Response to Richard Weaver

Weaver's theory emphasizes rhetoric based in values, ethics, and culture. Whether rhetoric is good or evil is judged based on the values held by the rhetor presenting his case. Weaver believes that rhetoric, at first intent of relating truth, is degrading to a method of getting what one wants.
Weaver claims that truth is established when one aligns known facts and personal ideals. Ideals are developed through metaphysical dreams (one of the three types of knowledge/levels of conscious distinguished by Weaver, including ideas and beliefs), or philosophies. To convey truth, humans use the medium of language, and specifically employ two methods: the dialectic method is the practice of abstract reasoning and does not allow adherence to a position or action; the rhetorical method is "truth plus its artful presentation" (164) and does promote belief and action.
Rhetoric addresses real situations and ideals simultaneously and is essential to culture because it is rooted in shared principles of individuals of society, as well as universally valued ideal(s). Rhetorics power is founded in the fact that it embodies "the experiences and meanings of the words of all individuals" (165).
Weaver assesses the topic that I broached in my previous post, concerning the pervasiveness of rhetoric. He seems to isolate the dialectic as a non-rhetorical form of speech, but at the same time emphasizes the need for rhetoric and dialectic to be combined to be effective; thus they are nearly two parts of one discipline. Weaver also states that one cannot be objective; even the most matter-of-fact statement is given to support the speaker's purposes.
One section that stood out to me in this reading was the classification of the sources of argument. The authority and testimony division is what we have observed to be the basis for ethos in the speeches we have analyzed and evaluated. According to Weaver, these types of arguments are only as reliable as is that upon which it is based.