Eli Facemire

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/63/63d6a34de4ac385e8cc39b26fd32a3759a93a2e04620c87f2accdc788c05acaf.jpg

According to Isocrates in Against the Sophists, teachers should not be egotistical instructors who are in it for their own glorification. Also, they should not teach a set of predetermined knowledge to a broad range of student capabilities, but should take into account the individual. They should, on the other hand, they should acknowledge the differing abilities of their students and apply their own knowledge in different ways. Also, if they are in it to promote their own opinions, and if the teach out of their own emotions or opinions, they are in the wrong. Teachers should be unbiased in their teaching and should impart to the students knowledge which they can own themselves, making it their own and applying in the manner in which they desire…

Why is Plato concerned about the difference between mere belief and true knowledge, particularly concerning the issues of justice?

Plato’s concern for this difference stems from his desire for the long term over the short. He feel’s as if Sophists use rhetoric to win the minds of their audience through persuasive arguments based on their own beliefs. Such a practice could lead a majority astray whereas focusing on what they know as true as to establish a broader understanding among the masses – or at least the aristocracy, for he did not condone the growth of the middle class. For him, the same argument can apply to justice, for he did not condone the use of beliefs to determine whether or not something was just, but based such a conclusion on true knowledge.

In the Encomium of Helen, Gorgias set forth an argument in defense of Helen of Troy, who after being swept away by the enemy became an object of crude jocularity amongst the Trojans. Through rhetoric he lays out his argument which includes his belief that she was led astray by the use of powerful speech. Through this argument we see Gorgias’ definition of rhetoric come to life as he attempts to free Helen of all blame. His definition is found to set the use of rhetoric above all other means to persuade, convince, or entice. He argues that the “powerful lord”  – speech – is the means by which even the divine fall. Rhetoric, he says is a “false argument” derived from opinion of the speaker who does not have full, factual knowledge of all things past, present or future, but who takes his opinions and forms a logical, though in at least one way false, argument in order to persuade an audience. Therefore, knowing that the point of this fragment was to simply prove that a completely false argument can and will be accepted by an audience if presented logically and persuasively, it is almost laughable to know that Gorgias impact is still here today. The reason of course, is because of the power of speech/rhetoric.

In relation to the sophistic philosophy of rhetoric, one could argue that Gorgias’ definition of rhetoric ties in. The Sophists advocated the use of rhetoric in establishing one’s prominence both socially/politically as well as economically. Such a view has the potential of lending itself to crookedness or underhandedness as on attempts to persuade, for personal gain is supreme. In that respect, both definitions comply despite how Gorgias uses a backdoor, shady manner of convincing people to believe something in stead of using such rhetoric to gain something for himself (except for a victory in argument of course). In regards to my own growing definition of rhetoric, I am pleased to take the moral high ground in relation both Gorgias and the Sophists, for I feel both lent themselves to focussing on what the use of rhetoric could get you personally. I feel as if rhetoric is a means to facilitating the acquisition of knowledge and wisdom, as well as a means to present a personal belief to an inquirer in a manner that they will best understand because of its logical lay out. In short, rhetoric makes more efficient the acquisition of knowledge and presentation thereof through the logical lay out of the information at hand.

In the Encomium of Helen, Gorgias main point in regards to rhetoric is to puff it up as the end all be all of means by which humans both persuade and are persuaded. He sets rhetoric upon a pedestal as the crux of human enticement by presenting the downfall of Helen as a result of the enemy’s effective – though immoral – use of rhetorical speech. In Gorgias’ eyes, rhetoric always wins.

The earliest rhetoricians, the Sophists flourished in ancient Greece and Athens as teachers of wisdom and how to properly and persuasively present an argument or prove a point to an audience – particularly in speech and writing. Outsiders to the Athenians and Greeks, the Sophists were welcomed with thirst for enlightenment by some or with opposition by others. Roughly considered a community, though in reality just a common movement of individuals who had a few teachings in common, the Sophists had much to offer their new audience. Aside from the aforementioned wisdom and rhetorical speech and writing, they centered these teachings around civic and economic success which was held in high esteem by the Greeks. It seems to me that the Sophists were well aware of this greed for higher civic or political ability or success as well as that for an increase in net worth, and they played upon it extremely well. They observed this desire particularly among the growing middle class, as its members were growing tired of the highest class holding all of the political offices, being in possession of much money, and because of their wealth being able to further their education. However, as this middle class grew, they gained the ability to buy for themselves instruction by the new guys in town, and by their subsequent increase in knowledge, rhetorical understanding, and the wealth that came after were able to rise to positions of authority if not in government, then among scholars. If anything these Sophists were salesmen at heart, and their earnings were worth the migration. They also received much resentment by some, mainly the upper class who saw their coming as an invasion to attempt to mold the broad political mindset of their government’s people to their own and slowly manipulate them into selling themselves completely into their control. This was a radical thought, but in this day in which conquering other nations was the norm, it isn’t too far out of a consideration. All in all, the Sophists seem to me to have been wise men of a thorough understanding of a broad range of areas (their expertise being in presenting oneself and one’s arguments in a rhetorical manner as well as in developing a broad understanding of the world around them by devotion to many subjects and their connection to one another) who took advantage of a situation to enhance their abilities by teaching them to others as well as to prosper economically and in recognition. An interesting group of individuals, as few in this day and age devote themselves solely to enhancing personal wisdom, teaching it, and being creative enough to use that which they are best at to profit from.

The Sophists differ from today’s college professors in that they did not pin themselves down to one area of study, but instead ensured their adeptness in every area as to be the most influential and well rounded individual they could be. They are similar in the respect that they both devote their work to passing on knowledge and skills through teaching students who repay them in monetary value. If these guys were still around today, they would probably be viewed as a cult, as the nature teachings would most likely lend to becoming clannish.

Many themes of civic life today are connected to or find their roots in ancient Greek and Athenian culture. These include, but are not limited to how the body and mind are connected and contingent truths and their connection to changes in citizen thought. Many themes arose as a result of the Sophist’s impact on Athens. The Sophists were a loose knit collection of individuals (not really a community) who were held in esteem by most Athenians as objects of wisdom who taught the Athenians of rhetoric and debate as a means of arriving at a conclusion, particularly on contingent social matters. Contingent truths are such that are not absolutely true due to the context thereof…

The following are links to potential artifacts for my upcoming essay on an ancient Greek and/or Athenian artifact that is itself rhetorical.

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/wmna/hd_wmna.htm

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/afrg/hd_afrg.htm

Figures

• Homer
• Empedocles
• Corax
• Solon
• Pericles
• Plato
• Aristotle
• Tisias

Values

• Self awareness
• isegoria – right to free speech in public areas for free white males
• Freedom
• Slavery
• Democracy

My initial thought of rhetoric was that it is simply structured conversation. After reading more about it, I have realized that this definition is somewhat accurate, but it goes much deeper than that. The four areas of rhetoric – ethos, pathos, logos, and kairos provide this structure. Ethos states the credibility of who is speaking; pathos appeals to the listener’s emotions; logos in a way brings all areas together to form a logical argument; and the area of kairos is all about the timing of the presentation of the argument. Rhetoric is simply informal, yet logical argumentative reason. Proper rhetoric appeals to the very nature of the human mind.