Month: September 2016

by

Teacher Mission acc. Isocrates

“…and the teacher, for his part, must so expound the principles of the art with the utmost possible exactness as to leave out nothing that can be taught, and for the rest, he must in himself set such an example of oratory that the students who have taken form under his instruction and are able to pattern after him will, from the outset, show in their speaking a degree of grace and charm which is not found in other.”

Isocrates is implying here on page 175 his belief that the role of the teacher is to use their natural talent to coax out the natural talent of others. He wishes teachers to give EVERYTHING they know about their art to their students. This way students are able to model themselves after their teacher and be miles above the uneducated. This also shows that Isocrates expects people who receive education to literally be better than everybody else. The Sophists seemingly selfish desire to make money for their instruction drives Isocrates insane based on his unselfish views of education discussed above.

by

Herrick’s Questions for Review (9/22/16)

Question: Why is Plato concerned about the difference between mere belief and true knowledge, particularly concerning the issues of justice? How does that affect his view of rhetoric?

Whether or not Plato is aware of this, his aristocratic position is threatened by rhetoric in a court of law. Law of that day was usually based on knowledge–a knowledge that kept these rich white men in power for so long. But along comes rhetoric with its power to convince people of an argument with belief instead. Now the knowledge of that day relied heavily on endoxa, but an argument of belief could pull on the heartstrings of an individual, separating them from “common sense” and offering them a different alternative in an environment where such thought is easy to encourage (when actively listening to a good speaker it’s easy to get caught up in the emotion; it takes conscious effort to remain separate from the rhetoric and critically analyze a speech). For example, I could provide facts and figures showing how oil spills actually improve people’s health (bare with me, I’m arguing a crazy point). However, even if it wasn’t true, I can talk about a little child watching his parents’ eyes boil out of their skulls because of oil skills…which one argument would be believed, regardless of which was true.

It’s because of this that Plato despises rhetoric. He sees it as a means to empower the masses and shatter the traditional regime. When Gorgias finally snaps with Socrates in Plato’s Gorgias, he puts in relatively plain words what Plato fears most from rhetoric and its practitioners: “he can persuade the multitude better than any other man of anything which he pleases (150).”

 

 

by

9/15/16 In-Class Writing (#1 and #2)

Gorgias was a strong enough rhetorician/rhetor that he was able to defend, effectively, any case with a weaker argument. This can be clearly seen in his Encomium of Helen. This ability is what earned him the status of the “Older Sophists,” even though he himself despised the term. His idea of kairos is largely responsible for a portion of this philosophy of rhetoric. His various other figures of speech have been copied and used (maybe unknowingly) even up to the present day.

His focus on pure persuasion (a word which has forever been tainted by Jane Austen, for the record) as opposed to arete seems to be off the beaten path of most Sophists. When I read that it did sort of shatter the romantic image I had of these Sophists riding in from foreign lands, transforming the upper and middle classes into citizen-soldiers, and restructuring the entire social structure of Greece. Some of these Sophists were just there to teach men how to speak. Plain and Simple.

 

In his highly persuasive Encomium on Helen Gorgias is attempting to perform two tasks. First, he is showing the people of Greece that are two sides to every story (coughdissoi logoicough). By taking a nationally shamed woman and defending her, he is exemplifying the very lessons that he, as a Sophist, was trying to teach everyone. Since the entire country hated Helen and had no desire to rise to her defense, Gorgias was indeed making the weaker argument stronger. He is also showing people that sometimes rhetoric can be used as a form of entertainment. This idea would not have been a huge stretch of the imagination considering that men would meet to recite poetry at each other for hours at a time. Gorgias’ last line of the Encomium manages to be both humorous (I translated the last part of the line to say: “I’m bored, so here.”) and powerful. Part 21 of his Encomium was his conclusion paragraph, not of his defense of Helen, but of his greater goal in defending her. Gorgias is showing that speech, and therefore rhetoric, can be used to strip away hate, blame, injustice, and ignorance.

by

9/13/16

The Sophists seem to be pathfinders of their generation. They introduce brand new ideas that are directly contrary to the status quo, making them, arguably, the most daring collection of people of their time period. Being willing to go against centuries of tradition in search of truth is a Herculean feat in and of itself. Granted, they were also being well paid to do so. The question arises whether the Sophists would have been as effective if they hadn’t been able to sell their knowledge as something to be used by the rich/educated to get more rich/educated.

In modern times they would be no different from any other philosophy major at some high and mighty college. They would probably get less respect today then they did back then, only because the American public doesn’t have time for deep thought anymore; it’s almost seen as a waste of a college education to major in philosophy instead of a major that will actually get you a job after graduation (TBH if my kid tried to major in philosophy I would let him/her…but I also wouldn’t be as likely to help him when s/he can’t find a job to pay off all his/her debts).

I find it hard to compare them to the modern college professor because at VMI we “Don’t Do Ordinary,” and neither do our professors! Receiving an education from a Sophist might be as proportionally expensive now as it was back then. Beyond that, both the Sophists and (most) modern college professors attempt to transform their pupils into greater contributors to society. In fact, I’m sure professors take personal pride in their former students who go off to great and powerful things in their respective fields. Also, there is the correlation that both institutions attempt to encourage deeper thought and critical thinking in their students.

I touched on this earlier, but the main reason the Sophists were so controversial in Ancient Greece is because they challenged what was the then status quo. In doing so they shattered centuries of traditional practices and social norms. Even though they educated the rich, what they were teaching took power from the gods and gave it to the people. The nobles were in fear of losing their “god-given” social status to the newly free-thinking masses. The priests worried about losing their position in the temples as the people gradually stopped believing in the power of the gods over their everyday lives and natural occurrences.

In the 21st century most people are at least somewhat aware of the concept of contingent truths and that most cultures have different sets of beliefs. Free thought is often encouraged (except among the Republican party…see I can say that because I’m a moderate Republican hahaha). Therefore the Sophists wouldn’t really have that many people showing up their symposiums seeing as they have nothing new to offer the public. To be successful in this century they would need to introduce some brand new philosophy/worldview into a thirsty populace. This is where the idea of kairos would come in: which country/culture/religion is most thirsty for answers, when would they be most susceptible to new perspectives, and how fast would a new idea spread across political boundaries?

by

9/8/16 In-Class Writing

The influence of the Sophists during these few centuries of Greek history cyclically affected and was affected by the growth and shift in cultural norms. A theme becoming clear is the challenge issued by the Sophists: the destruction of the individual. Now this is reflected in two ways.

First, the Sophists began to teach the idea of civic service as the measure of a man–a direct contrast to Homer’s character, Achilles, who was a great man because of his athletic prowess. Their version of the VMI three-legged stool instilled Greek youth with the ability to serve their community politically as well as physically.

Second, the contingent truths taught by the Sophists pretty much shattered the individuality of Greece itself. Let’s view Greece as one individual unit, and all other countries as their respective individual units. Sophists had the unique  advantage of having visited many, many other units, and viewing other versions of truth. When arriving in Greece they began to show the populace that their individual view of truth (let’s say A vs. B) is not the only option. Another unit sees at as A vs. B vs. C. or maybe even X vs. Y vs. W. They opened the eyes of the public (ok…more like the rich and educated youth) that their individual Greek truth is not the only truth.

by

Cultural Figures and Values

Empedocles (Herrick,28) This mystery man of the fifth century BC reflected the mysticism surrounding persuasive speech at that time. He was seen as a magician, or wizard of sorts; this would be like American citizens saying that Reagan cast a spell on the Gorbachev during his speech at the Berlin War (despite its greater irrelevance to the end of the Cold War).
Aristophanes (Herrick,33) This traditionalist critic of the Sophists represents the sect that exists even in modern societies. He believed in, and despised those who felt otherwise, the need for straight talk and a focus on the here and now, not the speculator.
Solon (Herrick, 29) This man was one of the political MOVERS of the ancient Athens. His political reforms reflected the city-state’s fierce belief of freedom and the power of the common man. It also separated the freedman from the slave; this bold line changed what it meant to be a slave, and had the blessing of putting the peasantry safely and securely on the free side for the first time.
Corax (Greek intro, 10) This man studied the mysterious powers of certain speakers in court and put out verbally a concrete answer for what everyone was silently wondering…he took away the magic behind Empedocles.
Enheduanna (Greek Intro, 14)  
Anaximander (Greek intro, 17  
by

Redefining Rhetoric

When I first wrote my definition for rhetoric, I focused mainly on the manner of rhetoric expression (i.e., Twitter in the 21st century vs. Shakespeare’s plays in his day). After studying the readings, I realized I should expand my definition to include all forms of communication, be it verbal or nonverbal, as well as the origins and motivations of the communication itself.