Upon reading Harold Barrett’s The Sophists, I can definitely see how the rise of the Sophists and
the birth of Western democracy are very likely closely related. I don’t know if
we ever received an answer to our chicken-and-egg question of which came first
(though it was implied that democracy did come first, or so it sounded like
from the reading), but I can see how the mentality that the Sophists had can be
related to the rise of the first democracies, and even how some of these ideas
can still be seen today in modern democracies.
So I guess I’ll go on a bit here about the Sophists we read
about, and how what they’re remembered for relates to modern
politics/democracy:
First of all, Protagoras.
One of his revolutionary ideas that apparently excited and inspired his
students was that “on every argument there are two sides” (10). I admit, upon
reading that part I was stunned for a moment that such a seemingly obvious idea
could ever be seen as revolutionary. But it seems that arguments before had a
stricter binary of right and wrong, as opposed to Protagoras’s idea that an
argument is where “the ‘truth’ of one side will be tested by the ‘truth’ of the
other” (10). Truth was suddenly no longer seen as iron-solid, but something
that could be shaken by the truth of another. Such is today’s debates – no matter
how many people will try to tell you otherwise, there isn’t really a clear-cut “right”
party and “wrong” party in politics, but two parties pitting their truths
against each other, with the voters left to decide which truth is the most
sensible (or the least twisted, as the case may be).
Which leads to Protagoras’s other idea of “man is the
measure of all things.” Like many during Protagoras’s time, I find his idea a
bit of a struggle to understand – if I saw a tree in the distance that I
mistook for a man, would that mean the tree was temporarily a man? Finer points
aside though, the idea seems to bring about an idea of personal responsibility
that is a necessity for democracy – the voter of today needs to use his
personal senses to understand the reality that surrounds him, and try to figure
out what people/solutions are best for dealing with that reality.
Gorgias,
meanwhile, brought about style to rhetoric – not merely talking at people to
persuade them, but using various appeals to win them to your side. In
particular, mixing pathos with logos and ethos, the skillful use of emotion in
debate. Even simply turning a speech into a work of artistry, using the balance
of words and phrases, or invoking listener response to his pieces (for they
seemed to be considered practically art in his time.) Certainly, we see this
today, not just in political speeches that can invoke anything from stirring
appeals of emotion to catchy, chantable phrases (yes we can), but really in any
form of persuasion such as advertising.
Prodicus seemed
to be a strong advocate for semantics, being able to invoke precise meanings of
words, for Aristotle said he attempted to “assign to every term its own
peculiar significance.” In today’s politics, we see the parallel with our
obsession with every phrase within a speech, especially when an opponent or the
media can get that one soundbite – in or out of context – that can make or
destroy the original argument. I can’t think of any examples of the top of my
head, but I’m sure there are examples too of a single word being up for
questioning of “when he said it, did he mean this or that?”
Hippias – well,
he just sounds like a hoot for one thing, with his pride in all of his handmade
clothes and whatnot. But besides his love of variety and accumulating a wide
array of skills and knowledge, it was apparently his memory that made him stand
out, and his work on developing his students mnemonics and methods of retaining
information. This is a trait less seen in modern society, in the era of
teleprompters, notecards, and hastily scrawling things on the back of your
hand. But there is sometimes a certain derision for politicians, particularly
Obama in the recent years, who do rely on teleprompters in order to perform their
speeches, no matter how fantastic. There seems to be this idea, at least within
certain portions of the media, that if a speech isn’t memorized then it isn’t
truly “from the heart,” but rather simply an orchestrated, possibly deceitful,
argument that exists purely for winning support and no other reason (which
admittedly is the reason of existence behind most/all arguments, but the idea
is that the argument isn’t “from the heart” or worthy of memory seems to give a
more cynical origin. Supposedly. The point is, that perhaps some of the media
implies that it might be a good idea for modern politicians to take note of some
of the mnemonics of old, to perhaps protect themselves from (some) cynical
analysis.
Finally, Thrasymachus.
Like Gorgias, Thrasymachus seemed to focus on the art of delivery,
particularly in the rhythm of the delivery of his rhetoric. As noted earlier,
we see this in today’s rhetoric not only in helping to create emotional or
catchy appeals, but also just to help captivate an audience’s attention.
There is also the originally controversial idea that many of
the Sophists shared, that law is a social construct, rather than natural rules
from human nature itself that all of man feel compelled to obey. The rise of this idea I would say is crucial
for stressing the necessity of democracy, especially as we see it today. If law
were truly only from human nature, then there would be no need to change them,
and to do so would be purely madness. Unfortunately, we still see some who say
changing the laws of old (the original constitution for example) would be
madness. But as society changes, so too must certain laws as they grow quaint
and outdated.
Thus, early Sophism laid much of the groundwork for early
democracy, not only presenting the ideas of why democracy is necessary (how
laws are a human construct, and how truth and reality can vary by person), but
also some of the rhetorical strategies necessary to have debates and convince
others that change is necessary.
Finally, I guess I'll end with my two questions for the class (mainly so I can remember them for tomorrow, haha):
1. Going off of what I said about Hippias, do you think it is necessary to restore memory to current speeches and debates? On one hand, modern politicians have a lot to do and think about during campaign season especially, and I can see how trying to memorize every speech and debate strategy could be a hassle, and no one wants to be stuck on stage when you've forgotten what you want to say. On the other, it seems like modern media is trying to implement a narrative that a politician loses ethos when relying on outside sources (notecards, teleprompters, etc.). Should memorization be included again in modern rhetoric, or is the possible consequences of not memorizing easy enough to ignore?
2. There is still a pervasive idea in society that some laws are simply not meant to be touched (popular examples of today being the 2nd amendment in the constitution, and the idea of "traditional marriage" being disrupted by allowing homosexuals to marry). Do you believe that there is such a thing as an untouchable law, that is perfect the way it is? What is it, and why?
No comments:
Post a Comment