If we accept Ramus's claim that all that is related to reason belongs to dialectic and is utterly removed from the rhetorical realm, his claims seem valid. It clearly takes reasoning skills to formulate an argument, organize it so that it can be understood, and memorize it in an ordered fashion. Ramus even goes so far as to claim that things which concern the mind belong to dialectic (687). I could even see how Ramus could go further and make the claim that style and delivery belong mainly to dialectic, as no figure or tone can exist without the direct influence of the mind. They don't just spontaneously erupt from the mouth of the speaker, after all. But that's assuming we accept Ramus's rigid framework of reason and the mind belonging to dialectic and allow rhetoric to be relegated to the background. And I submit to you that this separation makes little since at all.
Imagine the rhetorical situation as a cake. Yes, that beautiful one to the right. According to our friend Ramus, rhetoric is just the frosting, the nice fluffy buttercream stuff that makes that cake taste delectable. It's the tropes, figures, tones, and gestures that add flavor. But the essence, the cake underneath all that frosting, is the dialectic. It's the actual argument that's being dressed up. And we can certainly think of it this way: the cake and the frosting, two separate things touching but never together. But my dear Ramus, how much sense does this make? When I want a cake, I say I want a cake. What I don't say is that I want a cake and some frosting, because without frosting my cake is not really a complete cake. So why separate the two? Why take a thing that appears as a whole and break it into irreconcilable pieces? It's like bringing me a cake with no frosting, but with a bowl of frosting on the side because you think I need them separated for my convenience. You're killing me, baker's boy. You're killing me. 
Nathan—first of all, let me just say that the last few sentences of this post are absolutely hilarious; I’ve re-read it multiple times, and each time that little bit still elicits a few giggles. Nice!
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I’m wondering your stance on the definitions of “rhetoric” versus “dialectic.” Your cake metaphor seems to accurately sum up Ramus’ position—that rhetoric is the “frosting” and dialectic the “cake”—but do you personally agree with those metaphors? I only ask because it appears that the main argument you pose with this metaphor is that it’s unnecessary to divide dialectic and rhetoric because they naturally complement each other; your argument doesn’t seem to concern the *nature* of the two.
I’m still pretty fuzzy on the relation between dialectic and rhetoric, but I’ve been trying to think about them in terms of hierarchies (which I hope isn’t hair-splitting to the same extent of Ramus). The working definition I’ve used for dialectic is “logical argumentation or discussion,” a sort of back-and-forth like we read in Plato. On one hand, a discussion might employ rhetoric/rhetorical devices, but on the other hand, rhetoric can also be viewed as a “discussion” (albeit, in a form of a monologue) because the rhetor anticipates the audience’s possible contribution to the conversation. So then, is rhetoric merely a part of dialectic, or is dialectic a part of rhetoric? Or are they equal but differentiated only through place and context? I realize that a set “definition” of rhetoric evades us, but I’d still like to understand its connections with dialectic more clearly.
I found an article that helps explain these terms a little more, but I’d sure appreciate more insight on this! http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/#dialectic
I don't think that the exact relationship between "rhetoric" and "dialectic" is possible to discern with any level of certainty. Both are just words that some people decided to apply to a thing or type of action, but the definitions these early decisions made prevalent can be changed by impactful academics. We've focused on the changing definition of rhetoric throughout this theory class, but I would be surprised if at least some of the same moves weren't made in regard to dialectic. In fact, we have seen some of them as the realm of dialectic expands or contracts depending on how rhetoric is defined. Thus, I do generally try to avoid discussions about any permanent or unchanging nature of the two. It's like grasping at shadows to try to pin down definitions.
DeleteSince I'm not counting this as a comment post, though, and this response is merely for the sake of intellectual discernment instead of credit, I'll talk a little bit about my current position concerning rhetoric and dialectic (though this may change, even in a matter of days). I really don't see the need for both terms to exist; I think they could be combined for the sake of academics everywhere. Why, you may ask? Because I think that it's possible to argue that "logical argumentation or discussion" (private/academic) has a lot in common with speech making/writing on the public scene. I argue that both may involve words, gestures, figures, the ability to memorize facts and ideas, and the need for tone to be used effectively. Both require a speaker to come up with viable ideas, organize them so that they can be understood, and use a style that makes them be received favorably. Both require a certain degree of logical, coherent thought, and I'd argue that emotion ALWAYS matters even if it is just that accompanying academic curiosity. The reputation of a speaker matters in every situation involving people, as do many of the other subtleties of ethos. In short, I think the similarities between rhetoric and dialectic are much more substantial than the differences. So why not just talk of rhetoric, including how it can be used in academic conversational discourse and the like?