As far as I understand from reading Gorgias, Socrates is weary of rhetoric because of the intent behind it and what he perceives as the fraudulent nature of rhetoricians. He uses a lot of logos, kairos, and ethos to question rhetoric, and appeals to multiple of these rhetoric devices (interesting, he seems to be combating a rhetorician by using rhetoric) by questioning how genuine rhetoricians are because they specialize in rhetoric, not in the subjects of anything they would use rhetoric to present. I don't think that anyone can present or teach anything in a moving and inspiring way that he or she hasn't developed some passion for. Sure, people can pass along facts and figures, unfortunately I've had many teachers who shared a lot of information with us, but they taught us nothing. I feel that Socrates is correct in saying that it is more effective for someone who is passionate about their subject to present it rather than someone who is a good rhetorician but cares nothing about the subject they are trying to get across.
Elder Bednar's speech was, to me, moving. He used kairos, knew his audience, employed great decorum throughout the speech as he made one topic flow to another, as mentioned in Courtney's post, and showed media at great times throughout the presentation. He used great logos and pathos and balanced them out great, he used Ethos as he gave his apostolic warnings and testimony and as he sited former Prophets and Apostles. But I think the thing that made the whole thing inspiring and moving was how he felt about it. I knew that this man was passionate about what he was saying. I knew that he meant what he said, so I listened
differently. I don't think the message that Elder Bednar delivered would have been as effective if it were delivered by anyone else, even the greatest rhetorician in the world.
I also noticed that Socrates was almost using more rhetoric in his arguments against rhetoric than Gorgias used to support it. I guess it goes back to what you said; since Socrates was both passionate and knowledgeable about rhetoric, with the acknowledgment that passion can be both for and against something, he was able to speak against it with more authority. Both the passion and the knowledge of the subject are important. Its kind of like politics; people can be passionate, and they can be knowledgeable, but the only politicians who get anywhere are those that are both.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that because Bednar was passionate and genuine about what he was speaking of, that it was more moving and his call to action was more effective. After I watched his speech I wanted to join the wave of influence over technology and share with everyone the different messages that were used as examples. I also think that Bednar was more influential to me than Socrates was because Bednar's message is more kairotic to today's environment. We are constantly surrounded by, and using technology to interact with society, whereas oral rhetoric is not as much a part of society as it was back when Socrates was alive.
ReplyDelete