Slightly Confused Schema of Orator/Audience

This weeks readings were a bit difficult for me to grasp so, the exploratory helped in making some of the more complex ideas and themes more concrete. There was quite a lot to unpack and we did our best to makes sense of how all of the ideas worked together. I believe that out schema reflects our understanding, and possibly our confusion, of how major concepts worked in relation with one another (i.e. Argumentation, the role of the orator, and Audience). Our process was three prong as we first identified major concepts through online discussion, then met in person and created both a scattered marker board make up and a digital representation. Through the digital representation we were able to connect concepts in how they were related (either loosely or more concrete). Personally, I work better visually so having a board to write down multiple thoughts was extremely helpful.

As I was reading Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca’s material I saw connections to past readings and saw some overlap in terms of Orator and Audience. P&O-T put emphasis on the orator in terms of how they build their argument which is characterized by discussing Facts/Truths, Presumptions, Values, Hierarchies, and Loci of preferable (B/H, 1394). Due to the readings for this week, I was able to see some connection to P&O-T's concepts of Facts and Truths to the comparing/contrasting themes that Dissoi-Logoi puts forth in terms of truth and false. Dissoi Logoi states, “ …whenever a statement is made, if the event has taken place in the way indicated by the statement, the statement is true; but if the event has not taken place in the way indicated then the statement is false.” (B/H, p.52). Dissoi Logoi puts truth and falsity in terms of creating reality and presence of the statement in decision-making. 

While P&O-T discuss facts and truth in terms of the audience and how conflict can not occur as the arguments will either “….loses it’s status and becomes either an illusory fact or an apparent truth” (B/H, p.1394). P&O-T's assertion of abstract and concrete values in their basis of agreement section mirrored what Plato put forth in the Phaedrus as words can have both abstract and concrete meanings. P&O-T defined concrete values as “such as ones country” (B/H, p. 1394) and abstract values as “justice or truth” (B/H, 1394). While in the Phaedrus, Plato uses Socrates to define concrete meanings as products like “Iron or Silver” (Plato, p.60) and abstract meanings as “words such as ‘just’ or ‘good’”(Plato, p. 60).

Additionally, P&O-T puts the orator at the center as he needs to use his “presence” to endow what he is saying by bringing attention to that which is not immediately present (B/H, p. 1395). This brought me back to the Asante reading as the “communication person is always at the center of all systems receiving information equally, and stimulating all the power of a personality” (Asante, p.552). These connect as the orator is used as a vessel for knowledge to be transferred (Asante) and for persuasion to be performed (Perelman). 

One major aspect where I disagreed with P&O-T was on their concept that logos was at the forefront with very little reference to pathos or ethos in terms of persuasion. This was also echoed in earlier reading of Plato and Aristotle. However, many arguments are made stronger by the use of an emotional appeal. P&O-T focus on creating rhetoric that is structured by reason but mostly informal reasoning (i.e. Dialectic). One place of confusion was that I wasn’t sure if they were against using a universal audience/universal propositions or if they were against these and just gave them as a contrasting view to particular audiences.