This essay focuses on rhetoric and philosophy of communication. The word rhetoric has been controversial at least since Plato both condemned and praised differing understandings of the subject in his Gorgias and Phaedrus.
Please write a book report on the book: (The Rhetorical Traditions: Readings from Classical Times to the Present, by Patricia Bizzell & Bruce Herzberg (ISBN:0312148399) for me basing on the following instructions: Type the MLA citation for the book on the top of the page. Then include the following: 1. Basic Knowledge: Identify three ways in which this book distinctively advanced your theoretical knowledge of the rhetoric. Also philosophy of communication. 2. Metaphor and Argument: State the central question(s) of scholarly inquiry guiding the book.
Locate the dominant themes or idea clusters (metaphor or metaphor pattern) and relate it to the key scholarly argument you encountered in the book. Respond to the author’s position, making explicit your own rhetorical or philosophical standpoint (assumptions, biases, perspectives, etc.). 3.Relevance: Make a case for the relevance of this book to the communication classroom and the marketplace. In what ways you can appropriate and apply what you have learned? Please observe a 200-250 word limit per section for 1, 2, 3 above. This is a 600-750 word total for this book.
The word rhetoric has been controversial at least since Plato both condemned. And praised differing understandings of the subject in his Gorgias and Phaedrus. The six essays of this collection indicate that differing understandings as well as considerable interest in this subject continue to this day. Viewpoints range from Donald Bryant’s traditional, Aristotelian conception of rhetoric as “the rationale of the informative and suasory in discourse,”. They which may serve as a touchstone in this collection, to Henry Johnstone’s understanding of rhetoric as the evocation of the consciousness required for communication. Ehich grows out of his exploratory journey from philosophy to rhetoric and back. Five of the essays have frequent and explicit reference to rhetoric, while Wayne Booth’s is an entertaining precis of his book A Rhetoric of Irony.
When read serially, the essays of this collection may create for the reader new dimensions of meaning which are not as likely to be discovered if they read singly. The contributions by Booth, Kenneth Burke, and Maurice Natanson deal with indirect meaning and figurative language. Natanson’s work is also suggestive on the problem of validation and may serve as a transition to the essays by Johnstone. Also Lloyd Bitzer, which, although different from one another in approach, are concerned primarily with the problem of validation. Authorization. Bryant’s essay shares with Bitzer’s a concern with the relationship of politics and rhetoric. But it is perhaps more related to the discussions of Booth, Burke, and Natanson in its concern with literature.