Response for Sept. 18, 2007

Last class period, we spent a good amount of time on the McComiskey article. In the article, the author made arguments to why the real Gorgias wouldn’t have answered the way Plato made him. I thought that his article was interesting because he used a tone and language that made it very convincing to me. The question “did Plato really distort sophistic beliefs to suit his own purposes” was presented at the beginning of the discussion. After reflecting on what other classmates had to say, I believe that Plato did distort the beliefs somewhat. For instance in the second claim, Plato gets Gorgias to accept absolute knowledge, however, in real life he would have rejected it because of his beliefs in the senses. The sophists were interested in the action of an audience, and in some ways Plato was too. Plato didn’t just desire truth and absolute knowledge, he was also persuading his audience to accept his views, school of thought, and teachings. I found it interesting that Plato viewed the sophists with such disdain when he himself was using rhetorical devices.
The other article we spent time on was also interesting in that it was very informative into what kairos was. Before reading the article, I had a vague sense of the word from a freshman philosophy class I took. Anyway, I really enjoyed adapting that to the Martin Luther King Jr. speech. I thought it illustrated the importance of anticipating speaking opportunities and of taking advantage of them when they happen. This is a very elementary example, but I have one friend who does not employ kairos. For instance, she talks about any subject at any time to really anyone. She’s not concerned with the timeliness or appropriateness of her speech because she is more interested in just getting attention from others. Basically, she is not in tune with the community needs around her and is more interested in her own voice. Overall, I think that it is important for people to develop good speaking skills because not only are people making judgments about the speaker and the subject, but they are also making judgments about those associated with the speaker and the subject.

Response for Sophist Rhetoric

From our discussion last week, I found the idea of the other interesting. Before this class, I have never heard of the subject of discrimination put that way, but it makes sense because the privileged group makes the minority feel like subcitizens. I thought this idea was also interesting in that it could be applied to rhetoric. For instance, Jarratt comments that rhetoric and women are trivialized by identification with sensuality, costume, and color. Instead of being recognized for its good qualities, rhetoric is only seen superficially and made to be an other by different disciplines.
In addition to the topic of the other, I thought the discussion about women’s writing was interesting. The argument was made that women can write from both genders because they are living in male dominated cultures, and that men can’t. I found that to be somewhat true. While some male writers can get away with employing a feminine persona, there are others who definitely can’t. I think this shines through when a sensitive or sensual scene arises. I am probably being somewhat stereotypical, but it seems that many times male writers don’t handle their female characters with the same tenderness a woman writer might.
Another discussion I thought was interesting was the history on female rhetoricians. Aspasia was particularly fascinating because even though none of her writing survived, she was still able to live on through other people’s writing. She had a great influence and even contributed to speeches made by Pericle’s. However, I don’t find it surprising that none of her writing survived. It seemed that there were enough people that didn’t like her that maybe they wanted to erase the history of her. Or, maybe she didn’t even do her own writing and just contributed to and critiqued the rhetorics of others. Who knows, though, since there are so many possibilities in speculating the past.

Response for 9/4/07

I would like to begin by commenting on The Gorgias by Plato. Like Plato’s other work, I found Socrates to be longwinded and rather boring. I have a feeling that his other listeners did too. For instance, both Polus and Callicles resort to giving Socrates one word or one sentence responses. I know that for others, giving such short answers is usually an indicator that they hope the speaker will hurry up and make their argument. On the topic of arguments, I thought the one Socrates made about pleasure and pain was very interesting. He uses the example of quenching thirst as a pleasurable thing because in it is the absence of pain, and in turn pleasure and pain can’t be present at the same time. I find his argument faulty because to feel pleasure you don’t have to be in pain first. Like it was demonstrated in class, someone could be very happy and then more happiness could come to them. More happiness wasn’t a result of pain, it just occurred.

Departing from Plato’s Gorgias, I would like to comment on Gorgias’ own work the Ecomium to Helen. While at first it appears to be a story about Helen not being responsible, it turns out to be a defense of rhetoric. While if that was the point of Gorgias’ work, we will never know, but John Poulakos makes a great case for it in his essay. Like Poulakos said, Gorgias probably disguised the argument because the art of rhetoric was adopting a bad reputation and the Athenians were intolerant of anything that disrupted their culture. Since his art and profession were under scrutiny, he wanted to find a way to defend it without getting into major trouble. So, he disguised the argument by making rhetoric=Helen. The argument I found most interesting was that the blame shouldn’t be on the art of rhetoric, but instead on the men who use it unwisely. I feel that same line of reason can be adapted to other things. I am probably way out there in my reasoning, but it reminds me of people who don’t take the blame for their own actions when they use something in a manner it wasn’t intended for.

Overall, I think I am understanding rhetoric a little bit better, but there is still a mountain of information that I don’t. I am glad that I was able to lead the discussion on the opening chapter in our text book because I was able to look up a lot of new terms in order to better understand the subject. I thought it was interesting to read how Plato and Aristotle still dominate the modes of thought for the western world when Plato was such a totalitarian. Maybe it’s just me, but I am more attracted to the sophist side. I like how they view values coming from within a person. I also liked how they attempted to get a sense of the community they were addressing. As a technical writer, one of the most basic components in creating a document is to perform an audience analysis. Your document won’t be successful if it isn’t tailored correctly. I also like the sophists because I tend to root for the underdog. In what we have read so far, the culture of the time didn’t accept them. However, I keep crossing my fingers that somehow will see them pull ahead.

The Phaedrus

Reading response: The Phaedrus

I am not ashamed to say that while reading through the Phaedrus I became lost or confused by the language of the speakers. However, after the explanations in class, I feel a lot more confident about the different topics that were being presented by Socrates and Phaedrus. Some times, when reading ancient texts, it is hard to see how they relate to readers now. I felt that there were some interesting points made by Socrates that still hold true in today’s society.
First, I thought his chariot analogy was timeless and could be incorporated into the present. The analogy is about a soul who is driving a chariot with a good horse that stays inline with truths and a bad horse that tries to sway the soul. The soul must then struggle to maintain control over the bad horse in order to allow the good horse to drive him. I think that this analogy still holds true because it centers on human nature. Human nature, I am guessing, hasn’t changed that much over the centuries. Sure, we have evolved, but there was and still is the constant struggle between good and evil that goes on inside of us. It is important for people to maintain control over their “evil” desires so they can maintain a good life. If someone struggles too much with their bad horse, then they miss out on the goodness life has to offer.
A second point I thought still holds true was when Socrates was discussing good speaking skills. Phaedrus was saying how he heard it was a disgrace to write speeches, but Socrates rebuked him saying that the disgrace was in speaking and writing badly. While today people probably don’t think that speech writing is a bad job, it is safe to say that they don’t like listening to an ill-written one. Today, if someone can’t communicate concisely and coherently, they aren’t going to get much praise. For instance, celebrities and politicians are frequently made fun of because of their poor communication skills. The biggest target as of late is President George W. Bush. Much of the American public equates the position of President as someone who is an eloquent speaker. They want someone who will represent them to outside countries as a competent population. Personally, I feel that it is a disgrace that someone in such a high position doesn’t have the necessary public speaking skills.
Overall, I enjoyed the Phaedrus after I got a chance to hear my classmates explain parts of the speeches. I really liked seeing the text brought to life. It gave me a chance to really understand the different aspects in their conversation. For instance, the wordiness and self-assurance of Socrates.