the quick political change within these countries. Major change was happening very fast for the first time, with no one knowing how things were going to evolve, similar to the uncertainty with Brexit. Gorbachev was expected to aid the two rapidly evolving countries financially but “Moscow was much more demanding and stingy in its economic relations with its allies” which was a result of the imbalanced focus between the East and the West which created political problems. Even so, the rapid change would have been a benefit if it was controlled to help reform the Eastern European countries. Gorbachev used Poland and Hungary as a form of persuasive propaganda, therefore countries who did not want to reform would have felt pressured and obliged to comply with his policies, due to the non-existent financial help. By not providing funding for the reforms he wanted, Gorbachev created discontent, therefore Levesque argues “it is not surprising that East European leaders complained privately to their Soviet counterparts about Soviet neglect”.

This question has been answered.

Get Answer