Poetry and Rhetoric

What I was really surprised about while reading Aristotle’s third book of The Rhetoric was how many of the elements he spoke of can be also seen as crucial parts of poetry, and indeed, he compared and contrasted these element to poetry quite a few times. With the exception of Plato hating both of them, I wouldn't think poetry and rhetoric would have much in common. However, Aristotle makes good points about how some of the crucial elements of poetry can be used in rhetoric, though in a different manner.

For example, in chapter eight, Aristotle talks about “prose rhythm,” the rhythm of delivery and finding a structure consistent enough to keep the listener both listening and understanding. Rhythm is also important in poetry, even in free-form, though especially so in more structured forms where syllables for each stanza are carefully measured, but it is a way to engage the listener’s interest in a way that normal speech or dialogue might not.  Now you don’t want that kind of measurement for rhetoric, for as Aristotle says, “prose, then, is to be rhythmical, not metrical, or it will become not prose but verse” (180). However, you want just the right amount of varied rhythm – varied enough for the speech to not become monotonous, similar enough so nothing sounds disjointed. Rhythm in speech, whether it be poetry or rhetoric, helps engage the listener and keeps them actively engaged during the delivery of the performance.

The element that surprised me the most in this book, but one that Aristotle mentioned quite a few times, was the use of metaphors and similes (which he considers to be basically the same) in rhetoric. I would generally consider metaphors, while useful in poetry and literature, too frou-frou for rhetoric; however, Aristotle makes some good points for their rhetorical use. While he does caution in chapters 2 and 3 against metaphors that are non-fitting or unnecessarily poetic (that could confuse or distract the listener), he also considers the metaphor a way to make your language or the spoken subject seem more impressive (Ch. 6), an important part of clever sayings (Ch. 10), and crucial to allowing your listeners/readers be able to see what is being discussed (Ch. 11). 

I'm actually taking a creative writing class this semester (the intro class, an experienced or skilled creative writer, I am not), so since that class is on our poetry section, it's interesting to compare and contrast how Aristotle speaks of metaphors in ancient rhetoric vs. how it's spoken of today in my creative writing class. Besides the obvious of how poetry is, in it's nature, preformed more artistically than rhetoric (in its vividness and use of abstraction), I feel that a main difference between poetry and rhetoric is that poetry's main purpose isn't necessarily to convince, but perhaps more of to make us think? Rhetoric tries to convince us of a specific point, while poetry is an illustration of a point, but I feel that generally poetry isn't used to drive a purpose home but to get us to consider something. 

It brings me back to our discussion of "is there such thing as communication that is not rhetorical in some aspect." I almost feel that poetry can apply for that, for while stories often have a point or moral, a poem doesn't necessarily have to, and often doesn't, but is pure abstraction. Not to say that a poem can't serve any rhetorical purposes, there are poems, good poems, that serve a larger purpose to make the reader see something from the writer's eyes (to do as Aristotle says, make the listener see the argument), but there are other poems that I'm pretty sure are simply pure abstractions. We've talked before about writing poems that even the writer doesn't necessarily understand what they're writing or why they're writing in, and will accept almost any interpretation of it. Thus it is inherently not rhetorical since the author is not trying to achieve a specific goal. I'd definitely love to hear any counter-arguments to that point though. 

Questions:

1. Do you think poems can be considered largely rhetorical or non-rhetorical? 

2. What do you think about poetic strategies in rhetoric? For example, the use of metaphors or Aristotle's suggestions of, "describe a thing instead of naming it: do not say 'circle' but 'that surface which extends equally from the middle every way'" (176), and "when mentioning anything ugly or unseemly,  use its name if it is the description that is ugly, and describe it if it is the name that is ugly" (177). Do you think they are good strategies for helping the audience see/understand your point, or too evasive and likely to be misused for deceptive purposes?

Aristotelian Argument - Example

So while browsing YouTube for some mood music to help pump me up to get the rest of my homework done, this video showed up in my recommended list. I had a feeling it would turn out to be relevant to our reading, and decided to watch.

Besides the interesting conversation we could have about the apparently very broad use of rhetoric big corporations use to reach an audience without the consumer even being aware of potential hypocrisies connected to their favorite brands, the reason it reminded me of our current Aristotle reading is I found it reminiscent to what Aristotle said about how to prove your opponent as unkind: "[w]e can also see how to eliminate the idea of kindness and make our opponents appear unkind: we may maintain that they are being or have been helpful simply to promote their own interest" (112). Here, the speaker is taking companies, brands, or campaigns that might be seen as respectable, and pointing out that they are also connected to companies/brands/campaigns that are less respectable or just polar opposite to the first, the drawn conclusion being that these companies don't care about their consumers, no matter how noble or caring their message or goal might seem, their work is just one of many ways to get money out of us. Thus, the speaker is able to use an Aristotelian form of rhetoric to turn these companies from seemingly kind to seemingly unkind.

Aristotle, The Rhetoric, Book I

It's interesting to compare and contrast Aristotle's views to the views we saw in Plato's works. Whether the views we see from Aristotle were thoughts Plato encouraged in later years, cultivated by an outside source, or developed purely by Aristotle himself, there are definitely distinct differences between what we read in Plato and what we've read in this first portion of Aristotle. 

The main difference is Aristotle's opinion of rhetoric. In Phaedrus, we did see some hints of "rhetoric might be okay, sometimes, maybe," but otherwise Plato was not too keen on it. Meanwhile, Aristotle has written apparently quite a bit supporting rhetoric, and supporting aspects of rhetoric that Plato would loathe. Plato would want discourse to be strictly academic and calm, but Aristotle seems to have a better understanding of human emotion, and how a strategic use of the various modes of persuasion can move people more effectively than a strictly academic argument. 

However, like Plato, Aristotle seems to hold rhetoric to a very high standard. He sees it as a way of defending truth from those that might obscure it, saying that what is true and just naturally stands out from what is not, so if something that is untrue wins over something that is true, it must be the fault of the speaker (22). Aristotle states that not being able to defend yourself with speech and reason as shameful, if not more so, than being able to defend yourself with your limbs (23). I think Plato and Aristotle would think alike on this, the main difference being one preferring the dialectic form of discourse while Aristotle is a fan or rhetoric. 

Also like Plato, Aristotle also seems to be not a fan of the sophists; the sophists so far have been only briefly mentioned, but it did not seem that Aristotle approved of them. You would think that with his support of rhetoric that he would welcome them, but it appears that, if I understand correctly, that sophists always are trying to achieve a moral purpose but might not take the same intellectual and knowledgeable route as a rhetorician (24). My guess is that because of this, Aristotle sees the sophist as more prone to deceit. 

I say this partially because this reading is vastly different from what I've seen so far when looking at the sophists. It seems that the main difference between Aristotle and the Sophists is the consideration of audience. It seems to me that the Sophists are more concerned on simply getting people to react in appropriate ways using the various appeals, but Aristotle wants to get understanding audience down to an exact science. Reading this text much of the time felt a lot like a text on psychology, for Aristotle was very concerned on what the masses would think and what would drive them to think or act. It's like Aristotle has taken the work the early sophists did, but has run with it and gone way deeper. 

Like Plato, Aristotle also seems to assign a deep moral meaning to rhetoric, with all of his talk on human nature, as well as going deep into what is good and just, and degrees between good, bad, and excessive. I'm definitely curious to see where Aristotle will take us, since it seems much of the next book also focuses on human character, rather than be a straight guidebook of "yo, this is how to get people to listen to you." I definitely wasn't expecting this level of psychological introspection from Aristotle, who I always heard was a big math/logic/science-y guy. 

Questions:

1. Do you think a deep understanding of social psychology is, as Aristotle seems to imply, necessary for rhetoric? Should it be necessary for rhetoric? Is understanding happiness and motive for example a necessity, or is a basic understanding of "what makes people tick" enough?

2. What do you think of Aristotle's idea of "things that are true and things that are just have a natural tendency to prevail over their opposites" (22)? Do you think this is largely true, or hopelessly naive? Are there specific subjects where this is more/less true?  

Phaedrus (39-68)

So around page 39, the tone of the dialogue shifts abruptly from “let’s use a metaphor of love to talk about seeking and conveying wisdom” to “let’s go straight up into rhetoric.” Towards the end of the dialogue, we also get into what Socrates thinks rhetoric is (or rather, should be), and also why he has disdain for the execution of speech and rhetoric as he knows it. 

One of the most interesting lines of the dialogue, I thought, was when Socrates called the power of speech “a leading of the soul,” (58) it makes sense, but I never thought of it like that.  We saw earlier in the text how serious a matter Plato considers the soul, so it makes sense that Socrates later gets into what he thinks an orator should be and just how serious a job it would be (56-58).

It seems that Socrates’ main criticism with speech and rhetoric is that the focus seems to be not on the truth itself, but on convincing others: “for, they say, in the law-courts no one cares in the slightest for truth about these things but only for what is convincing; and what is convincing is what is probable, which is what the person who means to speak scientifically must pay attention to” (59). The main point that Socrates seems to be making about speech in rhetoric in the last pages of the dialogue is that they are not about the science of delivering truth in a manner than any person can follow, but merely the science of being convincing to anyone.

Overall, I found Plato’s high, if unmet, standards for rhetoricians interesting, and I can’t help but wonder what it be like if they were actually applied to the rhetoric we see today. I’d call a lot of today’s rhetoricians, at least in U.S. culture, hardly advocates of truth and justice, but rather bordering on completely shameless in their quest to be convincing. Whether its politics or advertising, rhetoric is less about getting the facts out, and more about saying what you need to in order to convince. Advertisers for example will utilize sex and personal insecurities for the sake of sales -- beauty ads, anyone? Then we have the politicians who will take advantage of people’s real struggles to emphasize that they’re good. For example, in Rod Blagojevich’s impeachment speech, he had several supposedly less fortunate people that supposedly benefited from his actions as governor stand behind him for rhetorical impact (introduction of them starts at 5:45). Even President Obama, I have no specific videos, but if I remember correctly he will often tell stories of specific people he’s met for rhetoric impact. And pretty much all politicians wants that golden photoshoot of them helping the homeless or chillaxing in a bar and drinking beer with the "regular people," in order to make them look honorable or like a cool person.    Politics and advertising are only the surface of the debatably dishonest means that can be gone through to get a point or create an image; it can be applied to celebrity culture, news and opinion, law, and even job hunters who will doctor their resume or fudge answers to interview questions or those personality/scenario quizzes given. Even in class scenarios here at WSU, I've gotten frustrated with group members, whether we’re writing memos or advertising materials, who are often eager to ignore or hide the truth in order to further our agenda, which always feels frustratingly dishonest to me. However, such is the definition that rhetoric shaped as: primarily about convincing a large population. I have no problem with advertising, speeches, or two sides debating individual points, I just wish honesty was more largely emphasized in rhetoric. 

Questions:

1. What level of dishonesty would you be willing to engage in so that you can convince someone of something? Especially if it involves say advertising or a grade, an issue that might cause real consequences if your agenda isn’t achieved. Would you lie? Would you bring up examples that accent your point and ignore others that would take away from it? Would you just frame the not necessarily positive truth in a more appealing light? Or could you tell the complete and honest truth?

2. How different do you think society would be if rhetoricians were truly advocates of truth? Do you think there are any areas in society today where rhetoric is purely (or even mostly) used for delivering truth?

Phaedrus Introduction

Well, there's only so much that can come out of reading simply the introduction but it does give an idea of what the following dialogues will hold:

One thing I found interesting is that it seems there will be a difference in tones between Gorgias and what seems like will occur in Phaedrus. In the introduction, it says, of Socrates that, "on this occasion with Phaedrus, circumstances contrive to make him take the role on, and - as he says - his speech is 'forced to use somewhat poetical language because of Phaedrus'" (xix).   

At first I was surprised by this, because I certainly know Plato hates poets, and I wouldn't say Socrates' normal style that I've seen from Gorgias and other readings I've had from Plato involves poetical language. His usual style seems to be the one we saw in Gorgias: Primarily question-and-answer with the occasional longer speech, all the language being relatively simple and to-the-point. 

However, an important part of any rhetoric is knowing your audience, and from what I’ve gathered so far of the exuberant nature of Phaedrus, poetical language seems more suiting when engaging with a dialogue with him, or at the very least, mimicking the style of the speaker Phaedrus just saw will be more likely to keep his attention. Again, it’s hard to say much with certainty without reading beyond the introduction, but I predict that the nature of Phaedrus will be different enough from Gorgias/Polus/Callicles where this different style of dialogue may seem like a necessary choice for this opponent.

It’s an odd move for Socrates though, who prides himself for telling things straight (xix). For someone who doesn’t approve of the orators he debated against in the previous reading, changing your oratory style to match with your opponent or audience is the move of a rhetorically aware person. It actually seems a bit hypocritical for him to earlier call himself pretty much the one true statesman if he too is capable of conforming himself, or “pandering,” to an audience, in this case, Phaedrus. Thus occurs the dilemma we’ve discussed in class: for someone who is so against the Sophists and oratory, Plato and/or Socrates were actually, whether they knew it or not, quite brilliant in what they supposedly despised.

Questions:

1. Since Plato is obviously against the idea of oratory, do you think it’s hypocritical of him use moves that are clearly rhetorical in nature? Or do you think Plato had a different idea of oratory that is sufficiently different from the Sophists but still employs similar rhetorical strategies?

2. Do you think it’s possible to make a convincing argument without using rhetorical strategies or pandering in any way to your audience? 

Connections between Politicians, Morality, Happiness, and General Efficiency

In the first two dialogues that take place in Plato’s Gorgias, questions are raised about what role an orator plays, followed by questions about the responsibilities and morality of those in power, the orator, whether it is greater to be wronged against or cause wrong, and whether orators are responsible when a student or listener is lead astray by them.

I found the dialogue with Polus particularly interesting, particularly Socrates’ idea that the wrongdoer is more miserable than the wronged, especially if the wrongdoer is never punished. It pretty much took the entire length of Polus’s section of the dialogue to understand what the blazes Socrates was thinking with his premise, but I do agree that, in an odd way, there is some sense to it. While I am not an active wrongdoer myself (or at least, I certainly hope not), I can understand what Socrates means by the prolonged stress of avoiding punishment may be worse than the punishment itself. The parallel I face is more along the lines of the many times when I’ve avoided doing something out of fear or laziness (say homework, or calling someone), but when I finally got around to doing it, it turns out the fear or stress I put myself through was far worse than the thing I was avoiding. That seems to be the crux of Socrates’ argument for how a wrongdoer will suffer more than the wronged, for at least the wronged is also just in his suffering. I do question Socrates’ argument in the sense that it ignores the possibility of sociopaths who may truly have no knowledge or caring of the fact that they are doing anything wrong, but for the most part, I actually can see where he/Plato comes from.

Now to keep with my blog’s current theme of tying in rhetoric of the past with current politics:

Today’s equivalent of the orators of the past seem to be primarily advertisers and politicians. In the first dialogue with Gorgias, Socrates and Gorgias agree that the target audience for orators are largely the masses, rather than a specialist audience. And like the orators of the past, the primary aim of the two mentioned groups, politicians and advertisers, is to persuade, whether the point of persuasion is exactly “right” or not.

However, a similar problem exists in both of these fields: people are largely not held accountable for untruths or wrongs that are spread to the masses. That is not to say that they are without responsibility – advertised products do have to meet at least certain safety standards, and if caught, politicians have to deal with scandals and possibly eventually having to step out of office. But often it seems that the more powerful the party, the less likely they are to face the same consequence as if a non-powerful person committed the same crime.

Now to focus primarily on the politician, because that seems to be the closer parallel to the orator of the past: In U.S. politics today, it is difficult to be successful in politics without lying at least a little. One of the problems with the two party system as it exists today is that the box for each party is growing tighter and tighter as it seems people grow less likely to accept compromise. The problem is that people don’t generally think in exact boxes, but to get elected and to be successful, a politician has to pretend that they do. Between that and the obsession of staying elected, that seems to count for some of the epic flip-flops that made from government officials.

There is also the matter of happiness of the people. While the role of congressmen and senators and the like is to act as a mouthpiece for the will of the people, the happiness rate with the government seems to imply other things. A gallup poll conducted in early 2014 rates the approval of congress at 13%.  This is actually an improvement over an all-time low of 9% in November 2013, a month after the government shutdown. But the point is, with happiness ratings so low, a non-sociopathic politician would feel that the people are being wronged by their actions.

However, politicians are barely held accountable for this. Scandals are rather common among government officials, but upon being caught the punishment usually ranges from a few days/weeks of annoying media coverage to maybe actually having to step down from office, but rarely criminal charges. As for the general efficiency of our current government and the people who are being harmed by it, many people have accepted bickering, gridlock, ignorance, and nothing useful being accomplished as “business as usual” in Washington D.C.

Here lies the scenario I’m clumsily trying to lay out:

A) U.S. Politicians are vaguely attempting to function in a broken system.
B) Because the system is broken, very little that is good gets accomplished.
C) A non-ignorant, non-sociopathic politician (though I will accept that it is debatable if one exists) would realize that the people they were sent to represent are being wronged by the lack of good coming from them.
D) A politician may be miserable because of this, also assuming that they haven’t --
E) somehow gone mad with power somewhere, and are doing any activities that they would like to avoid finding out, which adds additional stress/shame/misery.
F) Misery brings the morale at the center of operations to a low, which leads to --
G) Nothing being done, and the cycle continuing forever. 

In conclusion, using Socrates’ argument I can make this argument for accountability of politicians in Washington D.C. Not only is it generally a good idea to keep an eye on people who sort of have power over us, but also for the sake of creating a not-completely-miserable work environment so that maybe something can get done.

My questions:

1) In terms of the tyrant especially, do you think that Socrates is right when he says that the wrongdoer is more miserable than the wronged? Why or why not?

2)Socrates says that the orator is a sort of pandering, a false equivalent to truth and righteousness, like how cookery can be a poor replacement for medicine, or beauty-culture a poor replacement for physical training (32-33). If the politician is the modern day equivalent to the orator of the past, what would be the modern-day, better alternative (in Plato's mind) to the politician? Would it still be justice, or something else?

The Effects of Early Sophism on Modern Democracy

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?