Response to Leff and Scott Readings

The discussion what exactly rhetoric is and what it can be used to discuss can lead to a truly rhetorical conversation. Leff discusses the idea of what exactly is rhetoric (which is getting more complicated every time I read this book). He explains the previous views of rhetoric including the neo-Aristotelian and neo-Sophistic views. The neo-Aristotelians view rhetoric as a thing contained; Donald Bryant also shared this view in his 1953 definition of rhetoric as “the rationale of informative and suasory discourse (55).” These two definitions point to rhetoric as a type of discourse which was dignified by its product.
The neo-sophists, however, thought of rhetoric as the containing force. Bryant’s later (1973) definition agreed with this thought. In his second description, Bryant points to rhetoric “as the rationale of the informative and suasory in discourses (55).” These new definitions lead to a shift in the basis of rhetoric from the product to process. It was now of little consequence to what conclusion you arrived as long as you successfully followed the process of rhetoric.
The process is basically the concern of Scott’s essay. In this essay, Scott uses the ideas of many different men to try to define what can be considered rhetoric and what is simply a stating of certainties. In order to separate the two types, one must first determine what is certain. Toulmin suggests one way is to determine what is certain now and what was certain some time ago. He uses the example argument:
Anne is Jack’s sister
All Jack’s sisters have red hair:
So Anne has red hair.
Toulmin then points out that this is only certain if you are currently looking at all Jack’s sisters.
The many examples and explanations of what exactly rhetoric is and when it can validly be applied express the true use of the art.