Sunday, August 30, 2009
Rhetor vs. Philosopher
I share the concerns of Socrates and Plato regarding the possible misuse of the sophistic rhetoric espoused by Gorgias. Any time the aim of the speaker is to capture the hearts and minds of the audience, I get uncomfortable. This sort of rhetoric is often found in religion, and seems to lead to the development of a cult of personality, not a cult of theology. Plato separates the rhetor (Gorgias) from the philosopher (himself), and claims that they have different goals. He insists that genuine investigation of a subject (through use of the dialectic) is better than rhetorical victory (through the use of persuasion). It is clear that the gifted orator is not necessarily an ethical person, nor an intelligent one. As scholars, we must develop sense of skepticism about charismatic people, who can too often lead others astray.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I like the way you separate the cult of personality from the cult of theology. The same probably holds true regarding the cult of personality and the cult of political ideology. Unfortunately, this is an old quandry, and that sense of skepticism that you mentioned is sadly lacking in modern thought--even though people generally like to believe that they maintain a healthy intellectual skepticism. Perhaps we are all secretly looking for that super hero with the parent's heart, or the messiah with all the answers who can save us from ourselves. In this week's coverage of the Kennedy funeral, one of the Senator's favorite sayings was shared. "The perfect is the enemy of the good." Maybe that is what is clouding the vision of many intelligent people in the world today. We are looking for perfection when none really exists. On page 8 in the Conley text Plato states that "all existing forms of society are wrong." This goes against the human drive to be "right."
ReplyDeleteI agree that we need to be skeptical of those with a rhetorical gift - I'm just not sure I exempt Plato. His goal of finding and speaking universal Truth seems grander than Gorgias': in the end, though, we have to confront the fact that his great Truth was probably different than ours, but he really didn't think so.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Rene as well, as a constituent-body, we look for politicians to "parent" us - but I don't believe it's necessarily a modern political issue - Gorgias' philosophy of the pliable masses makes it clear people have always been ready to follow more than lead (and, usually, more than think).
Charisma was established as a strong foot-hold in ancient Greece as we see in the discourse between Agamemnon, Thersites, and Odysseus. Nestor delivers the message that the gods are tired of the nine years of war. (Sounds familiar) and there must be some resolution. The pecking order has already been set up for the charismatic speaker. For we have Agamemnon and Odysseus who are physically attractive, clever, and intellegent engaged in debate at the expense of the ugly man who has not enjoyed military valor, yet his council and observation that to prolong the war will only profit the kings. He is publicly humiliated verbally and physically attacked until he weeps. Strong image here of making a logical conclusion, yet having no status to back up the argument. A charismatic speaker is able to speak for those who have no voice which makes their powers of persuasion so compelling.
ReplyDeleteAm I missing the point in that these rhetors and philosophers were trying to use their charisma to climb the pecking order of speakers? Using writing as a suppliment vs. not using writing, what strategies to use or omit? These appear to be the tools of those climbing the order, not of those content with their current order. If we were to stay content with the "way things are" we wouldn't have these theories or other speakers. We would be content with the status of others being enough for them to be an "Authority."
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, charisma does add to a speaker/teacher's performance and authority. Whether or not they are trying to persuade or merely inform, their character or ethos is a big portion of the presentation. If the audience is not informed well enough to see through the rhetorical strategies being used (whether they are fallacies or not) is not the speaker's fault.
I agree with Dave. I don't see rhetoric as being a bad thing at all; in fact, I encourage my students to use rhetorical strategies. If you're attempting to persuade people, I believe you should use everything you have in your disposal, including rhetorical strategies. There is definitely misuse, as history has portrayed, but it is our responsibility to learn how to understand the issue through the rhetoric. Honestly, an uninformed audience scares me more than a gifted rhetor.
ReplyDeleteI see rhetoric without substance to be a problem. Even though I recognize that "substance" may be a somewhat subjective term, I don't believe that saying nothing with flare is the same as saying something--nothing is nothing even if one tries to throw glitter on hot air. I really disagree with the statement that if the listening audience is uninformed the speaker has no moral restraint to keep him from leading them down any primrose path he chooses. This is even more true if the speaker is supposed to be some sort of moral authority. Most societies teach people to trust authority. Manipulation of the trusting by grand words--is it a true art or the cheap trade of the used car salesman? The comment that the great orator can speak for those who have no voice represents a high ideal. The reasons for using persuasion can be many. The speaker can be trying to impress the rhetorical in-crowd and increase his status there (something like preaching to the choir). Otherwise, all audiences are to some degree "uninformed." One frequently becomes a part of an audience, not to hear what he/she al- ready knows well, but to learn about what he/she does not know. I think the moral aspects of the desire to persuade come in at this point. All the forms taught in Conley were the grand social experiments of the day.They used the laboratory of cultures in transition. Some worked, some didn't, and the jury is still out even today on some.
ReplyDelete