At Home

Williams opens his book with the history of rhetoric. I love it. It is kind of heavy, but there are so many things about the first 40 pages that I had little knowledge of and found extremely interesting.

The first thing that really stands out in my mind is the example of Corax and Tisias (4). Let me say, Corax was a genus. It was at this point that I realized that the subsequent information on rhetoric was going to show a strong correlation with law and the courts. Ultimately, I am planning on going to law school and I have to say that this was the first time that I connected the term rhetoric with the judiciary process. It makes absolute sense. Rhetoric is “a field of study that examines the means by which speakers and writers influence states of mind and actions in other people” (1). We can apply this definition to law just as easily to education. I think I am starting to feel at home in a room full of education majors!

It is interesting to me to see the kind of negative light that rhetoric took throughout its early history. This shows just how powerful rhetoric really is. Of all of the groups of teachers, I believe that English teachers have the power to shape the future. Up until know, I never really grasped just how influential those who have mastered rhetoric have been throughout history. In the short amount of reading that we did, rhetoric influenced so many different areas, including the two huge areas of democracy and religion. I think in many instances, the people that possess the power to sway people with their speaking and writing are almost feared. With this power there seems to be a tendency to fall into corruption as well. For example, the Sophists were able to make ludicrous amounts of money by making unreasonable arguments reasonable. Because of this, they gained a horrible reputation. Modern day lawyers kind of mirror this image.

Finally, I can’t end this blog without mentioning Isocrates. “In his view, formal training can help those with natural aptitude and practical experience, but it can do little for those without ability, except give them some general knowledge of the subject” (15). What?! This really bothered me. Yes, I do believe that some people will possess a greater level ability just like some people are natural born athletes and some are not. Just like a person with no athletic ability, I think if you have the determination and drive you can at least improve your skills. If not, what is the purpose of teaching?