rhetoric’s status used as an academic study during the classical tradition
The decline of rhetoric’s status used as an academic study during the classical tradition began way back during the Whately time. It continued up to the end of the nineteenth century. After its decline, the scientific method came up, which was used in resolving all the issues, thus making the rhetoric theory obsolete. Nevertheless, the use of the scientific method in tackling moral and human social problems was primarily undermined by different philosophers such as Chaim Perelman, Jurgen Habermas and Olbrechts-Tyteca. The scientific method failed to resolve the atrocities linked to World War II as well as the failure of social structure applied in Europe by fascist regime leaving the intellectual world in Europe in total shock. These philosophers found faults with the scientific method such as failure of the science to give out solutions to ever occurring human problems like racism, political domination, aggression and economic exploitation. As a result, the philosophers thought of the solution to the problems. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca for instance looked for a nonscientific and nontheistic foundation for addressing issues about values. Similarly, they put emphasis on the audience where according to them saw augmentation as aiming to achieving adherence to mind. On the other hand, Jurgen Habermas just like Perelman argued that major human problems such as class warfare, criminality and corruption were best addressed by humanities. Therefore, Habermas advanced ‘ideal speech community’ theory with the aim of personal liberation.
If I was to give a presentation to my audience on the comparison between Habermas and Perelman or Olbretchts-Tyteca especially as a speaker dealing with rhetoric I will consider the social and psychological conditions when using discourse in persuading the audience to adhere to specific ideas or beliefs. I will attach significant importance to getting the adherence to my audience in order to secure their cooperation or even the assent. I will also allow others to enter into a discussion since it is sometimes considered a valued honor. In my presentation I will use convincing and persuasive language while at the same time showing some concern for my audience and be more interested in the state of mind of the audience. I will avoid much authority and orders that will put my words to questioning and instead I will reason with my audience and be more concerned with their reactions.
Habermas in his philosophical aspect was on the opinion that all aspects of human endeavor such as art science or even political was irrationally pure. For that he suggested that it is important for each arena to put to test their own proposition in a dialogue or debate and in accordance with the best suited standards to their arena. Nevertheless I think that as long as individuals are still responding to purpose, our language or linguistic expression will always carry the tendency of our values or even our attitudes. Language is there to transform different things into what is appropriate for the mind and whatever is transformed is inseparable from our values or preferences. We should never fail to find sight that our values have since it is the vital sanction of rhetoric. It is important to know that schemes of values help individuals to live a life of purpose and direction. Although we may receive confrontation from rhetoric in matters involving values, we should put into consideration that rhetoricians are like preacher to us; noble if their directions to our passion are directed towards noble ends as well as base if in case they use our passion to puzzle and degrade us.