Not all argument needs to be completely composed in logos. Ones character can easily be put to persuasive uses. Essentially, "ethical proofs rely on community assessments of a rhetors character or reputation". A rhetoric book from a class I took last semester says that, character has three important senses:
1. The patter of behavior or personality found in an individual or group
2. moral strength, self discipline, fortitude, etc
3. a good reputation.
Encompassing all of these attributes goes back to topoi and commonplaces on what people hold to be good or just, in order to attain say, a good reputation/character.
It is more difficult to establish good character anymore due to the fact technology and communication now permeates our everyday lives. That is, if some celebrity or political figure has done anything 'wrong', ever, it is well known due to the internet. Doubly so since rhetoric is often viewed nowadays as 'simple' tricks - especially when talking about politicians. The book talks about building ones character or ethos through discourse, but I would argue now the only thing that helps people build their own character is through their actions.
Most people are smart. By most people I mean the people at the beginning of the curve, the innovators and early adopters. While percentage wise they may not be the majority, they sure as hell affect the majority. If we have the people' that care ' telling us how things are, why someone is good, why someone is bad, the majority is most likely going to follow suit.
stop
Thinking about Aristotle always gets me going on proofs and the Socratic method for some reason.
Logical proof has always fascinated me and in my eyes usually proves to be one of the more effective ways of allowing people to come to an agreement on what to argue on. That is, the idea of deduction and induction.
Deduction is essentially coming to a logical conclusion based on facts that have been laid down. The books example is, "All people are mortal" "Socrates is a person" "therefore, socrates is mortal".
Its a fairly easy concept but can help one learn a lot about other peoples perceptions on certain topoi. Conversely, to deduction, exists induction. I found this quotation, "If the skilled pilot is the best pilot, and if the skilled charioteer is the best charioteer, then the skilled person is the best person in any particular sphere".
In all my rhetoric classes I always try to bring up this conversation I had with my roommate. (No alcohol was not involved...)
"I was having an argument with my roommate about whether or not one needed to wash a saute pan with soap and water after toasting a bun, rather than simply wiping it off with a paper towel. Using deduction and induction we were able to eventually agree completely on everything that was brought up, but still seemed to disagree on whether or not to wash the pan. Eventually the method lead down a road in which we began to talk about things that had no relation to the pan whatsoever.
Example:
You eat breadcrumbs, so they are clean. If the breadcrumbs were on the pan and they were wiped off, the pan would then be clean.
No, the pan retains some residue of the bread after being wiped off.
Well the pan has residue on it all of the time most likely.
True, but is the residue clean
Define clean
It went on for a good 45 minutes like this. It was a lot of fun and we try to talk about other stuff like this often."
Tuesday
Pre-Aristotle Aristotle Reading...
In preparing for the aristotle presentation I also read some of quintilian. Quintilian talks about common topics by saying that, "[topics are] the secret places where arguments reside, and from which they must be drawn forth".
It is easy to forget that these old rhetoricians we read about really didn't write much down, and they used memory cues to help themselves remember what came next in their speech. I understood that but never really thought of it until I read the quotation above.
Despite the fact that we as a society have separated ourselves from the old 'oral culture', I still think the idea of memory cues so to speak comes into play. Think of it this way, the people we associate with more than likely experience more or less the same type of world we do everyday. We eat the same food, listen to the same music, read the same news, and watch the same shows. (Obviously people do not all do the same things, but they are mostly aware of all of the things mentioned). So, the same topics and the same arguments arise over and over. Generally speaking, most arguments or topics I encounter involve topics and arguments that I have had at one point or another along the way. That being said, it is somewhat the same as the 'old style' because you know what works, what doesn't , what the best arguments were and how to present them. Also, after you argue the same point numerous times, you become well aware of the opposition and how to combat it.
However.
It is without a doubt that that we as a society are so far beyond an oral culture most people don't even know what that means anymore. Now with blackberry's and computers and all that stuff, information is literally at our fingertips. So, we don't need to memorize. Cicero says, "It is easy to find things that are hidden if the hiding place is pointed out and marked; similarly if we wish to track down some argument we ought to know the places or topics". I know he is talking about using one topic to track down arguments into another topic, but can we think of that sentence in another way today? "It is easy to find things that are hidden". Wikipedia. "Track down some argument..." Google. One cannot deny that we have become reliant on technology, but is it a bad thing? Now, instead of tracking down topics from people we know, we can track down topics, read blogs and forums from people in every corner of the earth. No we normally do not have this stuff memorized, but the amount of information we can 'track down' is unfathomably greater than a single person can have. So, while common topics exist, are they as prevalent today since we can become experts on anything at the click of a button?
It is easy to forget that these old rhetoricians we read about really didn't write much down, and they used memory cues to help themselves remember what came next in their speech. I understood that but never really thought of it until I read the quotation above.
Despite the fact that we as a society have separated ourselves from the old 'oral culture', I still think the idea of memory cues so to speak comes into play. Think of it this way, the people we associate with more than likely experience more or less the same type of world we do everyday. We eat the same food, listen to the same music, read the same news, and watch the same shows. (Obviously people do not all do the same things, but they are mostly aware of all of the things mentioned). So, the same topics and the same arguments arise over and over. Generally speaking, most arguments or topics I encounter involve topics and arguments that I have had at one point or another along the way. That being said, it is somewhat the same as the 'old style' because you know what works, what doesn't , what the best arguments were and how to present them. Also, after you argue the same point numerous times, you become well aware of the opposition and how to combat it.
However.
It is without a doubt that that we as a society are so far beyond an oral culture most people don't even know what that means anymore. Now with blackberry's and computers and all that stuff, information is literally at our fingertips. So, we don't need to memorize. Cicero says, "It is easy to find things that are hidden if the hiding place is pointed out and marked; similarly if we wish to track down some argument we ought to know the places or topics". I know he is talking about using one topic to track down arguments into another topic, but can we think of that sentence in another way today? "It is easy to find things that are hidden". Wikipedia. "Track down some argument..." Google. One cannot deny that we have become reliant on technology, but is it a bad thing? Now, instead of tracking down topics from people we know, we can track down topics, read blogs and forums from people in every corner of the earth. No we normally do not have this stuff memorized, but the amount of information we can 'track down' is unfathomably greater than a single person can have. So, while common topics exist, are they as prevalent today since we can become experts on anything at the click of a button?
Plato's Gorgias
Plato's Gorgias is a conversation between the three main actors. The first and undeniable leader and architect of the conversation, Socrates. The other two are Gorgias and Polus, with them trading off who is speaking with Socrates. Mainly, Gorgias answers the first half of the discourse, while Polus answers the second half.
Socrates, Polus, and Gorgias walk into a bar, the bartender says, "what is this supposed to be a joke?"
The answer is no, its not a joke, and its not a bar. Its Socrates luring Gorgias and Polus into an argument where Socrates uses 'the Socratic method' to his advantage. Basically, he asks loads of questions that illicit short responses in order to get Gorgias and Polus to contradict themselves.
Gorgias attempts to define rhetoric and also explore what rhetoricians try to accomplish. Interestingly enough, Socrates says that rhetoric is the "artificer of a persuasion which creates belief about the just and unjust, but gives no instruction about them". Interesting because, this quotation from Gorgias relates directly back to Socrates apology where Socrates says, "I am the wisest for I know that I know nothing" (or something close to that effect). The excerpt from Gorgias which says that rhetoric "is the artificer..." submits that there is knowledge, and there is the belief of knowledge. Socrates asserts that the belief of knowledge is what rhetoric mainly deals with. The idea that people are generally unwise because they think they know everything is a common theme for Socrates.
This however does not mean that rhetoric is unjust or malicious. For instance, a rhetoric instructor could use his or her knowledge to show a student why a topic for a paper might be a good or bad idea. Their expertise in this case is used to persuade the student proving to be what is ultimately a good deed.
Of course there is another side to rhetoric. As briefly discussed in the encomium of Helen, rhetoric is "a powerful lord...." and could be used by an individual to advance his or her interests which may be just or unjust. In the case of advancing unjust interests, rhetoric becomes harmful.
As for rhetoric being an art, I think it is hard to dispute (despite Socrates' arguments). If one has the ability to use rhetoric for overall good then why cheapen it to mere 'flattery'.
Socrates, Polus, and Gorgias walk into a bar, the bartender says, "what is this supposed to be a joke?"
The answer is no, its not a joke, and its not a bar. Its Socrates luring Gorgias and Polus into an argument where Socrates uses 'the Socratic method' to his advantage. Basically, he asks loads of questions that illicit short responses in order to get Gorgias and Polus to contradict themselves.
Gorgias attempts to define rhetoric and also explore what rhetoricians try to accomplish. Interestingly enough, Socrates says that rhetoric is the "artificer of a persuasion which creates belief about the just and unjust, but gives no instruction about them". Interesting because, this quotation from Gorgias relates directly back to Socrates apology where Socrates says, "I am the wisest for I know that I know nothing" (or something close to that effect). The excerpt from Gorgias which says that rhetoric "is the artificer..." submits that there is knowledge, and there is the belief of knowledge. Socrates asserts that the belief of knowledge is what rhetoric mainly deals with. The idea that people are generally unwise because they think they know everything is a common theme for Socrates.
This however does not mean that rhetoric is unjust or malicious. For instance, a rhetoric instructor could use his or her knowledge to show a student why a topic for a paper might be a good or bad idea. Their expertise in this case is used to persuade the student proving to be what is ultimately a good deed.
Of course there is another side to rhetoric. As briefly discussed in the encomium of Helen, rhetoric is "a powerful lord...." and could be used by an individual to advance his or her interests which may be just or unjust. In the case of advancing unjust interests, rhetoric becomes harmful.
As for rhetoric being an art, I think it is hard to dispute (despite Socrates' arguments). If one has the ability to use rhetoric for overall good then why cheapen it to mere 'flattery'.
Helen the sl... I mean the power of language
Encomium of Helen
Arguing for the sake of proving that one can argue well if he/she is well versed the ways of rhetoric is right up my alley. I have always believed that all it takes is for someone to speak well, and it modern times, 'schmooze' well, in order to be influential and successful.
People can be charmed into many things. Gorgias' assertion that rhetoric is on the same level as "magic or drugs" isn't that far from the reality. Gorgias describes speech as "a powerful lord, which by means of the finest and most invisible body effects the divinest works: it can stop fear and banish grief and create joy and nurture pity". Convincing people that Helen "did what she did" only because she was persuaded by rhetoric is a tall order considering the events that transpired due to her actions. However, if one were to prove rhetoric to be that effective, than certainly a situation like that of Helen of Troy would be useful in proving a point.
At the end of encomium, Gorgias says, "I have my means of speech removed disgrace from a woman: I have observed the procedure which I set up at the beginning of the speech; I have tried to end the injustice of blame and the ignorance of opinion; I wished to write a speech which would be a praise of Helen and a diversion". I can hear the tone in which Gorgias may have said this aloud. In my mind, I see him as saying this rather frankly and almost sarcastically.
Whether or not Gorgias believed Helen was 'innocent' or not is irrelevant. I applaud Gorgias for using such a hot topic to show the masses how effective speech can be if employed by the right rhetorician. The power of rhetoric can be a scary thought if correctly employed by the wrong person. We see stuff like this throughout history, (hitler, etc) and daily in modern times, (politicians, talk radio, and cable news). After reading excerpts from rhetorical tradition it is difficult not to question everything I hear.
Arguing for the sake of proving that one can argue well if he/she is well versed the ways of rhetoric is right up my alley. I have always believed that all it takes is for someone to speak well, and it modern times, 'schmooze' well, in order to be influential and successful.
People can be charmed into many things. Gorgias' assertion that rhetoric is on the same level as "magic or drugs" isn't that far from the reality. Gorgias describes speech as "a powerful lord, which by means of the finest and most invisible body effects the divinest works: it can stop fear and banish grief and create joy and nurture pity". Convincing people that Helen "did what she did" only because she was persuaded by rhetoric is a tall order considering the events that transpired due to her actions. However, if one were to prove rhetoric to be that effective, than certainly a situation like that of Helen of Troy would be useful in proving a point.
At the end of encomium, Gorgias says, "I have my means of speech removed disgrace from a woman: I have observed the procedure which I set up at the beginning of the speech; I have tried to end the injustice of blame and the ignorance of opinion; I wished to write a speech which would be a praise of Helen and a diversion". I can hear the tone in which Gorgias may have said this aloud. In my mind, I see him as saying this rather frankly and almost sarcastically.
Whether or not Gorgias believed Helen was 'innocent' or not is irrelevant. I applaud Gorgias for using such a hot topic to show the masses how effective speech can be if employed by the right rhetorician. The power of rhetoric can be a scary thought if correctly employed by the wrong person. We see stuff like this throughout history, (hitler, etc) and daily in modern times, (politicians, talk radio, and cable news). After reading excerpts from rhetorical tradition it is difficult not to question everything I hear.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)