The most interesting part of the Aristotle readings occurred on page 180, between 1355a and 1356a where he is talking about why rhetoric is useful. He says "Further, (3) we must be able to employ persuasion, just as strict reasoning can be employed, on opposite sides of a question, not in order that we may in practice employ it in both ways (for we must not make people believe what is wrong), but in order that we may see clearly what the facts are, and that, if another man argues unfairly, we on our part may be able to confute him." Although it is a lengthly quote, I feel like it sets up some kind of ethics in rhetoric.
Today, these ethics are not followed as closely as Aristotle would have hoped. There are plenty of people out there just trying to get you to buy their product, watch their movie, endorse their name, or whatever the situation. The most troubling deviation from ethics occurs in pop culture. Anybody trying to convince you on health care, usually use some sort of scare tactic, without presenting both sides. By presenting both sides, your argument may become more credible and logical. Since Aristotle believed a lot in proofs, I wasn't surprised he believed in knowing both sides of an issue.
In previous rhetoric classes, we spent a great deal of time talking about different types of rhetoric. We learned there are two different types of rhetoric, what some call traditional and consensus arguments. Traditional arguments focus on a winner. These types of arguments actually shouldn't be used very often. The only real time it seems necessary and relevant is in the court of law. However, most other arguments should be consensus arguments. This allows both sides to be heard and, by hearing both sides, both sides can come to the conclusion that fits the best. This should definitely be used in politics. A very simplified version would go as follows:
Side A: Believes health care should be free to all
Side B: Believes health care is a privilege, not a right. It shouldn't be free.
After they both argue for some time, Side B realizes that health care companies are making prices much too high and health care is overpriced. Side A realizes that implementing free health care would cost the taxpayers a lot of money.
Result: Both sides agree that health care should be easier to obtain, and a public option should be available for people who absolutely cannot afford health care. In this instance, nobody truly "won" their argument, but both sides stated their case, and the best overall solution was decided upon.
Unfortunately, this is not how rhetoric works nowadays, and it is truly a shame.
Blog #4 -- Isocrates & the Sophists
Isocrates argues that "all general principles" fail, and the only thing that matters is kairos, or the "'fitness for the ocacasion.'" Better defined, kairos is the ability to take advantage of the changing circumstances. In rhetoric, it is often overlooked because of the other three appeals (pathos, ethos, and logos). However, kairos is a huge part of the Sophist movement.
Also, Isocrates tried to dissociate himself from the belief that teachers can TEACH virtue. This is what I completely agree with.
Virtue is a tough word to define, but I like to define it as "moral excellence." To truly be morally excellent is an internal structure or system. This system seems impossible to be taught to someone. Virtue can be learned, but it is learned in a different sense than learning from a teacher or classroom. You tend to learn virtue from experiences, not from someone blabbering about it. It is practical thing that you simply must learn within life. For example, someone may tell you that stealing is morally wrong. However, you will not simply learn from hearing it, you will learn from experiences. Someone may steal something from you, or you may see the consequences of stealing. This molds your ideas far more than just simply hearing about it.
Now, you may say "well, you still learn some sort of virtue from the teacher telling you not to steal." This I will not disagree with. You are given a sort of framework for what is virtuous. Think of this like the foundation to a house. The experiences themselves, however, are the walls, the insulation, the doors, and the decorations to the house. In a way, Isocrates would agree with this. He believed that teachers could be "morally improving." Meaning, as a teacher, you could improve someone's morals, but you cannot create the virtue or moral itself.
Also, Isocrates tried to dissociate himself from the belief that teachers can TEACH virtue. This is what I completely agree with.
Virtue is a tough word to define, but I like to define it as "moral excellence." To truly be morally excellent is an internal structure or system. This system seems impossible to be taught to someone. Virtue can be learned, but it is learned in a different sense than learning from a teacher or classroom. You tend to learn virtue from experiences, not from someone blabbering about it. It is practical thing that you simply must learn within life. For example, someone may tell you that stealing is morally wrong. However, you will not simply learn from hearing it, you will learn from experiences. Someone may steal something from you, or you may see the consequences of stealing. This molds your ideas far more than just simply hearing about it.
Now, you may say "well, you still learn some sort of virtue from the teacher telling you not to steal." This I will not disagree with. You are given a sort of framework for what is virtuous. Think of this like the foundation to a house. The experiences themselves, however, are the walls, the insulation, the doors, and the decorations to the house. In a way, Isocrates would agree with this. He believed that teachers could be "morally improving." Meaning, as a teacher, you could improve someone's morals, but you cannot create the virtue or moral itself.
Blog #3 -- Chariot of the Soul
It was interesting learning about Plato's chariot of the soul. The way he described it, and the way the images look (http://www.wutsamada.com/alma/ancient/chariot2.jpg), the person is the chariot rider (charioteer?) who guides the horses. There are two horses, the noble and the unnoble, basically. If the two are working together, the chariot will soar. If, however, the two aren't in sync, the chariot will not soar. This has interesting implications in both rhetoric and real life.
In rhetoric, it portrays an interesting concept. Nowadays, in rhetoric, it almost seems like having the ethical and unethical "horse" pulling your "chariot" is common. It is really easy to pick on politicians, but they do it all the time. They don't always play fairly when trying to convince the people, or to win a vote. Obviously, Plato's chariot seems inaccurate. However, I think that for rhetoric to be considered "good rhetoric," they need to be ethical. Therefore, in my opinion, politicians' rhetoric isn't considered "good" rhetoric in my eyes. Maybe this is what Plato meant.
In rhetoric, it portrays an interesting concept. Nowadays, in rhetoric, it almost seems like having the ethical and unethical "horse" pulling your "chariot" is common. It is really easy to pick on politicians, but they do it all the time. They don't always play fairly when trying to convince the people, or to win a vote. Obviously, Plato's chariot seems inaccurate. However, I think that for rhetoric to be considered "good rhetoric," they need to be ethical. Therefore, in my opinion, politicians' rhetoric isn't considered "good" rhetoric in my eyes. Maybe this is what Plato meant.
Blog #2 -- Encomium of Helen
Gorgias does his best to try to explain rhetoric (primarily through speech) as a powerful appeal to the soul. The best quote I took from Encomium was "Speech is a powerful lord, which by means of the finest and most invisible body of effects the divinest works: it can stop fear and banish grief and create joy and nurture pity." Although Gorgias explains four different explanation or reasons why Helen did was she did, it is speech or persuasion that Gorgias believes was the real explanation. He spends a bulk of the small text talking about how powerful rhetoric is. He says that "So that on most subjects most men take opinion as counselor to their soul, but since opinion is slippery and insecure it casts those employing it into slippery and insecure successes. What cause then prevents the conclusion that Helen similarly, against her will, might have come under the influence of speech...?" Although it is a long quote, it sums up exactly what Gorgias is trying to say. Speech is powerful, it moves the soul. Why, if speech is so powerful, can we not use it as an explanation for Helen's actions? I don't necessarily want to agree that is was the soul reason for Helen's actions, but I surely don't want to disagree with the power of speech.
Speech has persuaded many people, whether it be good or bad. A good example of speech that moved people in a positive way was Martin Luther King, Jr.'s speeches. If you were on the fence of racial inequality, Dr. King could move you to fight (although fight may be the wrong word) against segregation and discrimination. Flip the coin, and look at Adolf Hitler, and you can see how he turned ordinary people into savage killers, mostly through speech. A lot of leaders need to have speech, and once that ability to speak and persuade is gone, people become less powerful. For example, President Bush came under attack because of his inability to speak effectively. Although I don't want to get into a debate on whether his policies were good, he was a good president, or etc., I think that his inability to speak to the heart and persuade was the root of a lot of his problems. Gorgias has a valid point, that speech is one of the most powerful parts of language or culture, whether it was then or now.
Speech has persuaded many people, whether it be good or bad. A good example of speech that moved people in a positive way was Martin Luther King, Jr.'s speeches. If you were on the fence of racial inequality, Dr. King could move you to fight (although fight may be the wrong word) against segregation and discrimination. Flip the coin, and look at Adolf Hitler, and you can see how he turned ordinary people into savage killers, mostly through speech. A lot of leaders need to have speech, and once that ability to speak and persuade is gone, people become less powerful. For example, President Bush came under attack because of his inability to speak effectively. Although I don't want to get into a debate on whether his policies were good, he was a good president, or etc., I think that his inability to speak to the heart and persuade was the root of a lot of his problems. Gorgias has a valid point, that speech is one of the most powerful parts of language or culture, whether it was then or now.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)