After reading and learning about Quintillian, I came to the conclusion that rhetoric is about the virtuous, or the good. He thought that rhetoric was "The good men speaking well." Rhetoric was about the presence of mind, the objectivity to decipher between right and wrong.
I don't know if he would consider rhetoric about evil things as true rhetoric, since it wasn't focused on the good. Was Hitler a good rhetorician? He was able to move an entire nation and change the entire world. He was able to speak to the masses. However, his message was flawed. But, it still begs the question, was he a good rhetorician?
Quintillian would say "no." In order to be effective, you still need the overall good in mind. However, if this were strictly the case, then would advertisements, which we almost all consider "rhetoic", be considered rhetoric? They are after getting customers and maximizing their own profits. They are almost exploiting people. Its more subtle then say, Hitler, but nonetheless, its worth pointing out.
Unfortunately, rhetoric is composed of both the good and bad, the virtuous and the evil. You almost need the bad rhetoric in order to define the good rhetoric. In this sense, I would disagree with Quintillian and his nothing of needing the good in rhetoric.
No comments:
Post a Comment