Bacon really opens a door...and then Enlightenment thought seems to explode. Bacon’s psychology theories greatly expanded the view that Aristotle had on divisions of the mind. Bacon organizes the mind into the areas of memory, imagination, reason, appetite, and will. Bacon first argues that the main faculties are reason, imagination, and memory. Yet, all five faculties work together by combining imagination and reason to influence the will, influenced by appetite and memory. The understanding of imagination and reason comes through rhetoric.
Continuing this move toward psychology, René Descartes divides the processes of analysis and synthesis in the mind. Cartesian theory situates presentation as the end of discovery; in other words, at this point, ideas are understood enough to be able to pass them on in persuasion or in teaching. Psychology continues its birth here as a component of persuasion that is coupled with correct thinking. (Despite many wanting to shake the moral and religious codes, we see that, in this time period, we are still influenced by the notion that the moral man will speak and think “correctly”.)
John Locke reduces the mental faculties into two divisions: understanding and will. As he writes about the difficulty and ambiguity of words, Locke explains the uncertainty of language, especially non-character connections to ideas. Locke explains that terms stand for ideas but that people have different understandings of the same terms, especially in complex concepts such as the economy or religion. In many ways, Locke bemoans rhetoric as he tries to follow the empiricism so heavily emerging in that day. Still, Locke cannot help but discuss words as he searches for truth through experiment in a physical world and as he desires to establish an epistemological framework for a psychological experience.
Despite the organization and understanding of psychology seemingly taking off, Bizzell and Herzberg say that these connections are merely the beginning or the foundation for a psychological theory of rhetoric. And so I'm looking forward to upcoming readings, especially Foucault's because I've read Discipline and Punish, which did look at rhetoric in a roundabout way but through the very specific confines of the prison, the hospital, and the mental institution. But as I said in my replies to posts this week and as we discussed in class, we are seeing that as media spreads, the realization of people builds inclusion. Still, from “the people” in Roman times to Enlightenment times to today, I think we have a ways to go.
Good point regarding inclusion. Almost as if technology creates a sense of democracy (for those whom have access). Selfe talks a lot about access related issues and how technology widens these gaps rather than brings us together. But strides are being made.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if access to the Internet, to technologies that assist our lives (like the Internet or even health care, like X-ray machines or medicines) will be considered a moral issue well into the future. I think many see it as a moral debate. As we include people more people in such debate, more voices will be heard, and the stronger our democracy will be (theoretically).
Curious how technology will continue to spread in terms of inclusiveness. Will we eventually all have free wireless and open access to the Internet as a part of our daily lives? Or will gaps continue to grow?
Nice points, Ben, on Emily's blog post here.
ReplyDeleteEmily--If Bacon opens the door to rhetoric for the masses, using psychology, you're going to love Alexander Bain. He makes the connection between writing instruction and rhetoric in modern times, basically. It is with Bain that we get specific genres and tools to argue and teach rhetoric through writing. Interesting to me that Bain includes in the modes poetry, which makes sense in terms of Baconian thought about reaching out to reality through the senses, and poetry in terms of elocution and style, but poetry is later dropped from the modes in composition.
Ben, I think the same thing with the smartphone all the time! It seems like an example of a divider to me. I don't have one despite how much time I know it could save me. And I consider myself extremely blessed, but if I can recognize a division between myself and all those smartphone users, then I can certainly acknowledge to a greater extent the people who, say, have and do not have Internet access in the home.
ReplyDelete