Fellow Classmates,
Well, you know you’re in a PhD-level course when you’re asked to read selections by Gorgias, Isocrates, Plato, and Aristotle all in the same week. Though I haven’t yet completed all the readings, I would like to offer a few observations for consideration in relation to Isocrates’s “Against the Sophists.” To me, the approach seems very logical: after a brief introduction, Isocrates attempts to dissolve the credibility of the Sophists via three rationales: (1) if the speech they were selling were as goods it claims to be, the cost would be incalculable (p. 72); (2) the idea of charging for lessons seems both inappropriate and hippocritical (p. 72-73); and (3) the quality of the lessons were questionable (p. 73). Thus, with these ethos “holes” poked, deflating some of the heed paid, then the audience is somewhat more open to the two positions that Isocrates then advocates: (1) He wants the charge/misinformed teachings to stop (p. 73), and (2) he wants rhetoricians to be more moral (p. 75). Further, Isocrates suggests that looking inward in a key to understanding rhetoric (p. 74). Thus, to me, from this analysis (and my reading Plato’s Phaedrus), an overall, take-home message I got from is that rhetoricians have a responsibility to use their talents in a positive way; they need to be equally critical of their own works as they are of others; they must be moral. However, despite the criticisms cited here against the Sophists, as TCers, we do see the advent of formalized education in rhetorical theory, and I think their recognition of the limits/lens associated with "truth" still holds water today. So, right or wrong, ill-intended or not, these are are still our forefathers in rhetorical education. And, in giving them the benefit of the doubt---at least for the moment----hindsight is always 20-20.
Cheers,
Cris
Cris,
ReplyDeleteThe Utopia of expecting everyone to act with high ethics and morals is similar to Plato's idealism about Truth. In reality, there always will be people who don't act "well," and there are reasons the Philosopher King idea never caught on, because people always screw things up, no matter how good the intentions of the leaders in charge, or how mystically brilliant a leader might be. So, is it better to be jaded and lose ideals of all sorts and run a military state, like Sparta? No, of course not. Is it better to have an ideal situation in mind, maybe even be a bit of a dreamer of a better world, like Camelot, and then plan for the fringe jerks who always try to mess up what you have built? I think the latter is a more reasonable and achievable state of being. And if it turns out that the fringe win out, which they probably always will in the end, so be it. Maybe they deserve all of the garbage they create through greed and selfishness.
I think a lot about ethics and rhetoric, too. A semester or two ago I was talking to a class and used the word manipulate in reference to persuading an audience. They all crinkled their nose as if they'd smelled something really terrible. When I asked why, they basically explained they had an ethical problem with manipulating an audience to do anything. In essence, a rhetorician is not a hypnotist, trying to make someone bark like a dog on stage for the benefit of other people. I still think about that exchange to this day. Not only is the word manipulate unethical, it also crosses a line beyond persuasion. Seems like you are right to argue rhetoric should be used "in a positive way." But where does that line begin and end?
ReplyDeleteEnjoyed reading your piece here, Cris. Good look at specifics in the readings. Yes, the use of rhetoric for good purposes is something certainly classical and roman. We see a movement from that to the individual later in rhetorical history.
ReplyDeleteChris,
ReplyDeleteYou bring up several good points. Having just finished Drs. Carter and Baake's course on the Rhetoric of Economics, I can't really appreciate the criticism of the quality of the lessons...if they were that 'bad', then how could the Sophists make a living? Is it possible that the Plato camp felt left out in the fee charging activity, and tailored their criticisms because of sour grapes? Of course, this is my jaded 21st century perspective talking :-)
Cris,
ReplyDeleteGreat post. I think your summary of Isocrates'point of looking inward as a guide to use rhetoric responsibly is important. I think it speaks to what Ben questions in terms of "manipulation." The term certainly does have negative connotations, but in thinking about Ben's question, I asked myself if that's not exactly what I try to do with my students. Do I try to manipulate them? Persuade them? Direct them? Is there a difference?