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).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I really used to hold a lot of stock in Plato, but when we began reading Conley I decided to trade it in and buy more into Isocrates and Aristotle. If we went by Plato's version of Truth, and how it is arrived at, there could be just as many charlatans and liars claiming to have the exclusive right to truth (as many religions do). It also leaves a lot out for people who really would like to explore reality and come up with new and different ideas and theories. According to Plato, science would be objectionable, as it is ever-changing rather than established and immutable truth. The world according to Plato, in my opinion, was rather limited.
ReplyDeleteNot only do I find it interesting that the four models of rhetorical thought established thousands of years ago have remained essentially unchanged, but that the speaker that we tend to be swayed by is of the same model presented in the Illiad. Conley states Homer's warriors made clear what gave a man social status: "a person of health, wealth,and good looks" (2). It seems little has changed in this regard. At least in the political arena, candidates who posses these three attributes and display oratory prowess, are more successful in swaying public opinion, regardless of the wisdom of their proposed course of action.
ReplyDeleteI, too, find it interesting that the four models of rhetoric have remained in our culture.
ReplyDeleteThis truth discussion should spark some interesting rhetoric in our class as we have varying views on the subjects of T and t. It will be great to see the support that everyone uses.