Using the Old with the New

Of all the terms offered by Richards (realizing he is not the only one to mention this)  as I consider the previous readings of the last few weeks, ambiguity seems to open the door to new meaning in terms of Rhetoric.

I realized last week that I am more aligned to the Platonic classroom. After this discussion, I was both enlightened and embarrassed by this realization. I, perhaps, find ease with the wise giving me knowledge. This obtainment of knowledge, of course requires little effort on my part, and though naïve, I feel in powered by such teachings, even if deceived. I, of course, don’t feel the same in my own teaching method, but I have been conditioned by this structure in my personal teachings of Christianity. In this sense, there is one Truth, which the soul expires for. There was little interpretation, little questioning, and in turn gained favor. Richards, in contrast, holds that meaning is not conditioned by one Truth, but ambiguous. Admittedly, he is not speaking in the context of my Christian upbringing, but I was able to make a parallel to this.  In this sense, I gather that what I learned through the teachings of Christ is a result of one’s interpretation. What my pastor in essence does is use the signs (words, images, etc.) provided in the bible, considering the context of time in which it was written to first offer a history, and then positions these signs in a modern context of today to deliver meaning to his members. I wonder what Richards would then say to this when an individual interprets (using the diagram offered in the text) for a whole body or congregation? Does this take Richard’s idea of rhetoric and reposition it in a Platonic nature?

Other matters

Old rhetoric is more combative in nature and aimed to correct faults, while new rhetoric intends to speak on the power of language.

Plato: He speaks about transcendent truth, what is innate; Richards claims that meaning does not reside in the word itself. Plato is Persuasion-to- knowledge, while Richards is interpretation-in-context.

Aristotle: Both he and Richards use diagrams. One of Aristotle’s includes the speaker, subject and audience, while Richard’s, symbol, referent, and reference. Both break down situations into entities in order to define its meaning in accordance to the whole. While Aristotle focuses more on the public sphere of speech situations, Richards attends to the rudimentary level (though complex in nature)of signs in any discourse situation. In addition, they both discuss the differences of literary and poetic discourse.