My most important takeaway from this class this semester was that rhetoric is an expansive term that depends on where you live, who you’re surrounded by, or what time period you live in. Throughout the readings and discussions of the course, this is what has jumped out most, and what remains, to me, the most defining feature of rhetoric: its ability to change shape and adjust to the cultural climate.

This concept is connected to the Sophist ideology of contingent truths discussed at the beginning of the course. The Sophists were relative strangers to Greece having traveled and visited other countries before arriving in Athens. “Their cultural relativism contributed directly to Greek suspicion of these professional speechwriters and teachers of rhetoric (Herrick 36).” Based on this fear of outsiders, many non-Sophist philosophers around the time of the Sophist arrival fought against the influence of these intruders. Plato condemned the Sophists and their teachings of rhetoric frequently. In Plato’s Gorgias, Plato uses his character Socrates to tear apart the Sophist rhetorical tradition. Ironically, however, in his later work, Phaedrus, Plato has grown and changed a little in his view of rhetoric. One might even say he’s become a little more accepting of this field. Plato’s journey in his view of rhetoric is unintentionally representative of the path rhetoric has taken throughout the years as the way people view it has changed to become either more limiting, or more accepting. By the time we get to Aristotle, an acceptance of rhetoric as a techne has become commonplace. Aristotle, in fact, proceeds to provide rules and guidelines as to what rhetoric is and is not (as seen in his rhetorical settings as well as the famous artistic proofs of ethos, pathos, and logos). He produced the most famous (or at least most widely quoted) definition of rhetoric, stating that “rhetoric is the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion (Herrick 72).

Moving past the time period of the Greeks, rhetoric continued to grow and expand in its practice and definition. With the Roman Empire came new standards regarding the instruction and power of rhetoric. Rhetoric had evolved to influence the most powerful men of the kingdom. A philosopher by the name of Cicero did, however, take Greek ideas and implant them into Roman society. The concepts were still similar, and echoed many of the original Greek theories of the early Sophists. There was even a time period near the end of the Roman Empire known as the era of the Second Sophistic in which Roman rhetoric was very similar to its early Greek heritage (with more showboating and organization similar to that of the famous Empedocles). However, rhetoric’s use in public discourse had begun to fade away by the end of the Empire.

Christian Europe saw tight restrictions on the instruction and practice of rhetoric. Philosophers such as Augustine and Martianus Capella worked to either limit rhetoric to preaching and the furthering of Christianity, or to exclude it from Christianity entirely. Rhetoric responded by coming forward as letter-writing and branching out in that manner.

All of this reflects the fluidity of rhetoric’s definition, showing how it can never be stamped out, but it can also never be explicitly defined.

poetry-as-rhetoric

cultural-research-essay-draft-one

Connect Anaximenes/Empedocles with Ancient Greek mythology and describe how their shared beliefs and behaviors contributed to the rise of rhetoric.

Most of us Americans remember the political shakers of our country’s history. For some it may be from personal memory. Maybe we were present for President Reagan’s speech at the Berlin Wall, or in Washington D.C. during Dr. Martin Luther King’s vision for the future. Or we remember hearing stories passed down from generation to generation about Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, or Benjamin Franklin’s wisdom during the Constitutional Convention. Those of us raised in church will definitely remember some of the powerful evangelists who would visit every now and then to breathe new life into our church. The same way that we have seen, remembered, or heard about famous rhetoricians, so did the men and women of Ancient Athens. To them, the names of Anaximenes, Empedocles, and Zeus were very well known. Rhetoric as we know it now became initially represented by Empedocles before the arrival of the more famous Greek philosophers. It will also be seen that rhetoric existed even before Empedocles in the oral mythological histories of gods and goddesses. In fact, the two points are very closely related and worked together to bring about the rise of rhetoric.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/empedocles/

Empedocles is the philosopher that acts as the starting point for many rhetoricians, and for good reason. He is likely the most well-known orator of his day, his name holding a connotation similar to that of a wizard, acting as the Gandalf of Ancient Greece. Beyond the power of his oratory, he was also a prominent politician in his home island of Acragas, as well as a physician, philosopher, and poet. He is responsible for two poems that we know of. There is debate on whether or not they were actually one poem, but because of their clear thematic differences, it is acceptable to view them as individual entities. The theories in these two poems, On Nature and Purifications. The theories discussed in these poems have been echoed by both Plato and Aristotle, whose rhetoric containing Empedoclean thought were once again referenced by later Greek commentators. Empedocles’ poem, On Nature, creates “an elegant balance” between Love and Strife (notice the capital letters). Aristotle credits this poem with being the first to actually define the four natural elements. Beyond the poetic beauty of the piece, however, one can see an early form of the enthymeme. Empedocles’ fundamental thesis was based on claims supported by the endoxa of Ancient Greece: “everything is composed of four material elements…moved by two opposing forces.” This would not have been much of a philosophical leap for the people of Greece considering that some of their greatest gods were in charge of these elements and responsible for these two forces. This will be discussed later, however. The important part here is that Empedocles has the grasp of a rhetorical characteristic that had not been explicitly named until Aristotle. For those critics who claim that written rhetoric is not rhetoric, therefore the argument for Empedocles is irrelevant should be pointed to Isocrates. Isocrates was a rival of Plato who made his rhetorical impact by writing rather than speaking.

Using some of the ground roles for rhetoric laid out by Herrick in Chapter One, it can be proved that Empedocles was indeed the individual responsible for the birth of rhetoric.

Another rhetorical tradition used by both Empedocles and later philosophers was______________ insert another point here…as soon as I find one.

The clash between Love and Strife in On Nature and Purification is a battle that echoes almost directly from the stories of the wars among the gods. Even modern philosophers have made comparisons between Love and War on the modern battlefield, suggesting that the concept has been echoing in the human consciousness for millennia.

Conclusion

As it has been seen, the ancient Greek gods and goddesses were in essence the originators of the rhetoric emulated by Empedocles in his works. These same thoughts were then reflected in the writings of Plato and Aristotle.

1. What were the three attacks Plato made on rhetoric in Gorgias?
2. Who was responsible for the Encomium on Helen and what did they contribute to the study of rhetoric?
3. What are three points on rhetoric that Aristotle and Plato differed on?

Major Premise: VMI has a health problem and needs the professional medical doctor to find a solution.

Minor Premise: Medical doctors are supposed to have the education and expertise to discover the cause of a major disease.

Claim: Doctor Copeland has no idea what’s going on…so we’re screwed.

HR: www.facebook.com/KadetLife

“…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.

Plato twists Gorgias into implying that rhetoric has no purpose in courts of law as it wins arguments based belief not knowledge, which makes rhetoric dangerous. He believes that it studies pretty much the same thing that arithmetic or gymnastics study…and if they all do they same thing, why does it need to be its own name with its own study?

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.

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?