Plato (Trans. Benjamin Jowett). (360 BCE:2009). The Republic: Book I. MIT Classics Archive
Plato (360 BCE) creates an argument in the first book of The Republic to find the true definition of justice through rhetoric. Plato uses Socrates and Thrasymachus' conversation to define justice in multiple ways, changing the definition drastically each time. Plato's purpose is to define what true justice is in order to give a static definition for all. His audience at the time was his students, his peers, and anyone who wanted to listen; however, Plato continues to be relevant today.
"He said the repayment of debt is just". This is the first definition of justice given in the text, and to be quite honest, it doesn't seem to make sense as a definition for justice.
"A friend ought always to do good to a friend and never evil". This definition for justice comes a little further into the text, and seems to be getting closer to what justice truly means.
Stephen Edelston Toulmin. (1958). The Layout of Arguments. The Uses of Argument, London: Cambridge University Press 94-145.
In Toulmin's, The Layout of Arguments (1958), he sets out to explain the different uses of different arguments and how each one works. Toulmin goes through everyday argument, and then moves into the type of arguments lawyers and academics use, explaining the science behind everything. Toulmin is setting out defining argument, in order to define what each piece of an argument is and how we use it. His audience ranges greatly from anyone interested in learning or studying argument, or someone just attempting to learn more about how we argue.
"It may not be sufficient, therefore, simply to specify our data, warrant and claim: we may need to add some explicit reference to the degree of force which our data confer on our claim in virtue of our warrant" (101). This quote was the first piece of Toulmin's argument that I truly understood and somewhat clicked with what he was trying to say.
"One in which the customary usage of arguers again parts company with logical tradition" (120). Toulmin completely lost me here, and even reading further into the text I still struggled with this concept.
Lu, Xing. (1998). Conceptualization of Ming Bian: The School of Mind. Rhetoric in Ancient China Fifth to Third Century B.C.E: A Comparison with Classical Greek Rhetoric, Columbia, S.C: University of South Carolina Press 127-153.
Lu's Conceptualization of Ming Bian (1998) focuses on the thinking processes of three historically important thinkers. Lu compares three thinkers by telling their story, why they are important, and how it relates to the world. Lu's purpose is to make these three thinkers relevant, in order to explain why we think the way we do today. His audience is more geared towards people interested in complicated thinking, especially philosophers and rhetoricians.
"He [Deng Xi] was concerned primarily with the correspondence between ming (words, names) as prescribed laws, shi (actuality) as the practice of laws" (128). This gives a brief description of Deng Xi and what his thinking process was about.
"For Hui Shi, everything is connected and shares similarities from the universal perspective" (138). I really enjoyed reading about Hui Shi and saw a lot of importance in the things he had to say. This sentence really struck me as important.
No comments:
Post a Comment