Hair of the Dog that Bit Me

Readings from Classical Rhetoric provides an effective cross-section of examples to complement Conley’s piece. I found that reading Conley first provided a nice background before tackling the actual pieces of rhetoric; the result was an exercise in locating the criteria in each piece laid out by Conley. The one piece that I would like to discuss further in class is Isocrates “Against the Sophists.” I am having difficulty seeing the distinction Conley and Isocrates himself claim separate his rhetoric from the sophists. Conley mentions that Isocrates was concerned with “bridg[ing] the gap between morality and technical skill (18),” which the sophists was accused of neglecting. I cannot, however, find anything in Isocrates’ piece that presents him as anything different from Protagoras. Isocrates mentions the importance of morality, but he appears to base his theory of rhetoric on pragmatic logic “adorne[d]” with “striking thought” and “clothe[d]” “in flowing and melodious phrase” (45). I have no doubt that I am missing some moral nugget, but until it is revealed in all its glory, I don’t see Isocrates working towards the aim of moral argumentation as Conley suggests, or perhaps this piece neglects to highlight the rhetorical element I thought I would find.

Conley's Four Horsemen

The passage in Conley’s text focuses on establishing the four seminal models for rhetorical thought. At their most basic, and I say basic because that is my intellectual limit, Gorgias is focused on establishing the power of the orator over his audience and relied on doxa; Protagoras is interested in the argument alone based on doxa, regardless of the perceived truth; Isocrates’ rhetoric resembles Protagoras, but Isocrates also emphasizes the role of eloquence as paramount; Plato, who is disgusted with everyone, focuses solely on the search for Truth. This can only be accomplished by those touched by the divine or who witnessed and remembered the “Truths” from before birth. Aristotle is the most balanced. Like Plato, his is a search for truth, but more like the sophists, he is willing to take into account probabilities as a substitute for an unreachable Truth.

I find it interesting that the differences expressed between Obama and Dobson in our class seem to be mirrored in some of the tension between Plato and Aristotle. Obama cautions that “[p]olitics depends on…the compromise, the art of what’s possible (par. 13),” where Dobson reiterates that only those connected to the divine can see the uncompromising Truth, and it is that Truth that should guide politics. Aristotle states that a pragmatic approach to knowledge must rule when absolute Truth is out of reach: “We can distinguish, according to Aristotle between ‘theoretical,’ ‘practical,’ and ‘productive’ knowledge” (14). These kinds of knowledge are based on universally accepted truths, experiences, and generally accepted truths. On the other hand, Plato, like Dobson, is interested only in absolutes: “[O]nly genuine knowledge of the eternal and immutable essences of things can supply a firm basis for making true statements…such essences are not grasped by experience but by the mind alone, and only by the lover of wisdom who apprehends them as a result of divine inspiration or by the recollection of them as they were viewed by soul before birth” (8). This position does not allow Plato much room to compromise, a trait that Obama cautions we avoid in politics: “[R]eligion does not allow for compromise. It’s the art of the impossible (par. 13),” a point I think Aristotle would see akin to Plato’s psychagogia (leading the soul to Truth).

The Descent Begins

"Poet, by that God to you unknown,

lead me me this way. Beyond this present ill
and worse to dread, lead me to Peter's gate
and be my guide through the sad halls of Hell."

And he then: "Follow." And he moved ahead
in silence, and I followed where he led.