Editing Inventio (section)

==In the rhetorical tradition==
Invention also entails the adaptation of ideas and stylistic devices to unfamiliar audiences.<ref name="Murphy 1997 71–89">{{cite journal|last=Murphy|first=John M.|title=Inventing Authority: Bill Clinton, Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Orchestration of Rhetorical Traditions|year=1997|pages=71–89}}</ref> Rhetorical scholar John M. Murphy argues that rhetorical traditions consist of common patterns of language use and organized "social knowledge" of communities that make resources available for the invention of effective arguments.<ref name="Murphy 1997 71–89"/> Invention allows these rhetorical traditions to be adapted across cultural differences or situations. Murphy provides an example in which an orator would blend several rhetorical traditions: one by which the orator might primarily identify and another by which the audience might identify, thus merging speaker and audience through a display of interconnected rhetorical traditions.<ref name="Murphy 1997 71–89"/>

To Cicero, traditional rhetoric was a "mode of thought" and to attain this rhetoric it is required to make the "true nature of rhetorical inventio" apparent.<ref name="Sloane 303–473">{{cite journal|last=Sloane|first=Thomas O.|title=Reinventing Inventio|journal=College English|date=Sep 1989|volume=51|issue=5|pages=303–473|doi=10.2307/378000|jstor=378000|publisher=National Council of Teachers of English}}</ref>  Thomas O. Sloane, a rhetorical scholar, discusses that ''inventio'' in the rhetorical tradition specifically refers to addressing the pros and cons of an argumentation.<ref name="Sloane 303–473"/>  Sloane argues that it is required when using ''inventio'' as a tool that one must not only consider the discourse at hand but the discourses that accompany the positives and negatives attached.<ref name="Sloane 303–473"/>  In further explanation, one must debate all sides of an argument "or one's ''inventio'' will remain not fully invented."<ref name="Sloane 303–473"/>  In modern revivals of rhetoric, Sloane argues along with Reed Way Dasenbrock that these pros and cons of ''inventio'' do not have as much emphasis as they did in Cicero.<ref name="Sloane 303–473"/>  This lack of attention to different sides of an argument is why Dasenbrock believes that the revival of rhetoric "is relevant; [but] it isn't complete."<ref name="Sloane 303–473"/>