We Are What We Are Not

When forming our schema this week, we began with the image of a tree in order to demonstrate the way in which ideas have a root thought and then continue to grow upwards with branches in multiple directions and be influenced by the external factors (such as Condit’s “lightning bolt” critique). I found it most interesting as the tree schema began to grow that Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca seemed to frame their argument by beginning with establishing what they are not. I found this interesting first fruits for our tree. However, after reflecting on this idea for a few days it became clear. Where do ideas begin if not from what they are not? An oddly worded question yes but even in experiencing discourse like Dissoi Logoi, the author begins his (or her) statements with what others say as a means of presenting an argument he does not ascribe to and follows it with his (or her) own understanding of good, bad, shameful, just and so forth. 

           
If a term cannot exist outside of what it is not, can an idea be born from what it is not? When reflecting further on a thought like The New Rhetoric, I have come to an understanding that it must be built upon first what it rejects, or what it is not, for how can we understand what a new rhetoric is if we don’t first understand what a new rhetoric isn’t? In the field of historical criticism, The Quarterly Journal of Speech boasts scholars like Donald Bryant who claim that we cannot come to know any future ideas without knowing the history behind it. Scholars must find what is already done, he claims and with these thoughts I continue to establish that we must first know the history behind the arguments we form and decide upon that what we are not, what we reject. Upon doing so we have a root from which to grow in our own academic sprouting.