St. Austin

For my rhetoric class this week, I read some of On Christian Doctrine by St. Augustine of Hippo, also known as St. Austin for some reason. Augustine was one of the greatest thinkers in Western history. It's telling that I've read his works for two different classes, neither of which had anything to do with religion. So, his influence is fairly universal.

As far as his rhetorical theory goes, Augustine expanded on one of my favorite arguments (which I've discussed before): that everything is an argument. Augustine divides rhetoric (or, technically, "eloquence") into three styles: subdued, moderate, and grand. He gives each style a particular purpose: "to make one's word understood [for subdued], enjoyed [for moderate], and persuasive [for grand]" (374-75). But those purposes can fluctuate and intermingle.

Anyhow, he also says that persuasion is the "function of eloquence," which we presumably always strive for in speaking. He says:

For since the function of all eloquence, no matter in which of these three styles, is to speak in a way adapted to persuasion, and the end, that is, what you aim at, is to persuade by speaking, so, in whatever of the three styles indeed an orator speaks in a manner adapted to persuasion, unless he does persuade, he does not attain the end of eloquence. For instance, in the subdued style he persuades his audience that what he says is true; he persuades them in the grand style, to do what they now know they ought to do, but are not doing; he persuades them in the moderate style that he is expressing himself in beautiful and elegant language. (374)

I think it's pretty normal and blasé to argue, for example, that a car commercial is trying to persuade you to do something (grand style) or that a documentary is trying to persuade you that it is being truthful (subdued style), but I think the third component is a little less common of a thought. How often do we think about something like "I'm on a Boat" or The Office as trying to persuade us that it is funny? But that is essentially what they are trying to do. If we're not convinced, we won't continue to watch or whatever.

I don't think Augustine had T-Pain and Andy Samberg in mind when he wrote that, but I think the argument is pretty transferrable. He's basically talking about art or culture as argument. Lots of art has a different argument as well (i.e. A Doll's House as an argument for women's empowerment), but I think all art and cultural texts argue, at least, that they are expressed in the most appropriate way possible, be that the most beautiful or the funniest or whatever. So, anyhow, everything's an argument.

It seems that King of the Hill may have ended (rather unceremoniously) last week. There wasn't a new episode last night, and I don't think there is next week either. I can't find any concrete evidence about the show's future, though, so I don't know for sure. I thought we'd at least get some warning.

Speaking of last night, American Dad continues to distance itself from Family Guy in persuading me that it is expressing itself beautifully and elegantly. Last night's American Dad was seriously funny, especially Reggie. (That links to a clip from another episode that isn't as funny as he was last night.) But Family Guy continues to disappoint. Maybe The Cleveland Show will end up being even funnier, but I doubt it.

QotD:

Favorite show on Animation Donimation?

My take: I may have asked this question before, but things change. Anyway, I have to pick The Simpsons. I don't necessarily think it's the best show right now, but it is my favorite. (I actually changed the wording of the question so I could answer this way.) I guess without King of the Hill, American Dad might be the best show on right now. I guess even further that this question is pretty limited seeing as how Fox is only airing new episodes for three shows on Sunday nights. But you can answer this question in whatever time frame you prefer.