First of all, congrats on getting through all of this information! It's a lot to read all at once, but hopefully it will help improve your understanding of rhetoric and the Greek philosophers. This final post will act as a summary, comparing and contrasting all of the viewpoints we've talked about throughout the various posts. Epistemologies and Rhetoric: Comparing and Contrasting A good way to remember the similarities and differences between the epistemologies of different groups is by taking a look at this chart. We can see here that Aristotle takes ideas from both the Sophists and Plato and Socrates when it comes to epistemology and rhetoric, but The Sophists and Plato and Socrates don't really have anything in common. Let's break this down further. Epistemology If you'll remember, the Sophistic epistemology summed up is this: There are no absolute truths, only potential or probable truths created by humans. There is also no total objectivity to a Sophist, a reason that they thought that Socrates' "emotionless" and "objective" dialectic was pretty much B.S. Plato and Socrates had major beef with this idea. They believed that our physical world was only an imperfect imitation of the noumenal world, where Absolute Truth is available. They believed that dialectic was necessary in order to recall those Absolute Truths from within ourselves. To them, dialectic was supposed to be emotionless and objective. While Aristotle didn't dismiss the idea of Absolute Truths, he believed they were found in our own physical world, through science and empirical evidence. He also, however, believed that probable truths and dialectic could be used to provide probable answers to those questions that science could not answer. Rhetoric Rhetoric was really the basis of everything for the Sophists. In a world with no absolute truths, rhetoric was the ultimate tool in creating order and sense through probable truths, and weeding out the "best" answers through the process of dissoi logoi. Kairos was also a useful tool for them in creating convincing arguments. Plato and Socrates generally looked down on rhetoric, because they saw it as insincere and as a tool used to manipulate people unfairly. Their weapon of choice was dialectic, a question and answer based exchange meant to be objective and emotionless in order to help the person recollect Absolute Truth. Ironically, if you take a look at Plato's Gorgias, Socrates actually uses quite a few rhetorical devices throughout the dialogue. Aristotle believed rhetoric (and dialectic, for that matter) should be used to answer questions that science could not answer. Of course rhetoric and dialectic only produced probable truths, but Aristotle meticulously categorized aspects of rhetoric to help his students understand how to best harness its power for persuasion. I hope that these blog posts have been helpful in supplementing your understanding of rhetoric, as well as the Ancient Greek philosophers. Having a well-rounded idea of what rhetoric is not only makes you more aware of its power in your own writing, but also in the works of others. Whether you think rhetoric is an art or simply just B.S., it's undeniable that it holds a lot of power over people, and I urge you to use that power responsibly.
Thank you for checking out my blog!
0 Comments
Who was Aristotle? Aristotle is the final Greek philosopher we'll be talking about. Aristotle was a student of Plato, but diverges from Plato's way of thinking in some significant ways. Aristotle was born in Macedonia in 384 B.C. but traveled to Athens when he was 17 to become Plato's student at the Academy and later on, a teacher there. Aristotle was actually the first person to teach rhetoric at the Academy, and was probably part of the reason Plato softened towards the idea of rhetoric later on in his life. Aristotle began his own school, but was eventually forced to leave it to his pupil because of anti-macedonian sentiment in Athens (Bizzell and Herzberg). What was Aristotle's epistemology? Aristotle believed in Absolute Truth, but unlike Plato and Socrates, he believed we could find absolute truths in our physical world. Specifically, he believed Absolute Truths could only be found through "scientific demonstration and the analysis of formal logic," (Bizzell and Herzberg 170). This essentially means that Aristotle looked to empirical evidence and facts to reveal absolute truth. This is pretty similar to how we think today; we put a lot of stock in data and scientific findings from scientists. However, Aristotle didn't think science could answer everything. Rather, he believed that dialectic and rhetoric could be used to find those answers to questions that could not be answered by science (Lecture Notes.) How did his epistemology shape the way he used rhetoric? As we mentioned above, Aristotle used dialectic and rhetoric to answer questions that science couldn't answer to attain probable knowledge (or probable truths). He believed dialectic could be used to attain probable knowledge through really intense question-and-answer exchanges. Rhetoric, however, could be used to convey information to people who didn't have a lot of knowledge about a subject, by building off of assumptions those people already had. Though Aristotle used rhetoric, he didn't necessarily support the Sophists. He thought they used rhetoric to pervert judgements of those they addressed, whereas Aristotle believed rhetoric should be used in more moral ways. (Bizzell and Herzberg). To sum up, Aristotle believed that rhetoric: 1. Allows truth to prevail over falsehood 2. Allows one to teach and instruct 3. Allows one to defend multiple sides of an argument 4. Allows one to defend themselves 5. Allows a speaker to persuade multiple audiences (Lecture Notes). Let's talk categories (lots and lots of categories) When it came to rhetoric, Aristotle devised a ton of rules and categories to better understand it, classify it, and use it (you can thank him for ethos, pathos, and logos). In this section we're going to break down the categories so you can get a better understanding of what each of them is. The Appeals: The appeals are artistic proofs that are used to better connect to your audience and convince them of your cause. Remember: the appeals are not mutually exclusive! They all work together to create a strong argument, and are all important. Ethos: This appeal is meant to give the impression that the speaker is a credible and trustworthy person, to better convince the audience to believe the points they make. There are 3 subcategories of ethos. You can think of them as different kinds of ways to make yourself look like a credible person. Pathos: This appeal plays to the emotions of the audience, and was actually Aristotle's least favorite appeal. A good example of pathos would be the really sad ASPCA commercials they play on TV. By showing you pictures of sad and abused dogs (and playing that song in the background), they are trying to make you feel bad for not adopting these dogs, therefore encouraging you to go out and adopt them (or send the ASPCA money). Here are some good ways to use pathos in a speech, paper, or presentation:
The Speech Genres
Deliberative (political): This genre encourages people to take action (or not take action) in the future. Thinking of a political campaign speech can be a good example. A candidate may say "If you vote for me, I will do ______!" The candidate is encouraging you to vote for them in the future by promising they will do something you want when they get elected. Forensic (legal): This genre's job is to determine guilt or innocence based on an event that has happened previously. Judge Judy, everyone's favorite daytime TV judge, employs this rhetoric in her courtroom when she is trying to decide if the defendant's past actions make them guilty of a crime or not. Epediectic (ceremonial): This genre is employed when praising or blaming someone in the present. Eulogies are a good example of this genre, as the person is (hopefully) being praised at the service for their lifetime of good works. (Lecture Notes). Who were Socrates and Plato? (And why are we talking about them together?) Plato and socrates are often talked about together because they share such similar views. Plato was a student of Socrates, and therefore often agreed with what he said. We can group them together in this way because, epistemology wise, as far as we know, there are no major differences between them, though it would be wrong to assume that Plato agreed with everything Socrates ever said. Socrates (469-399 B.C.): Socrates was a famed philosopher and the teacher of Plato, among many others. Socrates was known for always addressing the individual rather than speaking to large groups, just one of the many reasons he was not a fan of rhetoric, which always included speaking to groups. The government thought he was "'corrupting the youth of his city" with his ideas and they were not happy about him "violating a ban on his teaching" either (Smith 48). Socrates strongly disliked Greek democracy and was ultimately sentenced to death by the government for his ideals and teachings (Smith). Most of what we know about Socrates, we learned from Plato, as Plato recorded Socrates' teachings, but Socrates himself never wrote anything down (Lecture Notes). Plato (428-347 B.C.): Plato was born in Athens and grew up quite comfortably as his family was wealthy and of high social status. Plato first began following Socrates at about age 20. Though Socrates didn't have a formal school, Plato is still considered to be Socrates' student, and a very dedicated one. Later on in his life, Plato set up his own school, the Academy, known for producing philosophers like Aristotle, who we will talk about later. (Bizzell and Herzberg). Both Plato and Socrates hated writing, but Plato wrote out many dialogues featuring Socrates and explaining his epistemology, one of his more notable ones being Gorgias. (Lecture Notes). What was their epistemology? Unlike the Sophists we just talked about, Socrates and Plato did believe in Absolute Truth (also referred to as transcendent truths) and additionally believed that they were available to humans. They were NOT fans of this whole probable truth BS. Socrates and Plato believed that two "worlds" existed: the imperfect physical world we know and live in and the noumenal world. Before we are born, we reside in the noumenal world, where all of the absolute truths are available to us. However, when we enter the physical world through birth, we "forget" all of those Absolute Truths that were available to us before, though they still reside somewhere inside us, hidden from us. (Bizzell & Herzberg). Socrates believed that instead of actually learning new things, every time we "learn" something, we are actually just recalling knowledge given to us in the nominal world. (Smith) Crazy right? So right now you might be asking "How do we even remember all that stuff from the noumenal world?" and that's a great question! Socrates and Plato's answer was dialectic. The process of "objective" and "unbiased" dialectic was supposed to ultimately lead the person being questioned to recall an Absolute Truth on their own (Lecture Notes). This process was long and pretty painful, Socrates actually compared it to childbirth, where he was the midwife, drawing at the truth as a midwife would with a baby (Smith). Yikes. How did Socrates and Plato's view of the world shape how they saw rhetoric? You may have already guessed from reading the paragraph about about epistemology, but Socrates and Plato weren't exactly the biggest fans of rhetoric. They thought rhetoric was used immorally, to supply people with false knowledge in order to persuade them rather than providing them the real truth. A good example of how Socrates feels about rhetoric is given in Plato's dialogue Gorgias in which Socrates argues about rhetoric with several other men, including the famed rhetorician Gorgias. Socrates says that in order for the body to be healthy, it needs exercise and medicine. For the soul to be healthy, he says, it needs justice and legislation. However, people sometimes use cosmetics to cover up their imperfections, and eat food that tastes good rather than food that nourishes them. This isn't good for the body. Similarly, he believes rhetoric acts as flattery for the soul. Flattery is superficial and insincere. Similarly, Socrates believed rhetoric did not provide truths, but rather was used immorally to sway people without giving them any real knowledge of the situation. Rhetoric did not nourish the soul, as junk food and cosmetics don't nourish the body. Absolute Truths and dialectic do nourish the soul, as exercise nourishes the body, because those truths and processes are genuine (Plato). Let's Talk about Plato and Caves!
Plato's Allegory of the Cave is a great example of how Socrates and Plato viewed the difference between rhetoric and Absolute truths/dialectic. Here's how it works: There are prisoners chained up in a cave, facing the cave wall with a fire burning behind them. They have lived their whole lives like this and the cave wall is the only thing they've ever known. Every day, a group of people and objects pass behind them, but they can only see the shadows of these objects cast on the wall. They have no idea that these objects and people are anything other than the shadows they see every day. One day, a prisoner is released from his chains and emerges from the cave into the real world. The sun blinding and he is terrified because everything is foreign to him. He tries to go back into the cave to tell his fellow prisoners about this world, but his voice is distorted by the cave and they only see his shadow, so they do not recognize him or understand what he's saying. Let's break this down: Who are the prisoners? The prisoners are all of us (dramatic, I know). They represent anyone who is living in the physical world and has no knowledge of absolute truths. Plato believes we are trapped by the physical world and all of the false information and imperfection that comes along with it. What do the shadows represent? The shadows represent rhetoric. If you'll recall, Plato and Socrates thought rhetoric was merely flattery for the soul and had nothing substantial to offer you. In a similar way, the shadows the prisoners see don't actually show them the real objects and people, only a distorted and weak representation of them. When the prisoners are looking at the shadows, they aren't seeing the truth of the situation. What does the cave represent? You've probably already guessed it, but the cave represents our imperfect physical world, where Absolute Truth is not available and rhetoric and lies are king. The prisoners are trapped in the cave just as we are trapped in the physical world. What does the prisoner being released represent? The release of the prisoner is representative of when someone reaches an understanding of an Absolute Truth through dialectic. You are now free from the lies that the physical world was forcing on you, and the freedom of knowing Absolute Truth is available to you. What did the outside world represent? The world outside of the cave represents the noumenal world, where Absolute Truth is available. Of course, when someone engages in dialectic in order to uncover an absolute truth, they don't magically transport to the nominal world. Why couldn't this prisoner's companions understand him? This aspect of the story portrays the idea that Absolute Truth cannot simply be told to someone, because they won't understand it. The process of dialectic and self-discovery is essential to understanding Absolute Truth. Still confused? Check out this video to help you visualize the allegory, and follow along with the breakdown provided for you above! Who were the Sophists? The Sophists were early philosophers (as in "before Plato and Socrates" early) who were interested in exploring many branches of knowledge. Many were not actually from Athens, bur rather traveled there because they were drawn by the idea of democracy. (The Sophists Overview). These guys were pretty open minded when it came to their view of the world, which turned out to be a pretty controversial thing later on (Bizzell and Herzberg). We'll talk about some famous Sophists later on in this post, but first let's discuss how they viewed the world. What was the Sophistic epistemology? Sophists did not believe in any form of Absolute Truth, they only believed in probable truths. This means that nothing was definitely "right" or "wrong" to the Sophists- there was no totally objective situation. To the Sophists things we take as absolute like "The sky is blue," could be argued using rhetoric. Sophists believed in arguing many sides of a situation to weed out the "best" probable truths, in a process called dissoi logoi Sophists were able to see many sides of an argument because they weren't hung up on the idea of Absolute Truth, which actually encouraged cultural tolerance. Their views were pretty controversial at the time (and maybe still are today) as they denied the idea that humans could have any knowledge about transcendence, because it didn't really exist (Bizzell and Herzberg). They additionally argued that even if transcendent or Absolute Truth did exist, humans could not have access to it, or even if they could, there would be no way to communicate these truths to other people (Lecture Notes). How did the Sophistic epistemology shape how they used rhetoric? Rhetoric was essential to Sophistic epistemology because they did not believe in absolute truths. Rhetoric allowed Sophists to argue their side of an issue effectively, and persuade people to their side (persuasion is one of the main aspects of rhetoric, after all.) Sophists used things like similes and metaphors to persuade their audience. Kairos (ideal or opportune timing) was also an important tool the Sophists used to persuade people more effectively. For example, you would be better off asking your mom for money when she's in a good mood rather than when she's in a bad mood. When Sophists considered kairos, they were thinking in this way (Lecture Notes). Essentially, the Sophists believed that acknowledging current cultural and political contexts is more effective in formulating a convincing argument than obeying "transcendent unchanging laws," (Bizzell and Herzberg 24). Who were some famous Sophists? Protagoras(485-411 B.C.): He was a famed Sophist who encouraged the study of precise meaning of words. He is thought to have developed the technique of dissoi logoi (Bizzell and Herzberg) and is also considered to be the father of debate (Smith). He believed rhetoric could change perceptions and encourage people to embrace good (Lecture Notes). Gorgias(485-380 B.C.): Gorgias borrowed literary devices from poetry and used it in rhetoric, therefore advancing rhetoric. Gorgias is also considered the father of ceremonial speech (Smith). Though he was not from Athens, his rhetorical talent allowed him to dominate the city and was even asked to speak at festivals, something a normal outsider would never be allowed to do (Bizzell and Herzberg). One of his most notable works is the Encomium of Helen, in which he argues that rhetoric can have as powerful an effect as drugs on the body (Gorgias). Bold claim! Isocrates(436-338 B.C.): Isocrates expanded the definition of rhetoric by saying that it "enhanced civic pride and lead people to their higher destiny," (Smith 46). Essentially, he was trying to combat the idea that rhetoric was only used for selfish personal gain. Instead, Isocrates made the case that using rhetoric could actually help people become great leaders, and he's not totally wrong. Good leaders do have to be convincing and well-spoken, which are traits that are inextricably linked to rhetoric. However, there was no guarantee that a wonderful rhetorician was going to use this power for good. Why did people hate the Sophists so much?
The Sophists definitely were viewed as a somewhat controversial group, particularly by people like Socrates and Plato. The Sophists did teach rhetoric to students, but they did not do so for free, a fact that did make them seem a tad shady. They were also suspected by some of being paid off to partake in government corruption, using their rhetorical skills to sway people's opinion or hold power over others, only adding to their less-than-stellar reputation (Lecture Notes). Others worried that the Sophistic mentality of no absolutes could lead to the disintegration of law. After all, if nothing is really "good" or "bad," law seems to have no real purpose (Bizzell and Herzberg). However, it should be noted that famous Sophists like Gorgias and Isocrates believed that rhetoric could enhance civic pride and lead people to a higher destiny (Lecture Notes). |
Isabel ParhamEnglish 210 ArchivesCategories |