In “Topica”, Aristotle states that “reasoning is a demonstration when it proceeds from premises which are true and primary” (Readings from Classical Rhetoric, 111) – it seems those born with a mandate to speak, and to publish about speaking – those we might agree to call rhetoricians – all want to start from the same “true and primary” place, but they all end up someplace completely different (at least they think they do).
“All [men],” said Aristotle, “up to a certain point, endeavor to criticize or uphold an argument to defend themselves or to accuse” (117). Apparently, then, as now we must ask: Is the “natural” rhetor – born not only with a silver tongue but an inner compass pointing to true North (Kairos) – a “good man” as defined by Quintilian (“Institutio Oratoria,” Readings from Classical Rhetoric, 211)?
Or, is he a man “uninstructed and uncultivated,” who “always prefers utility to moral value” (Cicero, “De Partitione Oratoria, Readings from Classical Rhetoric, 193)?
If the latter is the case, does the man really lack a moral compass, or does his lack of education merely mean that when he speaks out – he lacks “oratory [effect]” (Cicero, “Brutus,” Readings from Classical Rhetoric, 175) to either defend himself or “accuse”?
Through the centuries it seems one of the few things the “Ancients” have been able to agree on is that only men (not women, who don’t count at all, of course) of a certain class can understand the depth of the questions surrounding rhetoric – and whether it is one of the most important arts in the whole of civilization or just a sham created by con artists – of a certain class, of course.
I still don't see how we can possibly equate a moral compass with one's ability to speak, with Hitler being a striking example.
ReplyDeleteI think one who is uninstructed and uncultivated usuallly simply lacks oratory effect. It doesn't mean his thoughts or opinions are less valid; however, our natural instinct is to reject his words.
I agree with your last statement...and I think part of the problem is that the "masses" who "c notould" understand didn't exactly have time to spend pondering the great complexities. They were more concerned about, say, working to feed themselves and their families...
I also wonder how much class plays into the importance that we place upon rhetoric...hmm...
What strikes me is how that judgement imposed on the less eloquent speaker is still present. So many people (the majority of whom could not be familiar with the history of rhetoric as I know I am just now becoming acquainted myself)have their modern reasons for believing that the eloquent man is the smarter, more reasonable man. I think people naturally search for seemingly natural leadership and the ability to form clear, convincing statements is a part of the criteria.
ReplyDeleteI agree that one who may not be able to form his/her thoughts as eloquently as another does not have less valid opinions on a matter, but we've all seen people in a public forum or classroom who stops the flow of a discussion or thought process by struggling to come upon the right phrase at the right time. It gives the impression of floudering, right? How do I know this? I DO IT ALL THE TIME.
The caution of Isocrates and echoed in Cicero, is that the character of the speaker serves as the moral compass. Thus, the ideal orator is not only an accomplished speaker, but also a "virtuous or good man", thus the moral compass. Using isocrates's guidelines, Hitler would never be considered an orator. What does that say of Hitler's audience?
ReplyDelete