AbstractPlato's confrontation with Dionysius I, the so-called “tyrant of Sicily,” became famous as a cautionary tale of the perils of offering unwelcome advice to a powerful prince. Within early modern England, this tale took on added currency in the context of humanists' ambitions to serve as counselors in the court of Henry VIII. The humanist scholar Thomas Elyot (1490–1546), who briefly and unsuccessfully served at Henry's court, re-created Plato's exchange with Dionysius I in his dramatic dialogue The Knowledge Whiche Maketh a Wise Man (1533). In his dialogue, Elyot imagines Plato returning to Athens after his brief period of enslavement, where he meets the philosopher/rhetorician Aristippus. Aristippus challenges Plato by positing that Plato's dangerous words to Dionysius violated rhetorical tenets of propriety and timing. In the course of their extended exchange, two different versions of the rhetoric of counsel surface—one based on principles of philosophy and one based on strategic rhetoric.

AbstractWhat does it mean to say rhetoric scholarship should be relevant to democratic practice? A prevailing answer to this question insists that rhetoric scholars are participants in the democratic contest for power just like all other citizens, no more and no less. Drawing on the work of Slavoj Žižek, the argument of this essay is that reducing scholarship to a mode of political agency not only produces an increasingly uninhabitable academic identity but also draws our attention away from producing results of rhetorical inquiry designed to be useful to citizens in democracy. Clinging to the idea that academic practice is a mode of political action produces a fantastic blindness to the antagonism between scholarly reflection and political agency that structures academic purpose. While empirical barriers to the production of rhetorical resources suitable for democratic appropriation undoubtedly exist, ignoring the self-frustrating character of academic desire is no less of an impediment to the production of democratically consequential rhetoric scholarship.

The concurrent publication of The History of Rhetoric and the Rhetoric of History—a collection of essays published over the span of three decades (1980–2005)—and Rhetoric, Modality, Modernity makes available and defines Nancy Struever's ongoing revision of the history of rhetoric and pioneering understanding of rhetoric as a mode of inquiry. In Struever's own idiom, the all-inclusive “thickness” of rhetorical inquiry—as opposed to the discriminating “thinness” of philosophy—requires some concern for a thinker's intellectual career. Indeed, taken together, the two books allow for a useful, incremental gloss of the later Struever by the earlier and vice versa. Struever authorizes this continuity in her introduction to History of Rhetoric and the Rhetoric of History, linking the last essay in her collection, on Hobbes and Vico, to the more sustained analysis of the two thinkers provided in her most recent monograph. As a whole, Rhetoric, Modality, Modernity aims at illustrating “rhetoric's renewed task: the critique of philosophy's unfortunate affinities for necessity, thus determinism, that weakens, damages political thinking” (History of Rhetoric and the Rhetoric of History, xix). Despite this adversarial claim—and her firm awareness of the perennial quality of the quarrel between rhetoric and philosophy—Struever calls for an inside job: a rescue mission intended to liberate rhetoric by authentic rhetorical means. Among them, certainly, is a renewed intimacy between theory and practice, the “theory as practice” that Struever has called for in another work.1Struever's commitment to rhetoric as inquiry makes her wary of the academic “culture wars” that defined the linguistic turn of the late twentieth century (History of Rhetoric and the Rhetoric of History, ix). One of the most fascinating aspects of Struever's career, as it emerges from these pages, is her ability to distinguish herself or, as she would prefer, to “secede” from an intellectual world whose proclivity for language hardly translated into a historical and thus profound understanding and practice of rhetoric as an investigative mode. “It is one thing to take a ‘linguistic turn’ and proclaim language as the core of politics,” Struever claims, but “it is another to proclaim the political core of language, for this generates a list of useful investigative priorities” (Rhetoric, Modality, Modernity, 91).In her quest for appropriate boundaries, Struever argues against the “dysfunctional colonization of rhetoric by literary criticism,” whose adherence to Cartesian philosophy compels us to interpret metaphor “as primarily cognitive; that is, as an introspective act of a Cartesian consciousness in an isolate realm of concepts” (History of Rhetoric and the Rhetoric of History, 1:73).2 This approach is particularly detrimental to the field of intellectual history, where the reduction of rhetoric to poetics, or worse, to a “poetic epistemology” (Paul De Man, Hayden White, etc.), leads to a self-referential focus “on texts, on products, not the events of process” (2:67). Even a “philosopher's rhetoric” such as Ernesto Grassi's, in Struever's view, remains bogged down by external “definitions” and “judgments” that often turn rhetoric into just “a techne, with some epistemic pretensions and an easy relation to theoretical axioms” (1:70). Rhetorical pragmatism should forbid “professional interference,” appeals to “empty formal relations” or to “the essentialist premises of the logical categories.” According to Struever, rather, what we need is a “rhetorician's rhetoric” devoted to restoring the discipline to its civil domain through an “account of the rhetorical premises and procedures investing specific historical initiatives and their reception” (75).So much for the pars destruens of this venture. One could argue that Struever emerges unscathed from what she views as the “fractured status of contemporary rhetorical theory” by paying heed to Vico's educational ideal. Struever's inclusive humanistic education gives her scholarship a fine edge: an equal mastery of the tools and concerns of Renaissance scholarship, intellectual history, political theory, and ancient as well as modern philosophy. More to the point, Struever shows that actual knowledge of Renaissance thought and practices can revise our fascination for Continental philosophy and protect against the pitfalls of contemporary theory's misplaced prejudice against the beginnings of modernity. A sympathetic reader of her work is bound to view the Renaissance and early modernity with the same new eyes Heidegger's unique approach to Greek antiquity afforded his students in the study of Plato and Aristotle. However, it would barely suffice to claim that Struever allows for an uncommon experience of the postmodern moment. Rather, her work thoroughly and successfully rewrites the future agenda of intellectual history and rhetorical inquiry.Struever fondly acknowledges the intellectual debts incurred to C. S. Pierce and Heidegger, from whose works she extrapolates insights that form her notions of “inquiry” and “rhetoric.” Pierce's antinecessitarian pragmatism defines the communal and temporal “constraints” of the logic of inquiry for our epoch: thought creates communal beliefs, which in turn tend to the establishment of “habits of action,” including inquiry. These premises “resonate with rhetoric's topical concerns: its engagement with a community's belief, shared opinions (endoxa) and with rhetoric's inveterate habits of activity, persuasion, as practice and goal” (Rhetoric, Modality, Modernity, 2–3). Working at a “supraindividualist” level, Pierce restores epistemology's dependence on community, the too often forsaken “locus of investigative action.” Inquiry is pragmatic: its subtilitas applicandi prevails over the correlated subtleties in knowing and interpreting (see History of Rhetoric and the Rhetoric of History, 3:217–20).As for Heidegger, rhetoricians may yet learn how much they owe him. The neglected summer semester lectures of 1924 (Grundbegriffe der aristotelischen Philosophie) remain, “arguably, the best twentieth-century reading of Aristotle's Rhetoric” (History of Rhetoric and the Rhetoric of History, 6:127). These lectures offer an “extraordinary opportunity” for those willing to share in Heidegger's recovery of the unity of “discourse” (Miteinanderreden) and “political life” (Miteinandersein) according to the originary Hellenic initiative: the “authentic life” as “political life” (106). Among the moderns, only the early Heidegger allows rhetoric to reside squarely “inside politics.” The consequences of this recovery are momentous: Heidegger aids in bypassing the “inauthentic” Platonic definition of rhetoric as a trivial art and rescues this mode of inquiry from its own “bookish retreat” as an academic discipline divested of a “precise sense of duty to action” (Rhetoric, Modality, Modernity, 133). In hindsight, one cannot but regret that Heidegger's interest in rhetoric was short lived and gave way to poetic concerns akin to those of the literary critics (to say nothing, of course, of his nefarious political allegiance).By endorsing Heidegger's prominence in “modern revivals of rhetoric” and assimilating his interpretation, Struever takes pride of place in the now long and crowded history of his reception. Yet she sits askew with respect to many other like-minded students. Like those of, for example, Gadamer or Grassi, her reading of Heidegger resonates with Vico, rhetoric, humanism, and the Italian Renaissance and early modernity. Unlike them, however, Struever does not ground her sought-for reconciliation of Heideggerianism and Romanitas in a refutation of Heidegger's anti-Platonism. Indeed, Plato seems to hold no interest for Struever.Confident of Heidegger's restoration of rhetoric to its proper domain (in the civil operations of political life), Struever embarks on an actualization of its nature as inquiry. Despite its co-originality with philosophy (for some, like Heidegger, rhetoric even takes chronological precedence) and Struever's internalist ambitions, rhetoric's vital fear of solitude asks that this discipline be defined, at least preliminarily, in confrontation. In other words, rhetoric's quarrel with philosophy is both inescapable and generative, if only the true nature of such opposition is revealed as neither a “contest of faculties” nor as an “academic rivalry” but rather as a vivifying “confrontation of two major investigative initiatives,” each characterized by its own modal allegiance: “necessity” for philosophy and “possibility” for rhetoric. Struever promotes rhetorical inquiry's kairotic infiltration and colonization of that breathing space left open by Aristotle “between partial and complete actualization,” the space of “unrealized possibilities” (Rhetoric, Modality, Modernity, 6).Released into its element, rhetoric's “modal proclivity” and “revisionary capacities” are given full rein to create “counterfactual narratives of the past used as unrealized possibilities to illumine a still inadequately defined past, as well as to project future policy” (125). While this task may seem daunting, Struever's point is that it should not appear impossible. The rhetorical inquirer is not asked to rewrite history from scratch but rather to reveal “what might have been otherwise,” to indulge in exploring the “possible worlds” that open up by placing “actuality in a range of possibilities” (6). If we persist, past, present, and future may look different though strangely familiar: “The modal interest perhaps replicates defamiliarization as a critical gesture” (127).In conclusion to Rhetoric, Modality, Modernity, Struever poses a pertinent question: “Where do we begin our tactics of rephrasing?” As a matter of fact, once a three-dimensional view of “possibility” is conquered and inhabited, the “where” and “when”—temporal and spatial coordinates—matter less than the “how”: that is, the appropriate attitude and strategy. In this context, the formation of strong alliances becomes of paramount importance. Thus Struever's admiration for Hobbes and Vico, who, although rarely as officially and tightly allied as in her reading, team up against political theory's dependence on the universal moral truths generated in timeless solitude by Greek philosophy. As both “topics” and “practitioners” of rhetorical inquiry, Hobbes and Vico have a lesson to teach in academic disobedience that could promote the overhaul of a political philosophy that to this day remains “fraught with fashion” and “susceptible to the quick exchange of deadening theoretical conformities” (History of Rhetoric and the Rhetoric of History, 19:80). “Politics demands novelty,” and Hobbes and Vico put their rhetorical “inventiveness” to the service of a “life science” that contests the “philosophical confections of ‘oughts’” (76). In this reading, the “early modernity” of Hobbes and Vico comes closer than some of these pages would suggest to the “Renaissance” of their best humanist predecessors: creative imitation, congenial alliances, and strategies of secession remain salient features of this subsequent alternative project.At the outset, the “case for the modernity of Early Modernity” rests on Hobbes's subtle appropriation of Aristotle, an appropriation that, in Struever's view, certainly glosses Heidegger's own. In this case, too, Struever's reading draws heavily on selected sources, including, the “generous frame for Renaissance inquiry” proffered by Wilhelm Dilthey's neglected Weltanschauung und Analyse. His merit is twofold. First, Dilthey manages to keep the “issues and tactics” proper to the history of rhetoric apart from those of the history of philosophy. Coming from Dilthey, the approach could only be sympathetic: humanists “are to be read as pyschologues and anthropologues” rather than as (failed) epistemologists and metaphysicians (History of Rhetoric and the Rhetoric of History, 4:2). Moreover, it is to Dilthey's credit to have emphasized the Renaissance revival of Romanitas—that is, the mutually constraining relationship of individual and sovereign will (imperium).Hobbes's “roman orientation” and concern for the res publica endows his Ciceronian reading of Aristotle's Rhetoric with a pragmatic slant (Rhetoric, Modality, Modernity, 12). Hobbes secedes by reaching over Cartesian dualism and appropriating the “Aristotelian continuum of faculties and actions” and “definition of the soul as principle (archē) of life”: “Soul is life” (13). The interaction and continuum of faculties (sensation, perception, imagination, passion, memory, and reason) inhibit a misguided distinction between “sensitive” and “cognitive” elements and “accommodate biology” in political life. “Nature as motion, as alteration,” restlessly seeks what it lacks: “If life, then motion, if motion, then passions, if passions, then differences, if differences, then politics” (22). The goal of rhetoric as “life science” should be to guarantee movement and endlessly postpone the end products of the “rational will.” The “therapeutic” freedom of open-ended deliberation, Struever claims, has greater value than the hit-or-miss liberty of action. This is how “Hobbes follows Aristotle … in the total politicisation of rhetoric” (17). In this frame, “rhetorical pessimism”—its concern for “process” not “end”—turns into a “competence” apt to produce “not so much a list of solutions” as “an ever-expanding account of the possibilities of multiple dysfunctions.” On this point, Struever is perhaps too unflustered in admitting that “the ambitions that try to assert complete consensus” are bound to be a casualty of this new rhetorical campaign (124).Struever's sophisticated reading of Hobbes cannot be fully recounted here. It is clear, however, that the author enjoys partaking in the rowdy liberation of rhetoric her work promotes. Rhetoric's liberation in politics focuses on the motus animi that “fuels political behavior” and “drives political action” in a creatio continua insisting on “complication” (24) and “fluidity” (33). Struever's decision to read early modernity under the rubric of Dilthey's “impetuous subjectivity”—as opposed, for example, to Burckhardt's stiff “individualism”—is a productive one. But should one allow things to spin out of control? Hobbes and Vico offer a solution not by transcending the political but by extending its purview to the community and its sensus communis. A more precise sense of civil “wholeness”—not to be mistaken for philosophical “plenitude”—can be recovered in Vico's commitment to the “impersonal.” In Struever's narrative, Vico delivers what Hobbes promises: “If Hobbes is critical, Vico is hypercritical of the moralistic initiative” (49).Struever notes that Vico declares his secession at the outset of the New Science with an emphasis on “civil things” (cose civili) rather than “moral” (morali). At once, the private moral inquiry of political philosophy is forsaken together with “narratives of personal decision and heroic interventions” (42). Vico's historiography opts for an “impersonal agency”—“Achilles,” for example, “is not a proper name but a possibility of role”—that “tempers, corrects individualism as our sense of Struever's reading of and its to as a gesture” may be her in community as the place where knowledge is and Moreover, emphasis on community corrects the and of philosophy and its political At a closer if “necessity” is our only we might our will to be tightly emphasis on on the and on up to but to the of beliefs, that the range of civil actions” However, if to and it by which to that same that rhetoric or In other words, space is to the that political philosophy out of be Hobbes in Vico and still it of their for they as unrealized possibilities in Modernity” establishment and of rhetoric's true nature as inquiry the recovery of an authentic However, Struever is that her has its a author with so much of rhetoric and politics with her Struever this in her of the “academic or investigative of the most rhetorical of (History of Rhetoric and the Rhetoric of History, Vico's well as those of thinkers such as and and thus interest in inquiry only its practice” In other words, comes up against as the is to own possibilities” (Rhetoric, Modality, Modernity, Struever may be these are not as or for yet how much should a like-minded reader from a creative of and practices of Struever would an of rhetorical initiatives as opposed to of a Struever's own she is more on this If her work is a to critical the of Rhetoric, Modality, Modernity, a early modernity is with late modernity and the At this a of rhetorical in Hobbes and Struever on of and some affinities with Vico however, as as the of Indeed, is the only unrealized possibility in Struever's a casualty of a agenda that is a with on the of or, its of and the of rhetoric's “political the of Rhetoric, Modality, Modernity, as a with to Struever in a fine of intended to up the emphasis on in inquiry and the nature of the philosophy a point that the of the and as and a shared a of Heidegger's is now closer at Struever her of “possibility” in contemporary inquiry with a of the best and most recent rhetorical initiatives in and much the is that a rhetoric in in our of and our solitude of and of like those of Hobbes and Vico, of their A revision is bound to an of its This is even if such a as in the of Rhetoric, Modality, Modernity, is as a point in the of a and career. One that History of Rhetoric and the Rhetoric of History is not more inclusive not of Struever's past As it is, it for how Struever's could be to of its as inquiry” is critical of or persuasion, and the The of an reader can be for of its with Struever's rhetoric study or in which to be are that her work will like a literary to those to the of what Struever calls a more defined concerns as a Renaissance still this of The Renaissance early she has been a in One would not to Struever's as a to that of the her work that the is to this its Yet we a are the Renaissance and early modernity or This is a in Struever's work her in of be Struever's recent for “early modernity” less to Hobbes's and Vico's historical than to her to place herself in res and historical The of early modernity certainly more unrealized than the of the In case, a less of the should be an those who, including Struever in her own are still in the of the to this point is Struever's in Rhetoric, Modality, Modernity with respect to another Yet the she calls for one can of that to which she her The continuity and of between the humanism, and Vico's early modernity to that Struever would be on a reader of Rhetoric, Modality, Modernity has not read of her other many essays in History of Rhetoric and the Rhetoric of History the “Renaissance” of and some may Struever's to up to the to rhetoric's to It is true that this approach has more often than not to a and definition of rhetoric as a rather than different of be clear, it is not the of that one but rather the that is in the a that, with Struever's and Gadamer to this vital in from which Struever is as she is from by her of of rhetoric as inquiry shows what our discipline would look like if from matter how this may its and are bound to appear just as “therapeutic” as Struever to be in to the moral from the civil rather than the other way The of by Struever to one of the most contemporary in of both its civil and Struever shows that we can the past more lesson for the

ABSTRACTFew concepts in the work of Walter Benjamin have inspired more theoretical reflections and fewer concrete examples than his notion of “the dialectical image.” As a partial corrective, this essay attempts to anchor the dialectical image—along with several related terms, notably “dialectics at a standstill,” “temporal differential,” “historical index,” and the “now of recognizability”—in a communicative practice characteristic of ordinary civic life: the introduction sequence. More than a simple rhetorical act, allowing local speakers to introduce themselves to assembled audiences, the introduction sequence is a complex sociopolitical event in which speakers divide themselves into neighbors and citizens—embodied social beings bound by webs of personal association and disembodied political actors empowered by the rule of law. Understanding this constellation of social and political agency is the basic task of this article.

Introduction| December 01 2011 Taking Benjamin Seriously as a Political Thinker James Martel James Martel Department of Political Science, San Francisco State University Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Philosophy & Rhetoric (2011) 44 (4): 297–308. https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.44.4.0297 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation James Martel; Taking Benjamin Seriously as a Political Thinker. Philosophy & Rhetoric 1 December 2011; 44 (4): 297–308. doi: https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.44.4.0297 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter All Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressPhilosophy & Rhetoric Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2011 The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved.2011The Pennsylvania State University Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Research Article| September 01 2011 Pragmatism, Experience, and William James's Politics of Blindness Paul Stob Paul Stob Department of Communication Studies, Vanderbilt University Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Philosophy & Rhetoric (2011) 44 (3): 227–249. https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.44.3.0227 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation Paul Stob; Pragmatism, Experience, and William James's Politics of Blindness. Philosophy & Rhetoric 1 September 2011; 44 (3): 227–249. doi: https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.44.3.0227 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressPhilosophy & Rhetoric Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2011 by The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved.2011The Pennsylvania State University Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Research Article| September 01 2011 A Normative Pragmatic Model of Making Fear Appeals Beth Innocenti Beth Innocenti University of Kansas, Communication Studies Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Philosophy & Rhetoric (2011) 44 (3): 273–290. https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.44.3.0273 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Beth Innocenti; A Normative Pragmatic Model of Making Fear Appeals. Philosophy & Rhetoric 1 September 2011; 44 (3): 273–290. doi: https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.44.3.0273 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressPhilosophy & Rhetoric Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2011 by The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved.2011The Pennsylvania State University Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Book Review| September 01 2011 What is Talmud? The Art of Disagreement Dolgopolski, SergeiWhat is Talmud? The Art of Disagreement. New York: Fordham University Press, 2009. 346 pp. Cloth $60.00 Michael Bernard–Donals Michael Bernard–Donals Department of English, University of Wisconsin, Madison Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Philosophy & Rhetoric (2011) 44 (3): 291–296. https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.44.3.0291 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation Michael Bernard–Donals; What is Talmud? The Art of Disagreement. Philosophy & Rhetoric 1 September 2011; 44 (3): 291–296. doi: https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.44.3.0291 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter All Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressPhilosophy & Rhetoric Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2011 by The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved.2011The Pennsylvania State University Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Research Article| September 01 2011 A Defense of War and Sport Metaphors in Argument Scott Aikin Scott Aikin Philosophy Department, Vanderbilt University Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Philosophy & Rhetoric (2011) 44 (3): 250–272. https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.44.3.0250 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation Scott Aikin; A Defense of War and Sport Metaphors in Argument. Philosophy & Rhetoric 1 September 2011; 44 (3): 250–272. doi: https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.44.3.0250 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter All Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressPhilosophy & Rhetoric Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2011 by The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved.2011The Pennsylvania State University Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Research Article| September 01 2011 The Prudential Public Sphere David Randall David Randall Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Philosophy & Rhetoric (2011) 44 (3): 205–226. https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.44.3.0205 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation David Randall; The Prudential Public Sphere. Philosophy & Rhetoric 1 September 2011; 44 (3): 205–226. doi: https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.44.3.0205 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressPhilosophy & Rhetoric Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2011 by The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved.2011The Pennsylvania State University Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Book Review| June 01 2011 Culture +Rhetoric: Studies in Rhetoric and Culture Streker, Ivo; Tyler, Stephen, eds. Culture +Rhetoric: Studies in Rhetoric and Culture. Oxford, UK: Berghahn, 2009. 255 pp. Cloth $90.00. Michael Kaplan Michael Kaplan Indiana University Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Philosophy & Rhetoric (2011) 44 (2): 194–204. https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.44.2.0194 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation Michael Kaplan; Culture +Rhetoric: Studies in Rhetoric and Culture. Philosophy & Rhetoric 1 June 2011; 44 (2): 194–204. doi: https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.44.2.0194 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressPhilosophy & Rhetoric Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2011 by The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved.2011The Pennsylvania State University Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Research Article| March 01 2011 Maintaining the World's Architecture Dominique de Courcelles Dominique de Courcelles Centre national de la recherche scientifique, Centre d'études en rhétorique, philosophie, et histoire des idées, Ecole normale, supérieure des lettres et sciences humaines de Lyon Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Philosophy & Rhetoric (2011) 44 (1): 72–78. https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.44.1.0072 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Dominique de Courcelles; Maintaining the World's Architecture. Philosophy & Rhetoric 1 March 2011; 44 (1): 72–78. doi: https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.44.1.0072 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressPhilosophy & Rhetoric Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2011 by The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved.2011The Pennsylvania State University Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Research Article| March 01 2011 Addressing Animals Erik Doxtader Erik Doxtader Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Philosophy & Rhetoric (2011) 44 (1): 79–80. https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.44.1.0079 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Erik Doxtader; Addressing Animals. Philosophy & Rhetoric 1 March 2011; 44 (1): 79–80. doi: https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.44.1.0079 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressPhilosophy & Rhetoric Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2011 by The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved.2011The Pennsylvania State University Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Abstract The Stoic is often seen as the forerunner of Adam Smith's market man of morals, but others have suggested that the sophist played a role in the formation of market morality and political economy. This article traces Smith's treatment of ancient sophists and his use of the term sophistry in the Wealth of Nations. Smith praised ancient sophists for their effective didactic oratory and their ability to make money through teaching. Smith criticized arguments as sophistic when they promoted monetary advantage for a few over and above the principle of competition. This varied reception of sophists and sophistry suggests a keen understanding of the rhetorical tradition and its capacity to influence the development of the discourse of political economy. Smith's use of sophistry and reference to the sophists invites a deeper awareness of the essential vitality of effective argumentation for Smith's “system of natural liberty.”

AbstractTo the ancient mind, magic was a powerful force to be subjected to or to control. Egypt, more than any other early culture, stressed the importance of intellectual agency as the antidote to the imperfection perceived between foundational thinking and anti-foundational speaking. Just as rhetoric seeks to express the conceptual ideal pursued by philosophical inquiry, these earlier thinkers stressed magical language as the key to unlocking the power of the cosmos. This article will explore the Ancient Egyptian concept of rhetorical magic as a practical wisdom that allows an individual to function fully within the boundaries established by a perceived cosmic order. The Ancient Egyptians applied rhetorical magic to ease the dissonance felt between intellectual engagement and the semiotically saturated cosmology in which they dwelt. These same ancient rhetorical practices hold promise in assisting our own attempts to navigate a world inundated with information.

Research Article| March 01 2011 Toward a Bestial Rhetoric Debra Hawhee Debra Hawhee Department of English, Pennsylvania State University Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Philosophy & Rhetoric (2011) 44 (1): 81–87. https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.44.1.0081 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Tools Icon Tools Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Debra Hawhee; Toward a Bestial Rhetoric. Philosophy & Rhetoric 1 March 2011; 44 (1): 81–87. doi: https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.44.1.0081 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressPhilosophy & Rhetoric Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2011 by The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved.2011The Pennsylvania State University Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Research Article| March 01 2011 Creaturely Rhetorics Diane Davis Diane Davis Department of Rhetoric and Writing/Department of English, University of Texas-Austin Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Philosophy & Rhetoric (2011) 44 (1): 88–94. https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.44.1.0088 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation Diane Davis; Creaturely Rhetorics. Philosophy & Rhetoric 1 March 2011; 44 (1): 88–94. doi: https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.44.1.0088 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressPhilosophy & Rhetoric Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2011 by The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved.2011The Pennsylvania State University Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

AbstractJohn Dewey's work on aesthetics, community, and art holds many untapped resources for the study and melioration of communicative practices. This article explores Dewey's distinctive and pluralistic idea of criticism and argues that such a notion can be used to elaborate pragmatist rhetoric. To lend contrast to this endeavor, I develop the concept of the “implied critic,” and compare the sort of critic assumed by Deweyan pragmatism to the critic implied by Raymie McKerrow's critical rhetoric. What a pragmatist approach to rhetorical criticism entails will be detailed by examining the variety of purposes that can be pursued by an individual in reflecting on rhetorical artifacts. Such a pragmatist rhetoric explains the notion of artful criticism that Dewey features so prominently in his analysis of ideal forms of community.

Research Article| January 01 2010 Rhetoric, Grief, and the Imagination in Early Modern England Stephen Pender Stephen Pender Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Philosophy & Rhetoric (2010) 43 (1): 54–85. https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.43.1.0054 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation Stephen Pender; Rhetoric, Grief, and the Imagination in Early Modern England. Philosophy & Rhetoric 1 January 2010; 43 (1): 54–85. doi: https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.43.1.0054 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressPhilosophy & Rhetoric Search Advanced Search You do not currently have access to this content.

Book Review| January 01 2010 The Rhetoric of St. Augustine of Hippo: "De Doctrina Christiana" and the Search for a Distinctly Christian The Rhetoric of St. Augustine of Hippo: "De Doctrina Christiana" and the Search for a Distinctly Christian Rhetoric. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2008. Pp. 420. $44.95, paperback. Leo Enos, Richard; Thompson, Roger Calvin L. Troup Calvin L. Troup Duquesne University Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Philosophy & Rhetoric (2010) 43 (1): 86–90. https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.43.1.0086 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Tools Icon Tools Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Calvin L. Troup; The Rhetoric of St. Augustine of Hippo: "De Doctrina Christiana" and the Search for a Distinctly Christian. Philosophy & Rhetoric 1 January 2010; 43 (1): 86–90. doi: https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.43.1.0086 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressPhilosophy & Rhetoric Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2010 The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved.2010The Pennsylvania State University Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Research Article| January 01 2010 Universalities James Crosswhite James Crosswhite Department of English University of Oregon Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Philosophy & Rhetoric (2010) 43 (4): 430–448. https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.43.4.0430 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Tools Icon Tools Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation James Crosswhite; Universalities. Philosophy & Rhetoric 1 January 2010; 43 (4): 430–448. doi: https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.43.4.0430 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressPhilosophy & Rhetoric Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2010 The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved.2010The Pennsylvania State University Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Book Review| January 01 2010 By Way of Interruption: Levinas and the Ethics of Communication By Way of Interruption: Levinas and the Ethics of Communication.Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press, 2005. 299 pp. $28.00, paper. Pinchevski, Amit Diane Davis Diane Davis Department of Rhetoric and Writing University of Texas at Austin Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Philosophy & Rhetoric (2010) 43 (3): 289–295. https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.43.3.0289 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Tools Icon Tools Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Diane Davis; By Way of Interruption: Levinas and the Ethics of Communication. Philosophy & Rhetoric 1 January 2010; 43 (3): 289–295. doi: https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.43.3.0289 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressPhilosophy & Rhetoric Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2010 by The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved.2010The Pennsylvania State University Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Research Article| January 01 2010 Ways of Being Reasonable:Perelman and the Philosophers Christopher W. Tindale Christopher W. Tindale University of Windsor Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Philosophy & Rhetoric (2010) 43 (4): 337–361. https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.43.4.0337 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Christopher W. Tindale; Ways of Being Reasonable:Perelman and the Philosophers. Philosophy & Rhetoric 1 January 2010; 43 (4): 337–361. doi: https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.43.4.0337 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressPhilosophy & Rhetoric Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2010 The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved.2010The Pennsylvania State University Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Research Article| January 01 2010 Perelman's Interpretation of Reverse Probability Arguments as a Dialectical Mise en Abyme Manfred Kraus Manfred Kraus Department of Classics University of Tübingen Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Philosophy & Rhetoric (2010) 43 (4): 362–382. https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.43.4.0362 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Manfred Kraus; Perelman's Interpretation of Reverse Probability Arguments as a Dialectical Mise en Abyme. Philosophy & Rhetoric 1 January 2010; 43 (4): 362–382. doi: https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.43.4.0362 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressPhilosophy & Rhetoric Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2010 The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved.2010The Pennsylvania State University Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Research Article| January 01 2010 The Brussels School of Rhetoric:From the New Rhetoric to Problematology Michel Meyer Michel Meyer University of Brussels mimeyer@ulb.ac.be Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Philosophy & Rhetoric (2010) 43 (4): 403–429. https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.43.4.0403 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation Michel Meyer; The Brussels School of Rhetoric:From the New Rhetoric to Problematology. Philosophy & Rhetoric 1 January 2010; 43 (4): 403–429. doi: https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.43.4.0403 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressPhilosophy & Rhetoric Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2010 The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved.2010The Pennsylvania State University Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Research Article| January 01 2010 Why Socrates and Thrasymachus Become Friends Catherine Zuckert Catherine Zuckert Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Philosophy & Rhetoric (2010) 43 (2): 163–185. https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.43.2.0163 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation Catherine Zuckert; Why Socrates and Thrasymachus Become Friends. Philosophy & Rhetoric 1 January 2010; 43 (2): 163–185. doi: https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.43.2.0163 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressPhilosophy & Rhetoric Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2010 The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved.2010The Pennsylvania State University Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Research Article| January 01 2010 The Sociopath and the Ring of Gyges:A Problem in Rhetorical and Moral Philosophy Donald Phillip Verene Donald Phillip Verene Department of Philosophy Emory University Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Philosophy & Rhetoric (2010) 43 (3): 201–221. https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.43.3.0201 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Tools Icon Tools Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Donald Phillip Verene; The Sociopath and the Ring of Gyges:A Problem in Rhetorical and Moral Philosophy. Philosophy & Rhetoric 1 January 2010; 43 (3): 201–221. doi: https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.43.3.0201 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressPhilosophy & Rhetoric Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2010 by The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved.2010The Pennsylvania State University Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Research Article| January 01 2010 Rhetorical Circulation in Late Capitalism:Neoliberalism and the Overdetermination of Affective Energy Catherine Chaput Catherine Chaput Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Philosophy & Rhetoric (2010) 43 (1): 1–25. https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.43.1.0001 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation Catherine Chaput; Rhetorical Circulation in Late Capitalism:Neoliberalism and the Overdetermination of Affective Energy. Philosophy & Rhetoric 1 January 2010; 43 (1): 1–25. doi: https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.43.1.0001 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressPhilosophy & Rhetoric Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2010 The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved.2010The Pennsylvania State University Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Book Review| January 01 2010 The Prettier Doll: Rhetoric, Discourse, and Ordinary Democracy The Prettier Doll: Rhetoric, Discourse, and Ordinary Democracy.Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2007. 314 pp. $60.00, cloth; $38.00, paper. Tracy, Karen; McDaniel, James P.; Gronbeck, Bruce E. Christine Harold Christine Harold Department of Communication University of Washington Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Philosophy & Rhetoric (2010) 43 (3): 296–300. https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.43.3.0296 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation Christine Harold; The Prettier Doll: Rhetoric, Discourse, and Ordinary Democracy. Philosophy & Rhetoric 1 January 2010; 43 (3): 296–300. doi: https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.43.3.0296 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressPhilosophy & Rhetoric Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2010 by The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved.2010The Pennsylvania State University Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Research Article| January 01 2010 A Bibliography of the New Rhetoric Project David A. Frank; David A. Frank Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google William Driscoll William Driscoll Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Philosophy & Rhetoric (2010) 43 (4): 449–466. https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.43.4.0449 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation David A. Frank, William Driscoll; A Bibliography of the New Rhetoric Project. Philosophy & Rhetoric 1 January 2010; 43 (4): 449–466. doi: https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.43.4.0449 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressPhilosophy & Rhetoric Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2010 The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved.2010The Pennsylvania State University Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Research Article| January 01 2010 Perelman’s Theory of Argumentation and Natural Law Francis J. Mootz III Francis J. Mootz III William S. Boyd School of Law University of Nevada, Las Vegas Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Philosophy & Rhetoric (2010) 43 (4): 383–402. https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.43.4.0383 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Francis J. Mootz III; Perelman’s Theory of Argumentation and Natural Law. Philosophy & Rhetoric 1 January 2010; 43 (4): 383–402. doi: https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.43.4.0383 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressPhilosophy & Rhetoric Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © Copyright 2010 The Pennsylvania State University The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved.Copyright 2010 The Pennsylvania State UniversityThe Pennsylvania State University Article PDF first page preview Close Modal Issue Section: ARTICLES You do not currently have access to this content.

Research Article| January 01 2010 Proof and Persuasion in the Philosophical Debate about Abortion Chris Kaposy Chris Kaposy Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Philosophy & Rhetoric (2010) 43 (2): 139–162. https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.43.2.0139 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation Chris Kaposy; Proof and Persuasion in the Philosophical Debate about Abortion. Philosophy & Rhetoric 1 January 2010; 43 (2): 139–162. doi: https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.43.2.0139 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter All Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressPhilosophy & Rhetoric Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2010 The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved.2010The Pennsylvania State University Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Book Review| January 01 2010 Five Chapters on Rhetoric: Character, Action, Things, Nothing, and Art Five Chapters on Rhetoric: Character, Action, Things, Nothing, and Art.University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2009. 184 pp. $65.00, cloth. Kochin, Michael S. Paul Stob Paul Stob Department of Communication Studies Vanderbilt University Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Philosophy & Rhetoric (2010) 43 (3): 284–288. https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.43.3.0284 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Paul Stob; Five Chapters on Rhetoric: Character, Action, Things, Nothing, and Art. Philosophy & Rhetoric 1 January 2010; 43 (3): 284–288. doi: https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.43.3.0284 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressPhilosophy & Rhetoric Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2010 by The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved.2010The Pennsylvania State University Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Research Article| January 01 2010 Rhetoric and Power:An Inquiry into Foucault’s Critique of Confession Dave Tell Dave Tell Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Philosophy & Rhetoric (2010) 43 (2): 95–117. https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.43.2.0095 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Dave Tell; Rhetoric and Power:An Inquiry into Foucault’s Critique of Confession. Philosophy & Rhetoric 1 January 2010; 43 (2): 95–117. doi: https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.43.2.0095 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressPhilosophy & Rhetoric Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2010 The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved.2010The Pennsylvania State University Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Book Review| January 01 2010 A History of Scottish Philosophy A History of Scottish Philosophy. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2009. 400 pp. $120.00, cloth; $45.00, paper.Broadie, Alexander C. Jan Swearingen C. Jan Swearingen Texas A & M University Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Philosophy & Rhetoric (2010) 43 (2): 186–199. https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.43.2.0186 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Tools Icon Tools Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation C. Jan Swearingen; A History of Scottish Philosophy. Philosophy & Rhetoric 1 January 2010; 43 (2): 186–199. doi: https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.43.2.0186 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressPhilosophy & Rhetoric Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2010 The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved.2010The Pennsylvania State University Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Research Article| January 01 2010 Rhetoric, Narrative, and the Lifeworld:The Construction of Collective Identity Alan G. Gross Alan G. Gross Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Philosophy & Rhetoric (2010) 43 (2): 118–138. https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.43.2.0118 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation Alan G. Gross; Rhetoric, Narrative, and the Lifeworld:The Construction of Collective Identity. Philosophy & Rhetoric 1 January 2010; 43 (2): 118–138. doi: https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.43.2.0118 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter All Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressPhilosophy & Rhetoric Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2010 The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved.2010The Pennsylvania State University Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Research Article| January 01 2010 Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca’s “On Temporality as a Characteristic of Argumentation”:Commentary and Translation Michelle K. Bolduc; Michelle K. Bolduc Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google David A. Frank David A. Frank Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Philosophy & Rhetoric (2010) 43 (4): 308–336. https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.43.4.0308 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Tools Icon Tools Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Michelle K. Bolduc, David A. Frank; Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca’s “On Temporality as a Characteristic of Argumentation”:Commentary and Translation. Philosophy & Rhetoric 1 January 2010; 43 (4): 308–336. doi: https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.43.4.0308 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressPhilosophy & Rhetoric Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2010 The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved.2010The Pennsylvania State University Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Research Article| January 01 2009 Rhetoric as a Balancing of Ends: Cicero and Machiavelli Gary Remer Gary Remer Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Philosophy & Rhetoric (2009) 42 (1): 1–28. https://doi.org/10.2307/25655336 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation Gary Remer; Rhetoric as a Balancing of Ends: Cicero and Machiavelli. Philosophy & Rhetoric 1 January 2009; 42 (1): 1–28. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/25655336 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressPhilosophy & Rhetoric Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2009 The Pennsylvania State University2009The Pennsylvania State University Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Research Article| January 01 2009 Postface Philippe-Joseph Salazar Philippe-Joseph Salazar Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Philosophy & Rhetoric (2009) 42 (4): 424–427. https://doi.org/10.2307/25655368 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation Philippe-Joseph Salazar; Postface. Philosophy & Rhetoric 1 January 2009; 42 (4): 424–427. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/25655368 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressPhilosophy & Rhetoric Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2010 The Pennsylvania State University2010The Pennsylvania State University Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Research Article| January 01 2009 The Rhetoric of Parody in Plato’s Menexenus Franco V. Trivigno Franco V. Trivigno Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Philosophy & Rhetoric (2009) 42 (1): 29–58. https://doi.org/10.2307/25655337 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation Franco V. Trivigno; The Rhetoric of Parody in Plato’s Menexenus. Philosophy & Rhetoric 1 January 2009; 42 (1): 29–58. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/25655337 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressPhilosophy & Rhetoric Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2009 The Pennsylvania State University2009The Pennsylvania State University Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Book Review| January 01 2009 Pragmatism, Democracy, and the Necessity of Rhetoric Pragmatism, Democracy, and the Necessity of RhetoricDanisch, Robert Scott R. Stroud Scott R. Stroud Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Philosophy & Rhetoric (2009) 42 (1): 96–101. https://doi.org/10.2307/25655341 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation Scott R. Stroud; Pragmatism, Democracy, and the Necessity of Rhetoric. Philosophy & Rhetoric 1 January 2009; 42 (1): 96–101. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/25655341 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressPhilosophy & Rhetoric Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2009 The Pennsylvania State University2009The Pennsylvania State University Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Book Review| January 01 2009 Plato on the Rhetoric of Philosophers and Sophists Plato on the Rhetoric of Philosophers and SophistsMcCoy, Marina Michael Svoboda Michael Svoboda Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Philosophy & Rhetoric (2009) 42 (2): 191–196. https://doi.org/10.2307/25655350 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation Michael Svoboda; Plato on the Rhetoric of Philosophers and Sophists. Philosophy & Rhetoric 1 January 2009; 42 (2): 191–196. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/25655350 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressPhilosophy & Rhetoric Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2009 The Pennsylvania State University2009The Pennsylvania State University Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Research Article| January 01 2009 “As Usual I Fell on the Bias”: Kenneth Burke's Situated Dialectic M. Elizabeth Weiser M. Elizabeth Weiser Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Philosophy & Rhetoric (2009) 42 (2): 134–153. https://doi.org/10.2307/25655347 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation M. Elizabeth Weiser; “As Usual I Fell on the Bias”: Kenneth Burke's Situated Dialectic. Philosophy & Rhetoric 1 January 2009; 42 (2): 134–153. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/25655347 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressPhilosophy & Rhetoric Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2009 The Pennsylvania State University2009The Pennsylvania State University Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Research Article| January 01 2009 The Political Identity of the Philosopher: Resistance, Relative Power, and the Endurance of Potential Samuel McCormick Samuel McCormick Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Philosophy & Rhetoric (2009) 42 (1): 72–91. https://doi.org/10.2307/25655339 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation Samuel McCormick; The Political Identity of the Philosopher: Resistance, Relative Power, and the Endurance of Potential. Philosophy & Rhetoric 1 January 2009; 42 (1): 72–91. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/25655339 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressPhilosophy & Rhetoric Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2009 The Pennsylvania State University2009The Pennsylvania State University Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Research Article| January 01 2009 Hegelian Rhetoric Thora Ilin Bayer Thora Ilin Bayer Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Philosophy & Rhetoric (2009) 42 (3): 203–219. https://doi.org/10.2307/25655355 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation Thora Ilin Bayer; Hegelian Rhetoric. Philosophy & Rhetoric 1 January 2009; 42 (3): 203–219. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/25655355 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressPhilosophy & Rhetoric Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2009 The Pennsylvania State University2009The Pennsylvania State University Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Research Article| January 01 2009 From Politics to Philosophy and Theology: Some Remarks about Foucault’s Interpretation of Parrêsia in Two Recently Published Seminars Carlos Lévy Carlos Lévy Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Philosophy & Rhetoric (2009) 42 (4): 313–325. https://doi.org/10.2307/25655363 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation Carlos Lévy; From Politics to Philosophy and Theology: Some Remarks about Foucault’s Interpretation of Parrêsia in Two Recently Published Seminars. Philosophy & Rhetoric 1 January 2009; 42 (4): 313–325. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/25655363 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressPhilosophy & Rhetoric Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2010 The Pennsylvania State University2010The Pennsylvania State University Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.