This is a place to discuss the three essays I assigned for DAY TWO . . .
July 19th 2016 | Dr. Tallmon
Dr. Tallmon says...
“Reclaiming the Education of Our Lutheran Heritage”
Well? Do you buy it? Does one have to be educated a certain way to fully appreciate a faith worldview like ours (sacramental, credal, and confessional)?
Posted on Tuesday, July 19th 2016 at 7:08 pm
“Teach Your Children to Think Like a Lutheran”
Posted on Tuesday, July 19th 2016 at 7:17 pm
“Truth, Beauty, and Goodness”
What does this essay teach you about the relation of dialectic to rhetoric? How will it affect your teaching?
Posted on Tuesday, July 19th 2016 at 7:18 pm
Surely enjoyed the conference and look forward to talking with you all over the coming weeks!
Godspeed as you return home . . .
Posted on Thursday, July 21st 2016 at 1:03 pm
How will it affect your teaching?
I enjoyed reading the article “Truth Beauty and Goodness”by Dr. Tallman. The article helped to clarify the True, Moral and Beautiful way to make a persuasive argument. While I am not in a public speaking class where I have to make persuasive arguments, nor do I have to write any papers, I do interact with people in my everyday life, and I do make claims as much as anyone else does. As such my ability to make persuasive, and compelling argument can be an asset for me. Perhaps I should think about going to my local community college, and take a public speaking class, or find a club to join.
If I understand correctly, dialectic is the ability to make a claim that stands up to logical scrutiny, whereas rhetoric has more to do with making it inspirational, motivational, eloquent, and beautiful. A person that excels only at dialectic reminds me of Mr. Spock from Star Trek, logical, but devoid of emotion. Where as a someone who is inspiring in their speech, but does not excel in dialectic has their own shortcomings.
I can imagine two types of persons with this shortcoming. The first would be someone of good character, but has bad ideas, in which case that person is a eloquent bonehead. They can inspire people to their way of thinking, but as you find out later on, you wish that they had put a little more though into what they were asking others to do. If on the other hand they are someone who is of bad character, it brings to mind pictures of evil dictators throughout history. They were able to motivate lots of people to do lot of immoral things.
Throughout this article I continually saw the point over, and over again that there is a synergistic effect to excelling at both skills. While many people may have a strength for one or the other, it does become clear that it is beneficial to have both dialectic, and rhetoric skills developed to there highest ability, and that focusing too much on one to the exclusivity of the other can keep one from becoming as good as the could at speaking and writing.
As for how this will affect my teaching, well, I don’t teach, so that question is not applicable to me.
Posted on Thursday, July 21st 2016 at 6:08 pm
Thank you so much for getting the ball rolling, Darrell! I appreciate you. I love the allusion to Spock! I use that one all the time, in my teaching, as well. One observation, if you please, to help push your thinking a little deeper: The point in all that was said, goes deeper than “rhetoric adds inspiration” to the truth dialectic secures. If you think in terms of “The Cultural Role of Rhetoric,” and in terms of eros, rhetoric doesn’t just motivate the hearer (auditor) it moves the soul with, as Weaver asserts, a movement that finally cannot be understood. So, at the end of the day, rhetoric is a more elevated enterprise than mere crafting of flowery speeches; it has a key role in animating the soul AND in cultural cohesion. Again, thanks for kicking off this discussion!
Posted on Friday, July 22nd 2016 at 6:59 am
Email Address (will not be published):