Quote: "Since all utterance influences us in one or the other of these directions, it is important that the direction be the right one, and it is better if this lay preacher is a master of his art" (Bizzell and Herzberg 1360).
Question: One key problem we as a class have found with both Plato and Quintilian is the vagueness of their definitions of "good men" in relation to the art of rhetoric. By equating the ethical with the pursuit of "fundamental and unchanging properties," and by illustrating how rhetoric is used to point people to such properties, does Weaver successfully bridge the gap between rhetoric and ethics? Or is Weaver's claim based on a definition of good just as problematic as the definitions posited by past theorists?
No comments:
Post a Comment