ABSTRACT The essay dramatizes the strategic movement of thinking/writing through the question “What is human?” as a series of modulations in style.

For Descartes, animals are automata like machines that merely react to stimuli, but do not have any true responses. … They are the opposite of humans who are free, rational, and have souls. … The automatic actions of animals assure us of the freedom of our own— we are not animals; therefore we are not automata. I must confess that when, a few years ago, I first began to notice the emergence of theoretical interest in “animality”—especially in literary studies and (...) philosophy—I instinctively responded with skepticism. I say that my reaction was “instinctive” in order to emphasize that my skepticism was not a reasoned position that I had arrived at through some kind of deliberation. Indeed, I had not yet .. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Philosophy and Rhetoric 34.3 (2001) 225-244 [Access article in PDF] Sophistic Travel: Inheriting the Simulacrum Through Plato's "The Sophist" John Muckelbauer Was it not Plato himself who pointed out the direction for the reversal of Platonism? ------Gilles Deleuze, The Logic of Sense 1. Developing an itinerary: guides and lineages A single question marks our departure, a question that, while apparently straightforward, has assumed so many shapes and disguises that (...) it would not be unjust to claim it has infected all of Western history. In its current manifestation, however, we will take our cue from Plato in phrasing it thus: What is a Sophist? When Plato first formulated the question in these terms, he well understood that its self-evident simplicity could be deceptive and that its effects might proliferate uncontrollably. As Jacques Derrida comments, "The question of what the Sophists really were is an enormous question" (Olson 17). In Plato's case, attempting to "hunt down" the Sophist led from a disturbing journey through the world of images to an unsettling encounter with the existence of nonbeing.Of course, the issue of Plato's distaste for sophistry is well-covered ground, so well-covered, in fact, that nearly all contemporary rhetorical scholarship that attempts to assert the value of sophistic rhetoric does so by reproducing an antagonism between sophistry and Platonism (see, e.g., Poulokos, Jarratt, Vickers). 1 A particularly interesting example, simply because it is so persistently skeptical of most conventional assumptions about sophistry, is G. B. Kerford's The Sophistic Movement. It is an excellent and careful treatment of sophistry in which he insists on the importance of approaching the Sophists without prior assumptions as to their relationship to the history of thought or politics--something that he shows has been far too prevalent in previous appropriations. Nevertheless, in his treatment of Plato's dialogue the Sophist, he writes, "It is clear that [Plato's] characterizations [End Page 225] in the Sophist constitute an outright condemnation" (5). Given the wealth of readings of different dialogues that express sentiments similar to Kerford's, the antagonistic structure of Platonic-Sophistic relations is apparently quite certain; it is something we know.It is also true that as a result of the many forays across the terrain of this antagonism, we know a great many other things about the relationship between Plato and sophistry. We know, for instance, that Plato was an idealist who abhorred the Sophist's interest in practical discursive wisdom. We know, as well, that Plato was a reactionary aristocrat who resented the Sophists for selling speeches and encouraging democracy. Without question, the many trips across this oppositional territory have been important expeditions for both Philosophy and Rhetoric, providing each discourse with a sense of its own distinct identity. 2 At very least, the mutual suspicion that often characterizes contemporary relations between these two disciplines is symptomatic of our inheritance of this Platonic mantra.It is, of course, quite difficult to avoid repeating this mantra of opposition between Philosophy and Rhetoric. Any attempt to champion one of the terms--even the supposedly underprivileged one, Rhetoric--overtly reproduces this opposition. But so too do most efforts to reduce one term to the other (i.e., claims stating that Philosophy is inevitably rhetorical) insofar as they must begin with the assumption that they know what rhetoric is; in other words, they must begin with what may schematically be characterized as a philosophical relation to rhetoric and to philosophy. Said differently, the two common disciplinary strategies that generate the opposition between rhetoric and philosophy, (1) championing the Sophists over Plato and (2) claiming that Plato is rhetorical, both effectively privilege the very notion of philosophy that they are attempting to discredit, i.e., one that is based on the notion of a preexistent, recognizable, and knowable identity, a fundamental truth.Given the renewed scholarly interest in the Sophists as early rhetoricians, it is curious that very few and very brief rhetorical engagements exist with the Platonic dialogue the Sophist--largely, one suspects, either because everyone already "knows" that it contains yet another... (shrink)

Although I do not know Richard Doyle personally, I would say that Darwin’s Pharmacy: Sex Plants and the Evolution of the Noosphere is a deeply personal book. Not only does the author offer multiple accounts of his own multicontinental explorations of intraspecies cross-pollination, but he also provides many rhetorical analyses of trip reports, biological treatises, and science fiction, all of which seem to be crucial constitutive elements of his research. That is, this is not a book that offers abstract erudition—though (...) there is plenty of content that anyone can extract from it—but one that offers something more rare. Here, I am reminded of Goethe’s famous remark, which Nietzsche chose to use as the epigraph to.. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Philosophy and Rhetoric 35.3 (2002) 175-184 [Access article in PDF] Editor's Introduction:Intensifying Philosophy and Rhetoric John Muckelbauer Intensity...wrecks what it makes known, burning the thought which thinks it and yet requiring this thought in the conflagration where transcendence, immanence are no longer anything but flamboyant, extinguished figures-reference points of writing which writing has always lost in advance. -Maurice Blanchot The coupling named in this journal's title only hints at (...) the proliferation of relations that have appeared within its pages. Since the journal's inception, the means for combining these two traditions has moved well beyond the familiar structure of opposition. We have read, for example, subtle analyses of the different senses in which philosophy may already be rhetorical, and have confronted the epistemological, historical, and political implications of these findings. We have also witnessed the recognition that any conception of rhetoric necessarily harbors elaborate philosophies, and have contended with many different theories of language and language use. Through detailed and intricate interventions into particular texts and particular thinkers, the work that appears within this journal has irreversibly complicated any simple attempt to champion one term over the other. In short, we are no longer faced with the question of philosophy or rhetoric. Instead, we are concerned with myriad interfaces, countless strategies of connection: philosophy and rhetoric.And yet, even a brief survey of the journal's archives generates a movement through which the seemingly distinct poles named in its title begin to rotate in startling ways. Within its pages, philosophy never ceases to become rhetorical, rhetoric to become philosophical. As each particular intervention demonstrates yet another provocative relation between the two traditions or two modes of inquiry, their repeated and promiscuous oscillation soon produces an almost dizzying effect through which the very poles of "philosophy" and "rhetoric" begin to blur. [End Page 175]If we are able to stick with this conceptual whirl, it quickly reaches speeds at which even the blurring distinctions made through each particular intervention begin to appear too stark, too candid. What was this philosophy that is now becoming rhetoric-was it not always rhetorical? And what was this rhetoric that is now becoming philosophy-was it not always philosophical? As a result of this incessant spinning, our philosophy becomes a rhetoric that has become philosophical that has become rhetorical... The terms begin to spin so relentlessly that, rather than offering two separate and related contents, we seem unable to grasp anything other than a kind of flickering movement between them. Indeed, such insistent spinning inevitably prompts the suspicion that perhaps the problem of "philosophy" and "rhetoric" is no longer simply that of two intimately related traditions. Yet if we cannot begin with the premise that these two areas of inquiry are somehow distinct, how are we to intervene in this dizzying whirl? Now more than ever, how can we approach "philosophy" and "rhetoric"?The inevitable vertigo of such questions puts us in a rather bewildering position: as a result of connecting "philosophy" and "rhetoric," we have originated a movement that effectively confounds its own origin: as this connective movement intensifies, it becomes increasingly difficult to specify what we have been referring to through the terms "philosophy," "rhetoric," or even through their connection. Indeed, from within this interminable whirl-in which philosophy becomes rhetoric becomes philosophy-the very movement of becoming appears to be somehow more dependable than the terms supposedly engaged in that becoming. In other words, because we can no longer specify precisely what is spinning within this conceptual centrifuge, the event of the spinning becomes more insistent than ever.It may therefore be the case that we spoke too quickly in turning to the importance of interfaces, connections, and relations. If the very concept of "relation" requires relatively established terms that proceed to interact in particular ways, then the dizzying flicker of "philosophy" and "rhetoric" indicates that what is at stake here may not simply be the connection between two substantive traditions or two positive terms. Their mutual involvement has become too blurred for us to presume that they are merely related... (shrink)