Kant & Burke

                The readings today, while not explicitly about rhetoric (though they did discuss language in detail), had a few key points that made me think of the discussions we’ve been having so far. Kant’s chapter examines transcendental and empirical understanding. As I was reading, I made the connection that this could be considered in terms of universal and particular/practical or even philosophy and rhetoric.  Kant stated that transcendental concepts are things “as such and in themselves” while empirical concepts deal with “appearances, i.e., to objects of possible experience.” (305) But I believe he argued that transcendental concepts can only anticipate the form of a concept but in order to understand it, people need experience. Kant explains that “without an object the concept has no sense.” And that these transcendental/a priori concepts “would signify nothing if we could not always display their signification in appearances.” (305-6) He believes that the concept’s “use and…reference to alleged objects can in the end be sought nowhere but in experience, who’s possibility (as regards form) is contained a priori in those concepts.” (306)

                I made the connection that these transcendental concepts were similar to the universal, philosophical ideals that Plato endorsed. However, most people cannot grasp these concepts as they are, outside of their world and experience. Rhetoric can then be used to show the appearance of these concepts. It can reveal to people the practicality and particular moments these overarching concepts appear and can be used. It is through the use of paradigms and enthymemes that these concepts are understood. Rhetoric is then needed to understand these concepts for without it, no one “will be able to offer justification for the possibility of such a pure assertion without taking into account the empirical use of understanding.” (322)

                The other reading where I made some strong connections to rhetoric was Kenneth Burke’s chapter and his discussion of the terministic screens. Instead of focusing on his distinctions of the scientistic and dramatistic approaches, I found connections through his general use of the terministic screens.  Burke states that “terministic screens ‘direct the attention’…into some channels rather than others.” (45) I especially liked his discussion of the color filters and how each filter allowed one to see the same photograph differently. Burke then explains that it is one’s use of terms (language) that “directs the attention to one field rather than to another” and that our “observations about ‘reality’ may be but the spinning out of possibilities implicit in our particular choice of terms.” (46) I immediately made the connection to rhetoric. The rhetorician uses terministic screens in order to allow his audience to see the situation in a particular light. Aristotle’s On Rhetoric told people how to argue and persuade a certain way depending on what emotion they were dealing with. If you want people to become angry, you emphasized these aspects of a concept/situation but if you want them to be happy, you emphasized others. Burke states that it is our language that can determine how one will observe the situation.

                Perhaps it was Burke’s mention of the analysis of a dream that made me think of this connection, but his terministic screens made me think of the movie Don Juan DeMarco. In the move Johnny Depp plays a young man who is classified as insane because he thinks his is Don Juan DeMarco. He then tells his story to his psychiatrist, Marlon Brando. Depp weaves this great story of adventure and romance and Brando begins to believe it. It is at the end of the movie that you discover (probably) what the real story is – that he is crazy. But I think that Depp uses a terministic screen in order to portray is story. His language throughout the movie is heavily romanticized and conveys a certain oldness/gentlemanly feeling. Furthermore, Depp describes how Brando has lost the romance and adventure in his life and how they are in fact connected and alike. Burke explains that screens can enhance differences in degree or kind and that they can even enhance the continuity between objects. Depp’s screen tries to create a continuity between himself and Brando and he does in fact succeed. Depp’s language and rhetoric creates a certain screen for Brando to understand his story through. It allows Brando to view not only Depp in a certain way but life in a certain way. Depp’s screen then has emphasized certain aspects of the situation much like how Burke’s color filter revealed certain distinctions in a picture not recognized in others.