This reaction was well thought out and really was a great synopsis of the chapter. The one thing I found interesting was the way you broke down the differences between how Aristotle views rhetoric and Plato’s counter theory of rhetoric called dialectic. Now at first I thought you were trying to say Plato didn’t care about the truth, but as usual I jumped to conclusions early on, only to be proven of my ignorance later. In other words yay you, boo me (there are you happy now). The question I wanted to pose to you was which approach to rhetoric, do you agree with more. I find myself contemplating this very statement more and more for two reasons 1. It comes up often in the classes I’m currently taking (Dam speech/philosophy classes…as if I didn’t have enough to worry about) and 2. I’m a loser with way to much time to think about this stuff.
The reason I ask this is because I feel both sides make a strong case. As you said yourself Aristotle believes “The best thing a persuader can say to the audience is something that will bring happiness and speak against those that destroy happiness” I mean how can you argue with that? Happiness good, people who destroy happiness Bad. It’s so simple even a cave man could do it (P.S. If I see another one of those stupid Geico cave men commercials I’m going to hurt somebody. Not only is the commercial just stupid but now when I can’t figure out my car insurance claims I feel really dumb so thanks a lot Geico, really appreciate it…O and who the hell green lit the idea to make this commercial into a TV series I mean come on people….wait what was this thing about again… o yea Aristotle) So I dig the whole idea of rhetoric being the deliverer of happiness, but Plato makes a valid point as well. He makes a claim in his book the “Gorgious” that rhetoric is nothing more than mere flattery words made to infatuate the listeners. It holds no real value, and the truth is never learned. He talks about a true form of rhetoric though is kind of vague on the examples. He says that true rhetoric should be more informative as apposed to persuasive. That knowledge of truth will always win out over those skilled in the art of manipulation.
Actually the same argument came up yesterday during a debate, were the discussion branched of into the differences between US policy debate and British Parliamentary debate. It was said that policy debate was an interesting art form, but it really didn’t show how to arrive at a logical answer, but more so that my arguments are better than your arguments. It was even stated that this practice really just teaches people how to be master of manipulation and deception. In the Parliamentary style however, it not really about making your opponent look bad but rather who brings the strongest argument that can be discussed in length, equally by both sides. The thing is I really respect both aspects but I sometimes come into conflict with which is right and which one is wrong.
Perhaps there is no universal right and wrong here, maybe it’s all about context and the different situations that call for different methods. I mean maybe if Socrates was a little bit better at Aristotle’s style of rhetoric he wouldn’t have been sentenced to death after a jury of his peers persecuted him for his “Corrupting the mind of the youth”. Isn’t it funny how stupid we were back then to condemn a man for his belies in science and the search for truth. Thank God (the one true God, The God of Abraham, who sent is one and only true begotten son to save us and deliver us from our sins and lead us not into temptation one nation under God indivisible with liberty and just for all, and by all only legally born citizens of this great country the good old US of A, Amen) we don’t live in a time like that anymore. GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Jesus!
No comments:
Post a Comment