首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Technical Writing & Communication >GUEST EDITORIAL: A RESPONSE TO PATRICK MOORE'S 'QUESTIONING THE MOTIVES OF TECHNICAL COMMUNICATION AND RHETORIC: STEVEN KATZ'S 'ETHIC OF EXPEDIENCY' '
【24h】

GUEST EDITORIAL: A RESPONSE TO PATRICK MOORE'S 'QUESTIONING THE MOTIVES OF TECHNICAL COMMUNICATION AND RHETORIC: STEVEN KATZ'S 'ETHIC OF EXPEDIENCY' '

机译:来宾社论:对帕特里克·摩尔(Patrick Moore)“对技术交流和修辞动机的质疑”的回应:史蒂文·卡茨(STEVEN KATZ)的“权宜伦理”

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

In my 1992 College English article "The Ethic of Expediency: Classical Rhetoric, Technology, and the Holocaust", I looked at the implications of a Nazi memo whose sole purpose was to improve the efficiency of the gassing vans, in order to begin to try to understand and discuss the negative uses and ethical abuses to which technical communication, and deliberative rhetoric generally, could be taken by the powerful and unscrupulous. In "Questioning the Motives of Technical Communication and Rhetoric: Steven Katz's 'Ethic of Expediency'", Patrick Moore accuses me of ignoring alternate translations, citing out of context, and focusing on the negative meaning of words to make my case. The point at issue in these charges, I believe, is whether (and to what degree) Aristotle meant to base deliberative discourse on "expediency." I will take each of these charges up one at a time to explore them more thoroughly, discuss their interrelations, and then conclude with a few observations of my own.
机译:在我1992年的大学英语文章“权宜伦理:古典修辞,技术和大屠杀”中,我研究了纳粹备忘录的含义,该备忘录的唯一目的是提高加气车的效率,以便开始尝试。理解和讨论强权和不道德的人可能会采用的负面沟通和道德辱骂,而技术交流和一般的议论性言论可能会滥用这种想法。帕特里克·摩尔(Patrick Moore)在“质疑技术交流和修辞的动机:史蒂文·卡茨(Steven Katz)的'权宜伦理'”中指责我无视其他翻译,引用上下文,并着眼于单词的负面含义来论证。我认为,这些指控的争议点在于亚里斯多德是否(以及在何种程度上)以“权宜”为基础进行审议。我将一次处理所有这些费用,以更彻底地探索它们,讨论它们之间的相互关系,然后总结一下我自己的观点。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号