Oh, Rhetoric..

After reading Ramage's thoughts on Rhetoric, I must admit my mind is spinning. Though I have dealt with Rhetoric before I have never actually studied it in this much detail. I have come to the conclusion that Rhetoric can either be a wonderful or dreadful thing. It has no boundaries, but yet contains so much detail. How can one subject possibly pose so many questions, metaphors and confrontations? It is one of those love/hate relationships. Ramage seems to be very passionate about rhetoric; he doesn't merely explain it.. he tells its story. He really want us, as readers, to understand the positives of the subject and not just push up our noses and walk away. I like that.

Now, about the Anti-Rhetoric Spokesperson? Well, as Ramage said himself, "our Anti-Rhetoric Spokesperson is actually Anti-Rhetoric Spokepersona" (pg. 8). It is a tool. Or, even better, a way of our own thinking. This "person" is used to challenge our own minds into understanding Rhetoric. I think Ramage uses this way of introduction to catch our attention. Why use the same dull way of text book writing? Mix it up a little! He wants us to understand BOTH sides of the argument, that way we have no biases and can start the course with an open mind. Sure, our biases will probably lean more for Rhetoric, but it's good to give the other side a fair chance before completely jumping to conclusions.

I'm hoping this first blog on the subject makes sense and at least kind of displays my thoughts on Ramages explanations. Making complete sense of the material will have to wait until our discussions in class and online, however. Looking forward to everyone else’s thoughts!