Extrinsic Proofs

This is, by far, the chapter I’ve most enjoyed reading. Up until this week I’ve spent much of my time in class wondering, “Do I really get this?” The work we’ve done in class with intrinsic proofs seemed very abstract to me. This chapter on extrinsic proofs really helped clarify this whole idea of invention in the rhetorical process. It seems much more concrete – easier to manage in a sense.

One part of this chapter I really found moving was the figurative language used in Plato’s Phaedrus – the way the language personifies words when Socrates warns:

Written words … seem to talk to you as though they were intelligent, but if you ask them anything about what they say, from a desire to be instructed, they go on telling you just the same thing forever. And once a thing is put in writing, the composition, whatever it may be, drifts all over the place, getting into the hands not only of those who understand it, but equally of those who have no business with it; it doesn’t know how to address the right people, and not address the wrong. (p. 269)

Writers give power to words, just as Plato brought words to life in the above quote. This, of course, gives rise to the subjects of interpretation and audience, as discussed at length both here and in previous chapters by Crowley and Hawhee.

On interpretation, in fourth grade, we teach students that it is the Judicial Branch of government’s job to interpret laws. While this is a difficult concept for most nine-year-olds to understand, many students have already seen Hollywood versions of our judicial system in action through various television shows such as Law and Order, etc. But the fact that the judicial system needs multiple layers to function effectively proves that interpreting words, in this case written as laws, can be a very arduous task. The hate speech example discussed in the book reminds me of last week’s discussion on pathos and the case of Snyder v. Phelps. Both dealt with First Amendment protection, hate speech, “fighting words,” and U.S. Supreme Court justices interpreting extrinsic proofs differently. As Crowley and Hawhee state, “This case demonstrates why laws must be interpreted and reinterpreted – that is why we have laws.” (p.271)

On audience, the quote refers to writing, “getting into the hands not only of those who understand it, but equally of those who have no business with it; it doesn’t know how to address the right people, and not address the wrong.” I just think that this comes full circle with our discussions in previous classes about the importance of knowing your audience and choosing your words carefully.

The rest of the chapter on testimony, community vs. proximate authorities, and data brought many interesting points, as well. I’m looking forward to discussing this chapter more in depth on Thursday!