FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3198040355> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3198040355 endingPage "27" @default.
• W3198040355 startingPage "25" @default.
• W3198040355 abstract "Alva Noë, who is a major figure in establishment philosophy, has been producing work that speaks directly to rhetoric in new ways that are important. This “In Focus” project explores how so, with the help of Carrie Noland on dance, Thomas Rickert on music, and, in a previous issue of Philosophy & Rhetoric 53.1, Nancy Struever on the basics of human inquiry including pictorial, which she thinks almost nobody gets right except for R. G. Collingwood, and perhaps now Noë. In each case you will see how “rhetoric” must be stretched by way of these lateral artistic, and at the same time essential, projects in the discipline per se.“Rhetoric” in these considerations is certainly not a vague notion that the things we do have persuasive goals, or audiences, for example. Though complicated in this discussion with Noë, “rhetoric” has precise meaning it's the job of this introduction to clarify, because it goes to our basic situation and it does so in a way that's unfamiliar.In Varieties of Presence (2012),1 Noë makes the argument for a rhetoric of experience explicit. Starting with the example of traditional art like song or a painting, Noë explains how mere perceptual exposure is not yet aesthetic experience. Only “through looking, handling, describing, conversing, noticing, comparing, keeping track, [do] we achieve contact with the work/world” (125). But this kind of contact with the world is not neutral; following Kant it falls in the domain of “ought”: our response reflects our sense of how one ought to respond to a work of art for instance. Hence rhetoric as persuasion: “aesthetic experience happens only where there is the possibility of substantive disagreement, and so also the need for justification, explanation and persuasion” (126). Is such persuasive rhetoric relevant only to traditional art forms per se? No—and this is Noë's bold move: he is really working on perceptual experience “tout court,” with art recapitulating the basic fact about perceptual consciousness and serving as a model or “guide to our basic situation.” “Perception is not a matter of sensation; it is never a matter of mere feeling,” Noë summarizes. Instead perceiving is “an activity of securing access to the world by cultivating the right critical stance,” or even more directly: human experience has a “rhetorical structure” (128). How do we miss this according to Noë? “The big mistake,” explains Noë, “is the overlooking of the aesthetic, or critical, character and context of all experience. There is no such thing as how things look independently of this larger context of thought, feeling and interest [classical rhetoric would similarly list the goals of rhetoric: docere, movere, delectare]. This is plain and obvious when we think of the experience of art. It is no less true in daily life” (129).Though resonant with the work of Struever and then with her major reference point Collingwood, or with John Dewey as Noë points out himself, this is a major reorientation of philosophy and rhetoric. It puts philosophy right next to other human activities that include the arts like dance, music, and painting. And it does so not as the addendum after basic human activities have wound down. On this mistaken model, philosophy and the arts including linguistic arrive only belatedly, after the real work is finished on the ground. Instead, according to Noë, these artistic and thoughtful activities are exactly what make us human in the first place, as they are the inherent possibilities that shape human activity from the outset: no language without the probing possibilities, like irony, that bind up language in a world flexibly, no music without the capacity for musical reflection that offers up the audible world one way not another, no dancing or for that matter movement without the possibility of the arts that put on display dancing and movement, indeed giving us the very world where things including us get moved around. Movement at its most immediate, to pick up this last example, is always already choreographed though not mechanically so—as Noë explains in his reply it is precisely the choreography that at the same time “sets us free,” opening up the distance whether more habitual or more explicitly mindful that makes the activity human in the first place. Rhetoric, then, names the inflection points—of movement, of language, of philosophy and the arts—that make the human situation what it is, with the scholarly activity we call “rhetoric” offering a kind of field guide to the environments in which we are.But, finally, are these environments just ours? They can't be. They are shared fundamentally, though not in ways that Noë explores in this project, despite the fact that he is trained, we should recall, as a philosopher of biology.Gesturing thus to an opportunity beyond this project, I conclude with biologist Joan Roughgarden, who helps us see how environments are shared across species, even down to the rhetorical structures that give particular environments their shape. Instead of selecting sexually for ideal types, argues Roughgarden in her groundbreaking work Evolution's Rainbow: Diversity, Gender, and Sexuality in Nature and People, a species needs “a balanced portfolio” of genes to survive over the long term (2004, 5), and sex, which entails a very wide (but not indefinite; 177) range of behaviors—reproductive and otherwise—is the social activity that continually rebalances a species' overall genetic portfolio in the context of dynamic environments. Instead of offering only background noise, indeterminacy of the sign (as we might call it from the semiotic or rhetorical perspective, where X is somewhere between attractive or repellent, pro- or antisocial, praise or blameworthy, and so on) is compatible with biodiversity precisely insofar as it constitutes the social. Antisocial eugenics and cloning are Roughgarden's counterexamples; just like the computer scientist knows that focusing only on the code while ignoring the execution environment is a mistake, cloning biologists who focus on the nucleus of the cell while ignoring the cytoplasm make the same mistake insofar as they have ceased to work ecologically (311).Then back to Noë at last, it is worth thinking at some point about the ways in which his activities that “put on display” are a subset of a more general biological capacity to triangulate, in environments that are always dynamic and often threateningly so. Now with the help of Struever, Noland, Rickert, and Noë, we can at least start thinking differently about the rhetorical opportunities our current environment offers." @default.
• W3198040355 created "2021-09-13" @default.
• W3198040355 creator A5061708645 @default.
• W3198040355 date "2021-03-01" @default.
• W3198040355 modified "2023-10-14" @default.
• W3198040355 title "Introduction: Alva Noë, “In Focus”" @default.
• W3198040355 cites W4255263943 @default.
• W3198040355 cites W651610629 @default.
• W3198040355 doi "https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.54.1.0025" @default.
• W3198040355 hasPublicationYear "2021" @default.
• W3198040355 type Work @default.
• W3198040355 sameAs 3198040355 @default.
• W3198040355 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W3198040355 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3198040355 hasAuthorship W3198040355A5061708645 @default.
• W3198040355 hasConcept C120665830 @default.
• W3198040355 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W3198040355 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W3198040355 hasConcept C192209626 @default.
• W3198040355 hasConceptScore W3198040355C120665830 @default.
• W3198040355 hasConceptScore W3198040355C121332964 @default.
• W3198040355 hasConceptScore W3198040355C138885662 @default.
• W3198040355 hasConceptScore W3198040355C192209626 @default.
• W3198040355 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W3198040355 hasLocation W31980403551 @default.
• W3198040355 hasOpenAccess W3198040355 @default.
• W3198040355 hasPrimaryLocation W31980403551 @default.
• W3198040355 hasRelatedWork W2353730437 @default.
• W3198040355 hasRelatedWork W2365677836 @default.
• W3198040355 hasRelatedWork W2402761219 @default.
• W3198040355 hasRelatedWork W2490303674 @default.
• W3198040355 hasRelatedWork W2609066826 @default.
• W3198040355 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W3198040355 hasRelatedWork W2785900585 @default.
• W3198040355 hasRelatedWork W2810752900 @default.
• W3198040355 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W3198040355 hasRelatedWork W3186538219 @default.
• W3198040355 hasVolume "54" @default.
• W3198040355 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3198040355 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3198040355 magId "3198040355" @default.
• W3198040355 workType "article" @default.