Three Meanings of Epistemic Rhetoric

Summary:

In the article "Three Meanings of Epistemic Rhetoric," by Barry Brummett, he argues that "rhetoric is epistemic". He does this by giving three meanings of it, and showing conclusions that are drawn from it. He argues that being able to distinguish between these three metaphysical meanings will help "scholars understand which meaning their own work is based upon...also needed for disputes among scholars" (Page 1). Being able to compare different systems at the metaphysical leel is "fruitful".

The first meaning of "rhetoric is epistemic" is in a methadological way. "Rhetoric is a means to the discovery of truth, a conduit to knolede" (1). This helps people understand the truth behind objective and unitary. With this, Brummett concludes that "rhetoric as a discipline has no real subject matter of its own, it is only concerned with making clear the subject matter ofother disiplines" (2). The importance is that one is able to find the truth in order for something correct to be discovered.

The second meaning is sociological. Rhetoric helps us understand the truth behind religion,ethics, morals, etc. This definition shows the difference between material and social spheres. "rhetoric leads to knoledge of social questions because it creates what there is to know in the social realm" (3). There are many different truths on social problems, and every truth is supported by different groups.

The third meaning is ontological. "Rhetoric creates all of what there is to know" (4). Discourse does not make a truth about what is real, instead it makes realities. Brummett argues that reality is built through meanings. This ontological view shows that rhetoric studies features of all actions. There is an "idea that truth is something created and not fixed" (5).

Synthesis:

I believe that the author had a really good point by giving three different meanings of why rhetoric is epistemic. It's important to understand the different ways something could be difined as, especially when the topic is really hard to understand. By describing them in methadological, social, and ontological way, one is able to better understand the difference, and know which one corresponds to every situation. I think it's interesting how the author described the difference between reality and truth.