Dialectic vs. Rhetoric -- Go Weaver, its ya birthday!

Ok, so Weaver had some issues, he was into gardening, he never married, but maybe the dude just like doing whatever he wanted. To Robert Maguire, man do what you gotta do, and back it up, I say some off the wall stuff in rhetoric, so I know whatever you said couldn't possibly top the kamakazis and the fact that they didn't get 70 virgins. What a rip-off, so yeah, we can say crazy comments and its all good.

That being said, so Weaver has an interesting argument between dialectic and rhetoric. I think its interesting the way they analyze positive terms and dialectic. Positive terms are things, like they said in the reading, such as rocks, etc. So therefore, if we are arguing over the texture of a rock, all we have to do is pick it up, touch it, and the dispute is solved (unless one of us don't have nerve endings in our fingers to determine texture--in that case, rub it against your cheek). But dialectic is not solved by concrete evidence; its an abstract debate about things like justice and goodness. In essence, it all seems to be in a hypothetical space somewhere. Its a "method of investigation" in order to establish truth in whatever abstract sense.

Thus, meaning in dialectic is not reached through sensory perception (i.e. feelin a rock on your cheek), but rather by logical deduction. However, it remains abstract and universal, thus it cannot move individuals to obtain commitment to a position or action b/c its not involved with the actual world.

On the other hand, rhetoric is different, yet a SOLUTION to the problem of abstract dialectic. Weaver says its a compliment to rhetoric (i.e. they go hand in hand, like two good southern brothers havin a beer). I love this quote: rhetoric is "truth plus its artful presentation." Thus, rhetoric has the ability to move individuals to act because it relates to the world, as opposed to the simply scientific demonstration that dialectic provides. Rhetoric ADDS the thing dialectic lacks: consideration of character and audience.

Thus, Weaver says the honest rhetorician has two things in mind: the ideal vision and the consideration of the circumstances of the audience. And we have talked about a lot of speeches and articles this semester, all of which used the circumstances of the audience (Inaguaral address, Churchill, etc.). Weaver continues his analysis of rhetoric in that its "social cohesion" because its a bond between principles and actual circumstances. And while rhetoric can move people to ideals, it can also be used as a negative force.

Lastly, Weaver says "its impossible to be objective" in rhetoric. What do ya think guys?