Which Ancient Greek am I?

The first two chapters in Readings from Classical Rhetoric offers a pretty extensive look at the early years of rhetoric. It was interesting to read this after having read the corresponding section in Conley’s book. The excerpts provided offer a much more approachable look at the texts being discussed. It is very interesting to see how different these men were in their approaches to the same subject. As I read I found myself trying to decide who I related to in my own beliefs and understanding of rhetoric. I was drawn to Gorgias’ thought that speech could allow us to accomplish “god-like works” (8). I was fairly put off by Plato’s attempts to belittle anyone who disagrees with him. He is, please excuse the term, a borderline douche. I think that I most align most with Aristotle. His use of ethos, logos and pathos is what I base much of my own speech instruction on. He is not concerned with finding the Truth, but with the ways that we try to persuade one another. I can buy into that.

Conley - A Brief Rundown

Conley provides us with a very concise view of the foundations of rhetoric in his opening chapter. By exploring these early thinkers, we are able to identify the origins of nearly every branch of rhetoric, and to some extent, literary theory that follows. The two sophist takes on rhetoric, Gorgiannic and Protagorean, seem to provide us with one of the greatest arguments against rhetoric - it’s just a matter of opinion. Whether they are trying to manipulate their audience through response to stimulus or through a debate of both sides of an issue, both views focus on the doxa, or opinion. Neither is concerned with finding truth. They are the original smooth talking lawyers and used car salesmen. Plato comes along and offers us a more “noble” look at rhetoric. He uses the dialectic as a way to reach the Truth. He cares little for opinion, and seeks only to find the “ideas” that provide true understanding. Aristotle’s rhetoric is the one that seems to be the most familiar to people. He was less concerned with actually persuading someone to believe or act, and more concerned with understanding the different ways in which he might persuade them. Isocrates offers the final view introduced by Conley. His focus was on the eloquence of the speaker, and not on the truth or doxa of the material. He claimed that speaking well went along with thinking well. If the rhethor could speak well, then his subject must be worthy of attention.