Cicero

I enjoyed this weeks reading about Cicero. He was an interesting character to read about and I gained more information about his background and personal life than I did with Aristotle, Plato, or Gorgias. I enjoyed the fact that Cicero was very involved in the Roman community between being an orator, lawyer, and having a political career. It seems as though he had a good reputation in Rome too, based on his loyal supporters. It was nice to read that he gained most of his public support because of his oratory skills rather than his noble birth. Even with the many challenges he faced as a leader, such as exile and power shifts taking place in Rome, he maintained a following of people. However, he also made enemies by displaying his speech abilities, such as Mark Antony. It was shocking that Antony’s wife pulled out Cicero’s tongue after he was beheaded and jabbed it multiple times with her hairpin. This act displays how truly fearful some people were of his oratory skills.

His background was in some ways similar to Aristotle and Plato however, because they were all of high class. Cicero was considered an elite, with a father who had made good connections for their family in Rome. Cicero was educated in both Latin and Greek, making him “cultured.” Not only was he an elite, he was a talented student. Much of his ideas about rhetoric seem to have been formed through the influence of many different rhetoricians. He makes rhetoricians out to be an elite group, like himself, by saying they have to have eloquence and knowledge in all the important subjects and arts.

However, this elite placement of rhetoric was interesting because he discusses how few men are involved in the study of rhetoric. He claims that the most men are involved in philosophy, followed by poetry, then rhetoric. This seems to be a kind of ranking between the subjects that contradicts his notion that rhetoric is the most eloquent of subjects. Placing philosophy as the highest is similar to Plato’s idea that philosophy was the most honorable subject of study. Although, Cicero was a student of Plato’s so perhaps his ideas were rubbing off on him. De Oratore is written with dialogues, which is similar to the dialectic nature of Plato’s writings. However, it is difficult to tell if there was one character that Cicero was using to speak his own ideas, like Plato used Socrates. Both Antonius and Crassus seem to have strong opinions and Cicero could be using either of these characters to speak his own opinions. In addition, Cicero shows his Platonic influence by including teachings in philosophy in his treatise on rhetoric.

Cicero differs from Gorgias because he claims that rhetoric is one of the most difficult areas of study. He thinks rhetoric is difficult because it applies to all subjects; therefore students must have knowledge in many fields. This differs from Gorgias who argued that a speaker did not need to necessarily be a master in a subject to be convincing. Because of this difference, I think Cicero considers rhetoric an art rather than flattery as Gorgias does.

Cicero also agrees with Aristotle in some ways. He mentions appeals to emotion, logic, and character (pathos, logos, and ethos). Also, he agrees with the three types of persuasive speech outlined by Aristotle: forensic, epidictic, and deliberative. One of Cicero’s biggest contributions to the study of Western rhetoric was the division of the five canons: invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery. These canons are important to studying how arguments are created, organized, and presented. I think Cicero’s division of the canons is similar to Aristotle’s methodical way of thinking about rhetoric.

Including memory as one of the five canons was important in Cicero’s time but is not so important today. People now have the ability to look up anything on the Internet and do not need to memorize facts or laws as Cicero’s suggests. Even though I may not specialize in a certain subject, I am confident that I could quickly find credible Internet sources about that subject matter as well as book sources from the WSU library. While we may not have to memorize as many facts today, I still think it is a valuable skill for public speakers to be able to memorize their speech and present it without hesitations. President Obama is an excellent example of a speaker who knows his material before he presents it so that he rarely appears unprepared by having to refer to his notes.

Questions for Discussion:

1.     Do you think any of the other five canons of rhetoric are less relevant today than they were in Cicero’s time?

2.     Do you agree that Cicero consider rhetoric an art?

3.     Because Cicero was educated in Latin and Greek he was considered “cultured.” What kinds of things in today’s society are required for orators to be considered “cultured?”

Aristotle pg. 164-218

In pages 164-218, Aristotle states that a speaker should focus on these three elements when writing a speech: the means of producing persuasion, the style, and the arrangement of the parts of speech. Ethos, pathos, and logos are the three sources of persuasion and the degree that each appeal is used in a speech should vary depending on the subject matter and audience. Being willing to adjust the degree of appeals for the subject and audience is an important skill for rhetoricians to master. For example, Aristotle explains that bigger audiences often require more general subject matter than highly detailed, while forensic speaking requires more details, and ceremonial speaking is often literary because it is usually read (pg. 198).

While speakers previous, such as Gorgias, were all about the art of flattering an audience, Aristotle is against such a thing. He says, “we ought in fairness to fight our case with no help beyond the bare facts: nothing, therefore, should matter except the proof of those facts” (pg. 165). He thinks that an argument could work with only appeals to logos and that would be the ideal argument. However, he recognizes that the ideal is not always possible and in those cases, other appeals are necessary. He claims that usually the ideal is not possible due to “defects of our hearers” (pg. 165). Here again, we see him thinking higher of himself than the majority of the population who are the hearers of speeches.

It is clear that Aristotle recognizes the power of language. When discussing style, he talks about the great variety in it. Words can carry a great deal of meaning and range in forms. He discusses nouns, verbs, metaphors, synonyms, compound words, metaphors, similes, and epithets. I appreciated this section of the reading because I enjoy finding schemes and tropes in everyday language. The subject of metaphors (making a comparison between two unlike words) is discussed a lot by Aristotle and is often used today. Kenneth Burke included the metaphor as one of his four “master tropes.” Metaphors are often used in song lyrics and may go overlooked, yet their symbolic significance is great and often defines the meaning of songs. Some song lyrics including metaphors are:

Firework –Katy Perry

“Baby, you’re a firework. Come on, let your colors burst…”

I’m Already There - Lonestar

“I’m the sunshine in your hair, I’m the shadow on the ground, I’m the whisper in the wind, I’m your imaginary friend…”

I am the Walrus – The Beatles

“I am the eggman, they are the eggmen. I am the walrus…”

Aristotle gives good advice regarding ethos saying that it is important to keep your language and emotions “appropriate” (p. 178). By being appropriate, he means following certain rules for certain subjects and emotions so as not to confuse or upset your audience. For example, you should not speak causally about a serious issue. This advice remains relevant today because public leaders have received criticism for sending mixed messages to their audiences when their behaviors and demeanor do not match their words. For example, this explicit tweet from Kanye West is completely inappropriate because his words do not match the severity of the subject matter, abortions.

Kanye’s tweet:

“An abortion can cost a ballin’ n***a up to 50gs maybe a 100. Gold diggin’ b**ches be getting pregnant on purpose #STRAPUP my n****s!”

Questions for discussion:

1.     Do you agree with Aristotle that the ideal argument should include just the bare facts and their proofs?

2.     Can you think of a contemporary example where a public figure was not “appropriate” because their words did not match their emotions or actions?

3.     Besides metaphors, what other schemes and tropes do you see often in contemporary arts such as song lyrics?

Aristotle Examples

This comic is a good example of a syllogism. I have broken it down into the premises and conclusion below. It is a humorous example of how people except a conclusion based off of two related premises.

The minor premise: My birthday is next week.
The major premise: My birthday is the day before Max's birthday.
Conclusion: Max's birthday is coming up soon.

Another example of Aristotle's teachings I found relates to his idea of fear. He explains how to effectively use fear in persuading an audience by saying, "When it is advisable that the audience should be frightened, the orator must make them feel that they really are in danger of something, pointing out that it has happened to others who were stronger than they are, and is happening, or has happened, to people like themselves, at the hands of unexpected people, in an unexpected form, and at an unexpected time" (pg. 106). 

The recent news story of Ariel Castro holding women captive for years in his basement is an example of how fear is being used to persuade the public. There are numerous articles and interviews from the women he held captive all of which use fear to persuade their audience to be aware of the possible dangers around them. None of these women expected their abduction and through their public accounts of their terrifying personal experiences they are sending a very clear message that all women should be careful around strangers and be aware of the surroundings they put themselves in. 

Here is a quote from Michelle Knight, the victim who was kidnapped and held captive by Ariel Castro longest. I think this is a rhetorically powerful example of using fear to convey a message to your audience. 

"To Judge Russo:
I would like to tell you what 11 years of my life was like:
I missed my son every day.
I wondered if I was ever going to see my son again--he was only 2 1/2 when I was taken.
I would look inside my heart and see my son.
I cried every night.  I felt so alone.
I worried about what might happen to the other girls and me every day.
The days never got shorter.
The nights turned into days.
The days turned into years.
The years turned into eternity.
I knew nobody cared about me.
He told me my family didn't care about me.  He tormented me constantly, especially on holidays.
Christmas was the most traumatic day because I didn't get to spend it with my son.
No one should ever have to experience what we went through.  Not even an enemy!
Gina and I were a team.  I never let her fall and she never let me fall.  She nursed me back to health when I was dying from his abuse.  My friendship with Gina is the only good thing to come from this situation.
We said we'll all get out alive some day and we did!"

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/statements-behalf-amanda-berry-gina-184800732.html

Aristotle (Intro - pg.90)

Throughout the semester, we have read different works that suggest either rhetoric is an art or it is not. Aristotle supports the idea that rhetoric is an art. He believes in a method that is teachable and effectively creates a “science of rhetoric” that Plato mentioned in Phaedrus. Aristotle makes rhetoric a science by providing classifications and divisions within the subject, effective means of persuasion, and what seem to be step-by-step instructions to persuade an audience. The style of this text is much different than Plato’s Gorgias and Phaedrus because it is written like a lesson book. As a reader, I felt as though Aristotle distanced himself from his work more than Plato did because the tone was more educational than opinionated.

A quote in the introduction says, “It is not too much to claim that rhetoric is the art that governs those human relationships that are conducted in the medium of spoken and written words” (pg. vii). This idea reminds me of Kenneth Burke’s statement that all communication is rhetorical and we cannot escape it. If anything, these ideas have convinced me that studying rhetoric is worthwhile because it is an everyday skill that is useful in a variety of aspects. As a pre-law major, I also considered if the way laws are written is a rhetorical process, or if the laws are simply laws and the way they are defended is rhetorical.

Aristotle’s definition of rhetoric is “the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion” (pg. 3). This definition says a lot about Aristotle’s view of rhetoric because of the phrase “available means.” I think this is most significant because it demonstrates his belief in the ability to find and use a variety of rhetorical tools. In this light, finding the means of persuasion available is a method and a strategy and that can be taught. Often times, I think people today find too many different ways to persuade an audience and end up with an argument that is completely off topic, yet still convincing. For example, politicians are known to talk circles around a question they don’t want to answer and celebrities have learned how to avoid responding directly to personal or uncomfortable questions. Regardless of them beating around the bush, both politicians and celebrities maintain large fan followings.  

Aristotle divides rhetoric into three kinds: forensic, deliberative, and epideictic. In the first half of the book, I found the discussion of forensic rhetoric appealing because I am currently working on a thesis project that is based on understanding forensic rhetoric. I am conducting a rhetorical analysis of a controversial Supreme Court case for the project. I will be using both non-artistic and artistic proofs in my thesis. Because it is based on a Supreme Court case the non-artistic proofs that Aristotle lists such as laws, witnesses, and oaths are particularly important.

Another idea we have discussed in class throughout the semester is the idea of virtue vs. pleasure and how it affects the rhetorician. Aristotle claims, “The honest rhetorician has no separate name to distinguish him from the dishonest” (pg. 3). This statement makes me believe that he thinks good rhetoricians can be dishonest as well as honest, while Plato believed honesty and truth were requirements for a good rhetorician. This idea was presented a lot in the discussion of forensic rhetoric as Aristotle explains different human motives, the differences between rational choices and irrational choices, the states of mind people have when they commit crimes, and the different kinds of wrongs. 

The use of enthymemes is a major aspect of Aristotle’s teachings. While I find enthymemes to be useful, I also think they present a lot of opportunities for dishonesty. If one of the premises is false, it is easy for an audience to ignorantly accept the conclusion. For example, an audience may believe the conclusion that the radio is a bad source of new music if the premises are one particular station plays only old music and that particular station is a radio station. Because that station may not be representative of the radio as a whole, the audience would have accepted a false premise and in turn, a untrue conclusion.

Questions for discussion:

1. Do you think enthymemes are good rhetorical device? Or are they too dangerous to use because of the possibility for false premises to be accepted?

2. Did you enjoy having fewer opinions from Aristotle and more education in his writing, or do you prefer Plato’s writing style that infuses his own opinions with the text?

Phaedrus Part 2

In the second half of Phaedrus, the debate of rhetoric as an art continues. While, Phaedrus thinks all speechwriting is bad, Socrates disagrees and thinks there can be a difference between good speeches and bad speeches. This raises the question of what qualities make a speech good? Thinking of past speeches in history, there are have been some terrible and some wonderful. For example, George Bush has a bad reputation regarding his speech giving abilities, while Obama has been given a great deal of admiration for his skills. It is interesting to consider whether there are truly good speeches and bad speeches today or if the speeches are given value based on the speaker's reputation. Can modern day society separate a speech from the speaker and judge them separately? Or are the two completely connected?

Socrates discusses in the second half of Phaedrus the question of rhetoric whether rhetoric should be considered an art. He makes the point that the speaker has to know truth and also have the skills of persuasion in order to be a good speaker. I agree with this point because many speakers today can preach the truth but still fail to persuade their audience because they are not persuasive enough. For example, growing up as a Catholic I attended multiple masses in which the priest gave homilies that were based on Catholic truths and knowledge yet still ended with people dozing off in the pews and twiddling their thumbs. I found myself wondering on many occasions like that if the message could be made more powerful if the priest developed rhetorical skills. Things like the organization of a speech, analysis, synthesis, and dialectic that Socrates discusses are very important to maintaining the audience’s attention and could be helpful in these situations. 

Socrates believes that in order for the rhetorician to be persuasive, they must understand how people react and respond to different kinds of persuasive devices. I think this lesson of learning how to categorize audiences is especially important today because appeals to emotion may not be appropriate for some audiences while appeals to numerical facts/statistics may not be appropriate for others.

Questions for Discussion:

1. What qualities do George Bush and Obama have that make their speeches good or bad in comparison to one another?

2. Provide an example of a type of appeal that is appropriate for a particular audience but not for another. Where have you seen appeals that work well, and where have you seen appeals that did not work for the intended audience?

Phaedrus Introduction

The introduction to Phaedrus helped me understand the context of the work as well as some important ideas that will be presented in the dialogue between Socrates and Phaedrus. Compared to Gorgias, I found it interesting that Socrates is only speaking with one other philosopher compared to the three he spoke with in Gorgias. In addition, I thought it was interesting that the age of Socrates and Phaedrus was mentioned in the introduction and found myself wondering what effect this will have on their conversation together. Another odd element of the introduction was the clarification of the fact that Socrates and Phaedrus were not in love with one another. I am curious to see if I pick up any hints of them being in love with one another when I read their conversation because I did not have the feeling that Socrates was in love with any of the men he spoke with in Gorgias.

I noticed several common themes from the introduction that will appear in Phaedrus that were discussed in Gorgias, although it is clear that they will presented in a different manner. The question over the art of oratory seems to be appearing again as the introduction explains how both Socrates and Phaedrus share a love for words but their love differs because Socrates favors philosophy and Phaedrus favors speeches. The idea of virtue presents itself again too in a different way as Socrates speaks about basing speeches on knowledge and truth. As a philosopher, he is obsessed with the idea of truth. Just like we discussed in class last week, it is apparent that Socrates is thinking in terms of black and white again. Good and bad speeches are discussed without any mention of the possibility that a speech could fall somewhere in the middle of good and bad. According to Socrates, a good speech is one that is truthful, framed for the audience, and presented by a speaker who is not too attached to the work.

I thought the idea of being unattached to one’s work was particularly odd because I think of modern authors and orators as very attached to their works. While Socrates mentions that we should not be satisfied with being identified by anything we write, I feel that many modern thinkers and authors would disagree. Instead, I think they would often say that their work identifies them completely. For example, J.K. Rowling speaks about the Harry Potter novels as saving her life because she had fallen to such a low point prior to their success. She said, “I was set free because my greatest fear had been realized, and I still had a daughter who I adored, and I had an old typewriter and a big idea. And so rock bottom became a solid foundation on which I rebuilt my life.” Because this “big idea” saved her life, I don’t think she would ever be able to completely detach herself from her work like Socrates suggests one should be able to do.

A feeling of competition seems to be present again because Socrates pressures Phaedrus into sharing the Lysias speech even though Phaedrus is obviously reluctant. Just like in Gorgias, it is clear that Socrates is trying to establish himself as the best thinker/rhetorician by challenging others and then one-upping them after they speak. After Phaedrus shares his speech, Socrates gives his speech about the same topic but makes sure it is better than Phaedrus’. Socrates also presents himself in the beginning by identifying with Phaedrus’ views and appearing to agree with him when he is actually attempting to achieve different points.

The idea of the soul being divided into three parts, one rational and two irrational reminded me of the concept of a conscience and guilt. I think Socrates used this imagery to explain virtue vs. pleasure again in a different way. In the conversation, I think he will present the idea that men can only be their personal best selves if they follow the rational part of their soul and avoid the temptations of pleasure that the irrational parts of the soul present.  The idea of love and sex might also fit into this metaphor because sex is often associated with pleasure and temptation. Take for example the controversy of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. In this case, President Clinton was clearly identifying with the irrational part of his soul and giving into the temptation of pleasure by having an affair with her despite his role as President and commitment to his wife. I believe Socrates would have a good deal of criticism to offer to someone in this position who choose to not live in a virtuous manner. 

Questions for discussion:

1.     Do you agree with Socrates’ statement on page xviii that, “we always need to move on and should never be content to be identified with anything we have written?”

2.     Do you think the age difference between Socrates and Phaedrus has any effect on their conversation? And do you think the speculations of love interest have any effect?

Gorgias

"Gorgias" begins with Socrates speaking to Callicles and Chaerephon about Gorgias. Socrates has heard of Gorgias' ability to answer any question presented to him and Socrates wished to find him in order to challenge this claim. Gorgias presents himself in a proud and boastful manner saying he is an orator and “a good one, if you want to call me what, in Homer’s phrase, ‘I booast myself to be’” (p. 6). In a back and forth dialogue of questions and answers, the two men discuss the art of oratory. They come to the conclusion that the object of oratory (rhetoric) is the persuasion of others. Out of this definition comes the important question of whether people are persuaded by the truth or by flattery. Gorgias holds that a rhetorician is more convincing than an expert in a subject area because people are convinced by flattery. Polus, a student of Gorgias, enters the conversation with Socrates to defend his teacher. He and Socrates discuss the meaning of power and whether it is always good for the person who holds it. In addition, they discuss the differences between committing wrongs and being punished versus committing wrongs and escaping punishments.

In reading the first half of the book I felt a theme of competition. Tensions were high throughout most of the dialogue with the quick back and forth responses. Socrates originally seeks out Gorgias because he wants to test his skills, which demonstrates a feeling of antagonism from the start. Later when Polus defends Gorgias, Socrates belittles him by commenting on his young age, sarcastically remarking how the young folks should correct the old folks like himself when the mess up their words. I found myself picturing a modern day athlete who thinks he is the best at a particular skill and feels the need to challenge anyone who claims to be able to outperform them. For example, in the most recent Seahawks game, Richard Sherman (Seahawks) and Michael Crabtree (49ers) ended in the game in a brawl because Crabtree had previously claimed he was the best receiver and Sherman was determined to outperform him. He did so by deflecting a touchdown pass intended for Crabtree. The two players ended on the game on a heated note with Sherman claiming he was in fact, the best corner in the league. In a similar way to how these two players have challenged each other verbally and on the field, Socrates is challenging other rhetoricians through the Socratic method.

The actual structure of the work is interesting because it is arranged like a play script with character’s names and their quotes following after. I think Plato was making a rhetorical move by structuring his piece like this rather than writing his thoughts about oratory, power, and virtue in a scholarly essay style. Instead of telling the reader what he thinks, he presents his ideas through the voice of Socrates, his teacher. I believe this is more powerful because it removes Plato from the situation and allows the reader to have more freedom in determining whose ideas they agree with in the different dialogues. For modern day students of rhetoric, the goal of the subject is often to consider multiple sides of an argument and open up discussion. By using the Socratic method, Plato is setting an example of how dialogues can be conducted to discuss difficult concepts, a strategy that is very helpful in many modern classrooms. In addition, I think using Socrates as a figurehead for his ideas was a way for Plato to deal with the recent execution of his beloved teacher because it helps bring him back to life, even if only in written words.

Questions for discussion:

1. Gorgias answers several of the questions shortly while Socrates elaborates on his responses and often seems to be forcing Gorgias into certain answers. Do you think Gorgias is being presented in a more negative light because he was speaking less than Socrates in their back and forth dialogue?

2. Socrates and Polus discuss wrongs that have gone both punished and unpunished. Do you think it is worse for someone to commit a wrong and escape punishment or commit a wrong and be punished?