Response to Weaver

I really enjoyed the reading on Weaver, because I agreed with most of his comments. After reading Dana’s earlier post and writing my own on the invasiveness of rhetoric into all aspects of life, I found Weaver’s ideas to be very interesting. I was interested in his idea that the types of arguments used by a rhetorician can define how that person sees the world. This can truly be seen in everyday activities. I had not previously thought about this; however, after reading the essay on Weaver, I have become acutely aware of the way I argue and how it reflects my personality. I found it very interesting the way that Weaver elaborates to explain that even the types of sentences and words a person choices, can represent their view of the world. I have become much more observant of the types of sentences and words and arguments that are chosen by my friends and have realized that their choices do reflect their views and personalities.I also agreed with the separation of the different types of logic and their importance. I do agree that some types are simply more soundly founded that others are. I was, however, slightly confused on his placement of genus and definition as the most important. It seems to me that it would be better to base something on its individual case rather than on the category into which it fits. I was particularly confused on the genus. It seems that such large terms, as sin, are often in debate and therefore can not be a good classifier. I suppose that Weaver does make the point that the “audience” is aware of the term and perhaps that is the separation between his thoughts and mine.
I also found his list of the types of ultimate terms to be very interesting. I like his separation of them into god terms, devil terms, and charismatic terms. I completely agreed with his definitions of each. I think that the use of ultimate terms is where American rhetoricians have the most difficulty relating to foreign audiences.
All in all, I agreed with Weaver’s theories and am enjoying trying to define people from their argument style.