Finding the "value" in the common topic of Degree

In chapter 4, Crowley and Hawhee define for us yet another part of “the system of invention” in terms of “topos” and “locis communis.” I agree with Jaclyn that the information regarding these two rhetorical phenomena, topic and commonplace, were pretty straightforward. Even so, however, I found Crowley and Hawhee’s examples of a systematic unraveling of “proof that could be inserted into any discourse” to be most interesting (118). Not only is the “universal art of investigation” an intriguing concept, I find it equally as satisfying to discover more about what this “art” can do for us as writers or thinkers (123).

A particular “common topic” of rhetoric that opened up my eyes was the concept of Degree—a lesser or greater degree. In terms of degree, you may claim a particular point to “establish the relations between degrees of goodness, justice, and so on,” but as you do this you simultaneously argue more than that single point (124). If you use the book’s example of the state of affairs—whether or not an economic decline is “better than recession since most people are still employed and can feed and clothe their families thus stimulating the economy by spending,” you are also inserting a particular cultural value within the same statement (125). In other words, proposing that recession is “good/better” because a family can enjoy basic needs (food and clothes), as well as “stimulating the economy,” your values are reflected in the ideals that if humans have those 2 things (food and clothes), they should be content. Your values are not explicitly stated, they are tacitly understood to be valid. The statement about stimulating economy is reflexive in that it also comments upon a particular value in economic stability. I have a hard time explaining these concepts sometimes, but I guess I’m saying that I’m finding it interesting to break-down the concept of the common topic of degree on a more personal level; your argument says something not only about what you are arguing for, but also who is doing the arguing and what particular ideological background that individual supports or reflects.
I’ll save more comments for class discussion.