Burke and Dierrida – I should have posted this last week, but I was infected by a horrible plague

The Rhetorical Tradition explains that much of Kenneth Burke’s work over more than 50 years “has been to attempt to redefine and expand the scope of rhetorical analysis to apply it to all forms of language use” (1295). This is the understanding I currently have of the purpose of modern rhetoric and it is interesting to find out where this idea began in modern times and how it took 2500 years to get there. Burke says that motives consist of Act (what took place), Scene (when or where it was done, setting/background), Agent (who did it), Agency (what means ), and Purpose (why). Whether people make it known or not everything has a motive “poetry and fiction, in political and scientific works, in news and bits of gossip offered at random” (1298). I really like how Burke described this and it really makes sense toward the foundation of rhetoric today. I have always subscribed to this view myself, before knowing that Burke had these ideas, expect my version is to ask: “Who’s paying for it?”  Because, generally speaking, you can quickly discern the motive of someone’s rhetoric by who writes their paycheck. This is how rhetoric can apply to every discipline, by looking at the underlying structure of how a discipline writes it rhetoric and why. Clearly, Berlin and many others have expanded on Burke’s ideas into the modern form of rhetorical analysis. I also like how Burke declares that literature is not exempt from the study of its motivation, thus it is not exempt from rhetoric as many have tried to claim.

  

Derrida is also an interesting character that I have heard a lot about, but have not really studied in-depth. I now know that Dierrida comes from the Plato/Nietchze school of thought that human’s observation of external reality is limited by their sense perception. This has actually been scientifically proven at least in the sense that we know we cannot see the full spectrum of light. However, this idea has caused a whole rabbit whole of semiotics study where people try to understand words and what their meaning conveys and focuses on the imperfect means of conveying thought from one person to another. However, I think this thinking gets away from an appreciation of writing as an art and an appreciation of the artist themselves. If we remove the author and focus only on words, we remove an important element from the appreciation of art in my opinion. Until we learn to read each other’s minds, we will just have to accept the fact that some words will mean different things to different people. However, I do think Dierrida is correct in his focus on writing as an important form of communication and not just oral communication, which was the traditional focus for so many philosophers dating back to Aristotle and Plato. Writing was a new form of communication to the early Greeks and Dierrida acknowledges the significance of writing in our modern times. Even if writing is a “picture, reproduction, imitation of its content” it “will be the invariant trait of all progress to come” (1477). I must say I prefer written communication to oral when it comes to academics because you have time to really think about what you want to say and you can revise it. You cannot revise something you have said in person, and this can lead to regrettable circumstances. On the other hand, I prefer talking to close friends in person because I feel like the gestures and tone better communicate feelings.