blog#1:inductive reason

    The idea of rhetoric in the english language seems to frighten anyone who is introduced to it by their teachers and professors and although it may be difficult to the untrained skill, there is a specific aspect of rhetoric that seems to go unobseved that we as a sciety have learned over a wide range of discipline in the way we communicate; "analysis." Analysis is not a skill that is always clear and monolithic let alone single or whole, in fact every discipline in the language of every person in the world contains its own ways of analyzing and with those ways come the different generalizations of an analysis. to analyze something is to understand a complex phenomina by breaking down the components and obseving the patterns and the relationships of the patterns themselves, wether or not they be fallable in any way. if this process is done so properly, then the idea of rhetoric is easy to understand and do. As the great master of rhetoric Aristotle once described, the way to master the art of persuading is to mimic the professionals; those professionals in the aspect of analyzing in rhetoric lives in everyone. Every person analyzes everything they see or hear or smell or taste or feel or touch everyday and although they do not realize it, analyzing in rhetoric is the same process.
      For example, a person that describes a car of the latest model, in the mind they will describe the way it looks, the content of the car on the outside as well as inside the car. They will observe the as aspects of the car in their mind just as much as the bad aspects in a car that came out three or four years ago. This is the same in rhetoric. In the passage ''Okeefenokee Swamp" by Joshua Laerm, two columns are written, one using objective writing and subjective writing in the other. In the subjective column the swamp is described more detailed and more lively and desciptively than the subjective column. The subjective column describes the swamp in more dull detail and boring descriptions.
  The idea of analyzing in rhetoric is just as simple as observing a car. However, some may say the first rhetors of thier time such as Aristotle had to practice their analysis thoroughly and redundantly to truly grasp the knowledge of it. In all credebility, the people who say this prove a good point; however they are missing one section of the idea. To understand something one must practice it more than twuce, yes, but rhetoric is more prudent than that. In analysis one practices the process everyday. A todler knows that if candy tastes better than broccoli, obviously the candy will be the winning choice because it has more flavor that apeals to the todler. The case is similar in argument. If one person says that candy is better than broccoli and another todler says that broccoli is better than candy, the two will give their reasons after multiple questions and statements regarding "why?" "no, because..." or " yes,because..." The point is that rhetoric has been used since young ages and since times even before Aristotle, the only thing that makes rhetoric difficult is the lack of practice and training of the skill itself; evryone uses rhetoric every day of their lives, therefore it is not hard if we do it blindly.