Sunday, August 30, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The personalities caught me as well. I think Aristotle was very analytical - and someone who lived inside of his own head more than in the world with the rest of us (as most geniuses do); he was the artist.
ReplyDeleteI think I relate more to Isocrates who also believed in rhetoric as an art form, but whose focus was more outer-directed, toward bringing the art to the masses and helping them understand what it means.
And, I agree - Plato seems like a bit of a douche.
I will have to agree with you to a point, Mr. Roberts. I believe Plato has a pretty good gig about belittling; it may not always be the best way, but it can certainly be effective depending upon the situation. You are right on, though, with Aristotle. What he says is what we are basically trying to teach the young minds for which we are responsible. Persuasion is an art form and these gentlemen seemed to have perfected it in their own special ways.
ReplyDeleteI don't think I fall in line exactly with any of the philosophers, but I tend to relate more with Aristotle, I think. I'm not into the whole "multiple truths" idea, but I'm keenly interested in his rhetorical strategies. I teach my students that it's mostly on how you say it rather than what you say when you are appealing to a mass audience.
ReplyDeleteAs one who believes that Absolute Truths are well beyond the reach of mere mortals, with or without divine contact, I too find Plato sitting alone in left field. Strangely, I find myself drawn to Protagoras' view of the argument as the absolute focus. I appreciate Aristotle's influence on education and Isocrates’ advancement of art, but I think we may get too caught up in simply finding ways to trick our audience into agreement. Perhaps more emphasis should be placed on providing a well defended point than covering a weaker point with flowery language or appealing to emotions or respect for the writer.
ReplyDelete