McKeon, Richard “The Uses of Rhetoric in a Technological Age: Architectonic Productive Arts”
From RhetorClick
(Created page with "McKeon's article summary here.") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | + | In his article, McKeon discusses the importance of creating a new rhetoric that acts as a productive architectonic art rather than a subordinate art. He says, “If rhetoric is to be used to contribute to the formation of the culture of the modern world, it should function productively in the resolution of new problems and architectonically in the formation of new inclusive communities” (127). McKeon argued that in order to deal with the changes in an age of technology, we must develop a new rhetoric that is productive in solving problems and communicating solutions. He states, “[the new rhetoric] should be adapted to [man’s] individual development and to their contribution to forming a common field in which the subject of inquiry is not how to devise means to achieve accepted end arranged in hierarchies but the calculation of uses and applications that might be made of the vastly increased available means in order to devise new ends and to eliminate oppositions and segregations based on past competitions for scarce means” (144). He believes that in this technological era, rhetoric must bridge the gap between logos and techne (135). | |
Revision as of 23:58, 23 March 2012
In his article, McKeon discusses the importance of creating a new rhetoric that acts as a productive architectonic art rather than a subordinate art. He says, “If rhetoric is to be used to contribute to the formation of the culture of the modern world, it should function productively in the resolution of new problems and architectonically in the formation of new inclusive communities” (127). McKeon argued that in order to deal with the changes in an age of technology, we must develop a new rhetoric that is productive in solving problems and communicating solutions. He states, “[the new rhetoric] should be adapted to [man’s] individual development and to their contribution to forming a common field in which the subject of inquiry is not how to devise means to achieve accepted end arranged in hierarchies but the calculation of uses and applications that might be made of the vastly increased available means in order to devise new ends and to eliminate oppositions and segregations based on past competitions for scarce means” (144). He believes that in this technological era, rhetoric must bridge the gap between logos and techne (135).
