Kenneth Burke- From a "Grammar of Motives"

For the most part, I found this reading to be rather straight forward. One question that arose during my reading was "what are the limits of agency?" The reading defines agency as the means or instruments used to assist the agent in his/her action (p. 1298). The examples of agency provided were mostly physical objects, such as on the bottom of page 1301 where a "file" is used to assist the agent escape. Burke further elaborates on agency in the bottom of the second column on page 1301 in claiming that the hand itself, which holds the file, is an agent as well. Going back to my original question: what are the limits of agency? From the writing, it appears that agency is limited to physical objects; however, I believe that agency can extend to sensations or other non-tangible assistants.  For example, instead of the hero in the reading using a file or his own hand to assist him, he could have used strength or knowledge to help him escape.

The Book of the Cities of Ladies

 It is interesting to see the the treatment of women in past years. What I found most interesting about this read was the desire of men to keep women uneducated. Though they would morally benefit from it, it seemed that men were nervous of what could come of such schooling. It is also argued that women have done much good in society. Therefore, I wonder why anyone would want to hinder such positive progression.

I have thought, too, of Hitler. His oratory skills were salve to a broken and downtrodden Germany--and led to one of the most hideous travesties in modern history. So my question for rhetoricians who speak of rhetoric as justice: When the unjust use rhetoric (such as Hitler), is it not rhetoric? Is it only true rhetoric when used justly? And if so, who decides what is just and unjust?

Quintilian from Institutes of Oratory

I thought Quintilian's approach to finding a suitable definition for "oratory" was, perhaps, too in depth, but interesting all the same. Though his final definition of oratory- the art of speaking well- was vague, it was perfectly appropriate because oratory itself is vague in it's application. It certainly is not restricted to persuade  when discussing affairs of the state. As I see it, you can just as easily give an oratory on the importance of not wearing white after Labor Day as you can on foreign diplomacy. Also, oratory is not a practice that is limited to the just or truthful either. Adolf Hitler, who is as far from just and truthful as a person can be, is considered one of the greatest orators history has ever seen. When it all boils down, oratory is an unrestricted art that is almost always used by the speaker to gain power or advantage in society.

Aristotle... basically everything we read that wasn't from Book 1

Reading the various selections from Aristotle's work On Rhetoric raised  a new thought on how the rhetoric can be used to reach a judgement. The thought I would like to address is how the audience uses rhetoric to further shape their own judgement. The opening line of Book 2 Chapter 18 is "Since the use of persuasive speech is directed to a judgement (there is no further need of speech on subjects that we know and have already judged)". In order for people to reach a judgement, they must listen to speakers who present on both sides of topic. As a result, most emphasis is put on the speaker which forces the reader to forget about the audience. The speaker presents a well researched, carefully worded opinion in a well rehearsed manner, but that does not mean that their word alone shapes the judgement of the audience. In most cases, the audience (who is of free thought) has the ability to use the power of rhetoric to reach their own judgment. In open forums or debates, the speaker will usually give their oration and then will open the floor to questions. The power of rhetoric has now shifted to audience in the forms of rebuttals and questions. A speaker may have the audience fully convinced that their opinion is the correct judgement, but one carefully worded rebuttal or question could completely destroy the argument or the speaker's credibility.