One of the first things
that I noticed as being similar between Elder Bednar’s talk and the
conversation between Socrates and Gorgias was the fact that both parties
addressed their audiences. In Elder Bednar’s talk, this helped to establish
pathos with the people listening. He used words such as “us” and “we” and that
helped to create unity among those in attendance and help him more personally
relate, even when being in such a large crowd. People are generally more likely
to listen to someone’s thoughts if they feel a personal connection, and Elder
Bednar established that connection very well. Socrates and Gorgias addressed
the audience in a much different way. Instead of the audience being an integral
part of the conversation (like Elder Bednar created, with the use of “us” and “we”),
the audience was just that: an audience. They were bystanders, listening. At
one point, Socrates’s and Gorgias’s conversation is halted as they recognize
the audience’s presence (see pg. 42, line 458D). This acknowledgment reconnects
the people to the conversation. It is not quite as inclusive as Elder Bednar’s
talk, but it still creates the much-needed unity that creates pathos and
involvement, which encourages people to listen more intently.
The fact that both were addressing crowds is also
important to note, as it creates a need for epideictic rhetoric. In both cases,
they were speaking to motivate and persuade. In Elder Bednar’s talk, he ended
with praise of the character of the audience, the Church, and the Lord.
Socrates continued in questioning (which seems a lot like blaming) Gorgias and
rhetoric in general.
I also found a lot of
similarities in Elder Bednar and Socrates in their search for truth and
knowledge. Several times during both of their speeches, they turn towards the
importance of truth and knowledge when making an appeal. Both focused on the
necessity of having the information and truth before sharing opinions and false
“knowledge.”
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that because Bednar pulled us in as an audience, I was more engaged and receptive to his message. He made us feel like a part of something bigger and important. I found that as I was reading Plato's Gorgias that I felt like I was sitting in on someone's conversation. I was not as engaged, and to be honest, I got bored at times. That is where I feel Socrate's ethos lacked. He did not connect to his audience as much which made his credibility decrease
ReplyDeleteI really appreciated the necessity Bednar and Socrates placed on truth and knowledge. While I was reading in the book, I was really uncomfortable with Gorgias' argument that a rhetorician would be more persuasive about what is healthy than a doctor. Basically stating that someone with no knowledge on subject matter, but superb speaking ability may be more believable than someone who is actually knowledgeable. One way in which we do this today is when we select professors. We often times go to ratemyprofessor.com in search of who is the easiest or most entertaining and not for who has the most experience teaching or something like that. In this scenario we aren't really forfeiting truth, because the entertaining ones aren't less knowledgeable, but it does show how we emphasize and value being entertained. And if we were to apply these reasoning systems to other areas in our lives we set ourselves up to be deceived and forfeit the truth while seeking entertainment.
ReplyDelete