Face to Face Battle and a little Irony

Sophists vs. Socrates

Socrates was very straightforward about what points he disagreed on with the Sophists. He mentions that speech was used by Sophists to misguide people. For example making large things seem small and small things seem large. Also using figurative language to embellish speech as establish false credibility. This for the purpose of leading people towards a certain agenda. Socrates saw this as problematic because it only grazed the surface of what rhetoric really was. In Plato's Phaedrus we learn that Socrates believed that it was essential for dialectic to come before rhetoric so as to establish grounds on reality. When a rhetorician overlooked the importance of dialectic or simply avoided it, they were enabled to stretch facts and use shallow tactics to influence people. True rhetoric allows for knowledge to be obtained before persuasion is used. According to Socrates, Rhetoric without Dialectic was just deception and he makes it clear that he disapproves of the style of “rhetoric” that Gorgias and other rhetoricians of the day used.

If the real Georgius were to respond to how he was portrayed, I don't think it would be what would normally be expected from someone who receives criticism. What I think we would expect would be for Georgius to be offended and try to offer some sort of reconciliation for his beliefs and manner of living. Rather, I think that he would simply continue on using his way of rhetoric to persuade people that there is nothing wrong with what he is doing. He may even ironically say something to the effect of “It really is no big deal to make something small out of something large, we get caught up in the details of things anyway.” This obviously demonstrating the fundamental difference between Socrates and Gorgias. Where Socrates would search for reality and dig for deeper understanding, Gorgias would continue superficially persuading others.

Medium and Message

At the present time I am seeking for words to describe what is going on in my head. I am staring at a paragraph of words that define a prompt for me to respond to in written for in order to demonstrate to my instructor that I know the material that has been presented in class. I use a given set of letters combined in such a way that makes a sentence, something that I can see then translate in my head into something that I can cognitively understand. I rearrange these letters in a miraculous manner in order to show in a visual manner what is going on inside my head. This is recorded and set in stone (should I choose to submit it of course) and classified as what was going on in my head as a result of the prompt that was given to me.

Ironically what I am currently doing is a perfect representation of how writing and the creation of an alphabet changed Greek thought. Through oral communication there is no record of what is said. Ideas are cast into thin air only to fall upon deaf ears or ears that are open and listening, ready to internalize that which passes through. This allows for a different thought process to be conducted. One where ideas are developed as they pass through the mouth of the orator. When writing was introduced into greek culture, ideas that at one time were developed questioned were recorded and limited by what the author's intentions. The thought process similar to the one above was developed and, should I dare say it, greeks and generations following to this day became and are now limited in thinking. Although the development of an alphabet and writing has allowed civilizations to grow and flourish, it has lowered the capacity of thought that is contained within a given individual. Isn't it ironic that the very thing that has limited our capacity of thought has become the key medium of exchange of thought in our lives?

Midterm Essays

Prompt 5 - Politics and Rhetoric

In Ancient Greece, politics required rhetoric. The government was run by the people and completely depended on leaders’ and citizens’ ability to persuade one another to rally to one side or another and vote for specific leaders and laws. In a predominantly oral culture, people had to know how to plead their cause in a strategic way especially by taking into account the branches of oratory, the Canons of rhetoric and the different schools of thought that they most identified with.

When we really think about it, politics is just made up of different perceptions of people and the world around us. Governments run a certain way because people believe, or at least once believed, that that way would be most compatible with human nature to form an effective society.

In Ancient Greece, unlike today, there wasn’t extensive research to back up political agendas. People had to take an idea, for instance the Socratic concept of idealism, and then look to the past to see what was done justly or unjustly without idealism (judicial); look to the future to see if idealism would be advantageous or disadvantageous to society (deliberative); and then present it at a kairotic time while raising it up as a virtuous cause and perhaps blaming or praising members of society who had or hadn’t implemented it and either succeeded or failed as a result to solidify its validity (epideictic). In communicating a proposal relating to idealism, one would have to go through all stages of the Canons of rhetoric by inventing a political idea, carefully arranging it, crafting it stylistically, finding ways to make it memorable for themselves and others, and finally delivering it to the people using their rhetorical strategy.

I honestly don’t think that it’s too bold to say that rhetoric was the essential cornerstone of the creation of government and political ideals in Ancient Greece. 

Prompt 4 - Medium and Message

Socrates was a leader in philosophy and thought in the way that he encouraged deep thought processes. As I thought about the way that he discouraged writing for its tendency to decontextualize ideas, I realized that his intentions must have been different than his fellow philosophers, Plato and Aristotle, who wanted to record and spread their ideas in order to implement a certain idealism in society. What Socrates wanted to elicit was the actual act of thinking—digging deeper to reflect on life and to question what and why things happen. His primary medium of communication was oral dialogue, especially one-on-one.

One-on-one oral communication was vital to his philosophy as he worked with mentees by having reflective, logical conversations with them. By abstaining from writing and other methods of recording, he eliminated distractions from the raw thought. He went further than considering what was true and introduced the concept that perhaps there are few things that we can really prove absolutely. So, we have to connect with ourselves and truly ask: what is moral and right? In talking this all out, he used syllogism to put a little bit of a form to thoughts so that they could be considered through a logical process.

Further, structuring ideas in this pattern allowed them to be more memorable. Even though he opposed writing, he encouraged acquiring knowledge by committing it to memory. It seems as though this were a sort of process: have a reflective conversation about an idea, think about it deeply, verbalize it structurally and then commit it to memory. This not only encouraged Socrates’ own beliefs for effective pondering, but set the groundwork for future philosophizing in a more concrete way than ever before.

Mediums & Politics

Midterm Essays

#4

The coming of written literacy to the Greeks opened up a whole new world to them.  When previously speeches and conversations and ideas had to be recalled from memory, they could now be recorded in a way that allowed them to be accessed and revisited more thoroughly.  In addition, these texts or transcripts could be lent out, or distributed to others that did not hear the original vocalization of ideas.  Not only could ideas and information now be spread at a faster pace, but the ideas about rhetoric and writing began to change as more people had access to this type of material over the one-on-one speeches given once in one place.  Questions arose as to whether or not this form of communication and recording was ultimately beneficial or harmful.

Plato approved; he saw the potential writing had to communicate to the masses ideas that could improve their lives.  When he saw people who could read and write, but did not know Forms, he turned to writing as a way to open their eyes to their lack of knowledge.  What I find interesting is that Plato’s approval and promotion of writing had a high probability of being accepted by the majority, particularly because he was reaching and addressing the majority.  Those, like Socrates, who opposed written rhetoric and favored verbal methods instead, were conveying that opinion through speech, and therefore would not have been able to reach the sheer number of people who would be using and reading written material by someone like Plato.  The written word was bound to win out.

#5

In ancient Greece, success and influence were heavily tied to the ability to persuade others towards your opinion, but much more so for those involved in politics. The political scene was heavily watched and was a large focus for the Greeks, as well as being very open, where supposedly any young man over the age of eighteen could speak at assemblies of thousands of voters. There was a great need for training in strengthening one's own weak arguments and weakening opposing strong arguments, in particular for those who wished to move up in the ranks of politics and hold a leadership position among the people. Even those who did not aspire for such positions still could use the art of persuasion to sway others towards or away from topics they thought were beneficial or harmful, respectively. 

Rhetoric in politics changed with the move towards written literacy, as now those who were not great speakers could hire others to simply write speeches for them. They would still have to be skilled in memory and delivery, but they could skip the training necessary for studying the art of persuasion and instead rely on the written word. Where methods of speech were once everything, writing in rhetoric changed the political scene as to who could participate; if you were a Moses, you'd just hire an Aaron and be set for the election. We see the same need for strong rhetoric in our political system today: we want someone well-versed, logical, with good authority, and human with an emotional appeal. These attributes were prized then, and have continued into what we call our democracy today.

1. The Irrational
How is Greek drama (specifically, Euripides) a way of dealing with the irrationality of life?

Euripides was a genius of his time in relation to Greek drama.  Much of what he did helped people to recognize just how unfair life can be.  My focus with Euripides is on a topic to which I personally connect with because of his decision to use something so important at a time where it was very unpopular.  He showed a lot of sympathy toward society and its’ victims- but I especially loved how he reached out to the audience of women.  Now, excuse me as I get on my women equality soap box for a moment and focus on the great deed Euripides did by choosing to focus on women.  It may seem like he didn’t understand decorum- his audience probably being made up of mostly males in a male dominate society.

In my life I have come across and studied some ancient literature including scripture, stories, and plays.  It seems that so often it is only the men who are the main characters- the heroes, the villains, and those who receive the most focus.  Yes, I can relate in some ways to them, but it is another realm of connection when the woman is the hero, that her role of being a mother or wife is just as difficult if not harder than what these men going off to war must encounter.  By allowing women to be the more important or popular characters- especially in such a time in ancient Greece where women heroes were almost unheard of- he passive aggressively helped the women recognize their importance in society.  He also called attention to the men, calling for them take a step down off of their high horse and have more respect for the women.  No, obviously gender equality issues were not solved and still exist today- but Euripides helped create (or added to) a ripple effect that has strengthened and helped ignite women for centuries.

3. Homer and Rhetoric
Homer was not a rhetorician, and the Iliad or The Odyssey are not rhetorical treatises. Why, then, is Home so significant to the history of rhetoric?

 The stories of Homer are some of the most well-known, thoroughly studied stories passed through time, coming second to the stories of the bible.  They influenced all types of people and even helped shape the history of rhetoric.  Although his works were not technically rhetorical treatises, Homer was able to emotionally connect his audience with his stories through his themes.  The very purpose of rhetoric is the art of persuasion- to persuade the audience emotionally to change or develop an attitude more strongly than they currently felt. The stories Homer wrote, like the Iliad and the Odyssey, are filled with timeless themes that ignite a similar feeling.

One example of the power of his connectable themes is the obligation of men to their leaders.  In the Iliad, the leader Odysseus tears down on Thersites- a common soldier- for stepping out of place and speaking when he had no authority.  With this, Homer writes so even the readers feel inferior to the great Odysseus and remember where they stand in society.  It causes many to contemplate whether or not they stepping out of place?  He continues throughout the story with other powerful themes such as the pride of man.  The destructive influence of pride and how selfish the characters are being is almost tangible.  A reader cannot help but question their own motives behind their actions.  Isn't that exactly what rhetoricians want? To move their audience to really listen and be touched to the point of persuasion.  Homer planted this power of themes and many other seeds for rhetoricians to develop from.  He, although not a rhetorician, is a part of shaping rhetorical history.

The Medium is the Message

#4

 When a system for writing was created and used, the way Greeks thought was changed substantially. Thoughts are not simply words spoken in one's brain, but rather ideas and images, sounds and sights. While words are often effective at communication one's thoughts, they are not perfect at translating thought to word. Quite often, what is thought varies from what is said or written, thus there are discrepancies and miscommunication. I would suggest that there are two different types of thinking, one in which we do actually think in words, and one more organic type, where thinking is in its purest form, without the use of words. 

As literacy became more widespread, and the Greeks had begun analyzing words and writing to persuade and influence, there was need to hone one’s ability to turn thoughts into words, as well as the ability to do it more effectively. Because writing was so important to pass on information and history, it was needful to skillfully and effectively communicate through the written language. Thus, the Socratic mindset was born. Socratics analyzed several important components of the written and spoken word and created theories as to what is more effective and persuasive. These tools varied based on the medium. For example, one’s style in the spoken word often varies substantially from the writing of, say, a professional paper. Similarly, Socratics were the first to recognize and analyze how the medium of a message alters that message itself.

#5

In ancient Greeks, democracy was much different than it is today, specifically in America. While Americans nowadays are able to receive voter information and candidate viewpoints written in the mail, in ancient Greece, everything was communicated orally. Thus speech was incredibly important in the lives of the Greeks. One of their most important ideals was that speech was incredibly powerful - it was even once referred to as a drug in Gorgias’ encomium of Helen – so powerful, they believed, that whoever possessed the ability to use rhetoric effectively, possessed the ability to control the minds of the people.

Of course speech is still effective today, however, in ancient Greece, one who could speak effectively and understand speech had the upper hand on those who couldn’t. In a political sense, they were the ones who were voted for, they were the ones who performed speeches in front of throngs of intelligent voters (back then only the educated and wealthy could vote). Politics changed substantially as the Socratics began analyzing speech and writing, and discovering its rhetorical qualities. Politicians could then study how to be more persuasive, rather than learning from trial and error, and listeners who studied rhetoric were no longer as naïve, falling for the speech, not necessarily the speaker. All in all, the study of rhetoric changed Greek politics forever.

Midterm Essays

Sophists vs. Socratics
What did Socrates find wrong with rhetoric and rhetoricians? How would the real Gorgias respond to how Gorgias was portrayed in the dialogue by Plato/Socrates?

     The Sophists and the Socratics were two major groups of thinkers at the beginning of the age of rationality. Despite emerging in the same culture, they had conflicting viewpoints on knowledge, rhetoric, and even the meaning of truth itself, and they did not often see eye to eye.
     Socrates and his followers were proponents of an absolute Truth, one that was perhaps higher and purer than the truth that we encounter and observe on a daily basis, and one which the soul of a noble man is constantly engaged in pursuing. They contended that all things, whether it be a person, a house, or a sword, are simply our mortal approximations of the ideal version, which exists independent in a different realm. The Socratics would subscribe to the idea promoted in our own Doctrine and Covenants 93:30. which states that "all truth is independent in [its] sphere." The striving to come closer to that truth, and perhaps venture to imitate it more fully, was considered the most noble pursuit of life, and the end goal of all philosophy.
     This can be clearly contrasted with the views of the Sophists, Socrates' main rivals. These thinkers subscribed to the idea that perhaps there was absolute truth, perhaps there wasn't, but it was our task to make the best use of what we have, either way. As opposed to Socrates' more moral take on the world, the Sophists were a pragmatic group, and would be accused of by Socrates as not attempting to represent truth, but as attempting to sway the opinions of men through dishonest means. Socrates saw them as self-promoting, pretending that to give a good speech and convince a crowd was the goal of philosophy.
     Regarding Gorgias' opinion of his own portrayal in Socratic works, I cannot help but imagine that he would be offended. Here was an accomplished speaker, I'm sure very proud of his own prowess, as can be seen in his Encomium of Helen, and he was portrayed as a knavish learner at the feet of a man whose thinking he probably considered seriously flawed. I believe that Gorgias would have had something to say about it, and it probably wouldn't have been an encomium.

Politics and Rhetoric
What is the relationship between politics and rhetoric in ancient Greece?

Rhetoric was an important part of Greek politics, as it has been in every political system, especially democratic ones, since the world began. As Isocrates would point out, rhetoric is an important building block of human civilization, as if we cannot communicate and convince each other to act in certain beneficial ways, it would be impossible to create the systems of laws, culture, and infrastructure that make up our modern human civilization. This is true today, and it was no different in the cradle of democracy.
I think that an excellent example we have covered in class about the importance of rhetoric in Greek government was Pericles' funeral speech. One of the most important factors in the victory of a democracy at war is the ability of its people to keep heart and continue the fight, despite setbacks. While in a monarchy, the power of the king will keep his subject fighting until long after they would otherwise have given up, war weariness has historically been a classic ailment of a democracy at war (for better or for worse.) At the time of Pericles' oration, this was a serious danger. The Athenian forces had just suffered a major setback, and it would have been easy for them to lose heart and surrender. This speech caused their defeat to have the opposite effect. Rather than be ready to surrender, they were ready to fight on, for Athens, for the culture and land that they loved! This was a critical function of rhetoric.
There are many other examples, such as Agamemnon's ploy in the Iliad, or the events of Electra (I'm sure that the rhetoric that got the queen killed was fairly influential in that government!) but it is clear that in any civilization, and especially a democratic Athens, rhetoric is key to politics. The Greek roots of the word "politics" mean "relating to the citizens", and nothing could relate to them more than swaying them to believe and do your wishes through words and speech.

The Heartwarming Content of this Post Cannot be Encapsulated in Just a Title - By Kekoa Riggin

1. The Irrational

How is Greek drama (specifically, Euripides) a way of dealing with 

the irrationality of life?

Greek drama is famous, really, for two different categories of theater. Most students will at least be familiar with comedy and tragedy, even though, I wouldn’t judge if they didn’t know much else. These types of drama helped citizens of ancient Greece deal with the irrationality of life by simplifying the complex and difficult lessons that one will learn during the duration of their own life. What I have noticed, especially in the case of Euripides, is that Greek drama often oversimplifies these complex topics resulting in some resolutions that are difficult to swallow or even just plain laughable.

The main purpose of the Greek tragedy was to show the Greeks how they should act, or, probably more accurately, not act. The drama would start with a hero who exemplified some mighty character trait. Over time the hero would develop or begin to show his tragic flaw, most likely hubris, and begin on the path of anagnorisis. As the retold stories become more realistic, they also become more complex. Eventually, some tragic dramas got so complex that the only solution was divine intervention in the form of deus ex machina. Unfortunately, in an attempt to explain the mysteries of life, this divine intervention leaves most people wondering, “Why doesn’t Zeus appear to me and solve my problems?” Euripides has even been criticized for making a joke of deus ex machina.

Perhaps unbeknownst to the world, where Euripides really excels is in his comedic theater. The whole purpose of Greek comedy is to criticize and make fun of real people, events, or ideas. Even when Euripides’ work is consider tragic, you have to wonder if the flaw he was trying to show was really a type of hubris or if he meant to show the flaws of tragedy itself. I, for one, have never been able to solve any of my personal problems with deus ex machina. I think Euripides considered the machine to be reducto ad absurdum (a reduction to absurdity). A solution like that couldn’t possibly work for me because it’s just so oversimplified!

The Greeks used simplification to help themselves understand the irrationality of life, which worked to a large extent. But when it didn’t, Euripides used oversimplification to show the irrationality of simplification.

2. Homer and Rhetoric

Homer was not a rhetorician, and the Iliad or The Odyssey are not rhetorical treatises. Why, then, is Home so significant to the history of rhetoric?

The epic poetry written by Homer has been included as a significant part of the study of classic rhetoric for decades or further. Although Homer’s work does not fall under the same categories as most of the rhetorical material of his contemporaries, his works serve the same purpose as any of the rhetorical treatises: to persuade. His writings take the form of leisurely entertainment, but perhaps this choice of delivery actually make Homer the most effective of Greek rhetorical minds.

Homer was able to have his voice heard by many not only in modern study of rhetoric, but by the people of his time who had no interest in rhetoric. His stories related to those who heard them because they featured common themes, events, and characters, but his strong underlying motifs provided introspection for the individual (much like the rhetoricians of ancient Greece) AND a certain amount of social moral consideration.

In a time when the strengths of war were considered virtuous - when strength, anger, and the ability to kill were among the highest honors a man could have -, Homer used tragedy to question where true virtue and honor should lie. The characters of the Iliad are constantly choosing kleos over their friends and family, and with each decision they make, the tension of impending doom pulls at the heart strings of those who hear the story. In the Odyssey, Homer shows how wit and cleverness can be more powerful than the martial arts at their own game, subliminally showing listeners that the common perception of arête is critically flawed. These two examples, extracted from a long list of possibles, serve to show how Homer utilizes different rhetorical techniques to persuade (pathos and logos).

In short, Homer may not be a rhetorician by trade or title, but by their works ye shall know them. His is the art of persuasion as it is of Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle. Homer’s works may not be rhetorical by definition, but their very nature is rhetorical in form, in content, and in value.

Midterm Essays (2 and 5)

Essay 2

Stories can be powerfully persuasive. Stories can move us to feel, to think, to act. Storytellers, then, may be rhetoricians of sorts.

Homer was a storyteller, an author. He was not a rhetorician in title. Yet his stories, particularly The Iliad and The Odyssey have survived for thousands of years. Perhaps Homer’s use of the persuasive appeals is a contributing factor to his success. And to his influence in rhetoric.

First, Homer had ethos. Not much is known about Homer today, but he has an obvious legacy. And he did back then, too. In his Republic, Plato portrayed Homer as the “first teacher,” “leader of Greek culture,” and “teacher of all Greece.” Also, Homer gave examples of ethos in his characters as well. As we discussed in class, in Book 2 of The Iliad, King Agamemnon had more ethos than the soldier Thersites and thus one’s message was received well and the other’s was not.

Second, he used logos. Homer appealed to logic and to the reason of his audience as a speaker/writer and he gave examples in his stories. As mentioned in other essays, The Iliad and The Odyssey have examples of Homer’s use of topics of invention.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Homer appealed to his audiences’ pathos. I think pathos is a primary reason stories are so persuasive. Homer understood his audience. He knew that they knew the stories about the Trojan War. They knew the myths. Perhaps Homer’s goal initially was to just entertain them with a great retelling of these stories. But then by appealing to his audience’s emotions, he persuaded them to feel the story and act in someway—even if it was just to remember his words. Again, he also had examples of his characters displaying pathos. Like in Book 2 of The Iliad when the Lying Dream and Iris appealed to the emotions of Agamemnon and the watchman.

Homer’s purpose may not have been to persuade, but his stories were persuasive and full of persuasion. Perhaps one of the reasons his work is considered in the history of rhetoric is because he used and gave examples of the three persuasive appeals which are fundamental in rhetoric.

Essay 5

Politics and rhetoric go hand in hand. Rhetoric is the art of persuasion. Today that seems to be a kind of dirty word in politics. We think about how politicians are always trying to persuade others and push agendas. Usually that has a negative connotation. However, persuasion in politics might not be so bad.

Rhetoric was key in Greek politics. The Greeks had a government that was “ruled by the people.” It was democracy: everyone (that is, free white male) had a say on just about everything and they were expected to speak up.

The lecturer at Electra explained that in Greek politics, there was debate. Individuals would often debate two sides of an issue, trying to persuade the other and the other members in attendance.

Let’s take a law, for example. In order to pass a law, the legislating body would have to made a decision as a collective whole. There could be many sides, or just two: do we go to war or do we stay home? Without rhetoric—persuasion—the sides could not be debated and decisions could not be reached. Rhetoric was key for progression.

Naturally, individuals with more ethos (like the Great Pericles) would be taken more seriously than those without credibility or much of a reputation. When individuals spoke, their argument (arrangement, logos, invention) and their presentation (delivery, style, and pathos) would affect whether or not they were successful in their appeals. Thus, their rhetoric was connected with their success.

Persuasion is not bad. In Greece, many ideas were presented in political environments. Perhaps that is part of why the Greek ideas of government were different and lasting—with so many ideas and discussion, some success was inevitable.

We credit much of our current political ideas and practices to the Greeks—from democracy to legislation to courts. Perhaps it’s not so bad if we model our rhetoric after them as well.

Midterm Essays

Why or why not does the Encomium of Helen or the Funeral Speech of Pericles typify epideictic oratory? What other function is it serving?

The Funeral Speech of Pericles does serve as an epideictic oratory; just not in the way that its title would have you believe. The speech is more of a funeral oration for Athens than it is for Pericles. It assigns the role of "the noble" to not only the soldiers that dies fighting in the Peloponnesian war but everyone that called Athens home and it assigns the role of "the base" to Sparta, the victors of the war. Thucydides's speech places blame upon the enemies for doing that which is vicious and evil, despite the reality that neither side was truly virtuous in this instance.

Thucydides's speech also serves as a call to arms. Athens was devastated as a result of the war, and Thucydides saw that this threatened their way of life. He appeals to their emotions and their sense of honor as Athenians to not be defeated as a people, even if they had been defeated as a nation.

The Funeral Speech of Pericles was an epideictic oratory for the men that died and for the Athens that was. But it was also an inspiring model for the Athens that they could continue to struggle to become again.

What is the relationship between politics and rhetoric in ancient Greece?

Rhetoric is the art of persuasion - convincing someone that they should agree with what one says, even if sometimes they don't know that they are. Politics is the practice of influence - getting someone to do what one wants, even if they don't know that they are. In the modern world, where people have instant access to readily available information, politicians can convince them of almost anything.

Consider Greece, on the other hand, where such information is not as readily available and knowledge of the world around you is only attainable from the people around you. Greece was the birthplace of democracy; it was the first society in which the people's voices could be heard - even if "the people" were limited to free males. This meant that it was the first opportunity that someone gifted in the art of persuasion had to imprint his ideas on another person with legitimate effect. People were given the power to act on the opinions that they held, and the opinions that they held belonged to those with the power of persuasion.

What is the relationship between politics and rhetoric in ancient Greece? Rhetoric is the tool, politics is the product, and ancient Greece was an intellectual culture with minds waiting to be molded into something new.

Midterm Essays

Essay 3

Homer was not a rhetorician, and neither the Iliad nor the Odyssey are rhetorical treatises.  However, the works of Homer still have a profound impact on the discovery and development of the history of rhetorical use and practice. 

The five canons of rhetoric include invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery.  In Homer's epics, we can find examples of each:

Invention

Invention is commonly categorized as finding something to say, or the content of the speech.  Embedded in Homer's writings are numerous examples of individuals seeking to compel other persons or parties to take action, an example being in the Iliad when Odysseus attempts to persuade Achilles to let the army eat before they go to war.

Arrangement

While Homer's stories are not arranged similarly to a classic oration (i.e. introduction, statement of facts, division, proof, refutation, conclusion), we can find aspects of arrangement, such as the appeal to pathos at the conclusion of the Iliad where the Trojans light Hector's pyre at the end of the tenth day.

Style

Ideas are constantly artfully expressed in Homer's poetry, through means of rhyme, meter, and a plethora of literary devices.  A personal favorite is in the Odyssey where Odysseus and his men blind the cyclops.  Listen to the beautiful use of similes!  "As a blacksmith plunges a glowing ax or adze, in an ice-cold bath and the metal screeches steam, and its temper hardens - that's the iron's strength -, so the eye of the Cyclops sizzled round that stake!"  


Memory and Delivery

Perhaps what made Homer's epic poems last for so long is that, throughout time, they were memorized and delivered.  Each giver of the speech had his own liberty in expressing the ideas and stories as he felt they should be conveyed.  This impacted the overall appeal to the audience.

Although Homer's writings are not rhetorical treatises, others have come along and found the rhetorical elements nested subtly between the lines of his works, shaping the history of rhetoric.   

Essay 5

In ancient Greece, politics was the beating heart of the social atmosphere.  To not participate in organized madness that is local government was equivalent to spitting in the face of public virtue.  Politics has been defined by dictionaries and encyclopedias as "the practice and theory of influencing other people" or "the use of intrigue or strategy".  Rhetoric, or the art of persuasion, has as very close relationship with politics, especially in the ancient Greek culture.

One example is the iconic story of Corax and Tisias.  In this story (legend or factually based, we cannot be sure), we see rhetoric as a techne, something that can be bought and sold.  Corax taught Tisias the art of rhetoric with the intention that he would use it in the courts of law.  Little did he know that decision would come back to haunt him...  Nonetheless, at that time, rhetoric was a skill desired by the up-and-coming generation.  The ability to accuse or defend and exhort or dissuade in the public courts was vital to gaining influence and position in the legislature. 

Another example is the Encomium of Helen, where Gorgias employs his rhetorical knowledge in attempt to capture the attention of political audiences and boost his standing in the polis.  Although he stated his efforts were merely to amuse and not to convince, in presenting a carefully crafted case to defend the infamous Helen of Troy, he successfully showcased his understanding of rhetorical principles.  

The brilliant Greek philosopher Pluto wrote a dialogue titled The Republic where he encompassed his ideas of the makings of a just and good society/city-state.  In this classic work, we see strong evidence of rhetorical devices typical of Socratic thinkers.  His rhetorical masterpiece has persuaded and influenced the minds of political theorists centuries after its publication.  

Rhetoric and politics in ancient Greek are tied closely together.  Without successfully employing the use of rhetoric in thinking and analyzing the political spectrum, they would not have made the advancements they did in the creation and execution of government.

Two Midterm Essays

Essay Question 3:
Homer was not a rhetorician, nor are his works The Iliad and The Odyssey rhetorical treatises; however, his writings help to illustrate the power and importance of rhetorical techniques. In particular, the topics of invention we have discussed in class are central to the dialogue of the characters in the epic The Iliad. I will discuss the implementation of two in Book 2: similarity/difference and authorities, while identifying other rhetorical techniques Homer uses.

When Thersites, the ugly and unpopular soldier in The Iliad, attempts to persuade the other men to follow his counsel, no one stirs or makes any motion to obey him. Despite the fact that the contents of his speech was similar to what King Agamemnon had just said, the difference was both the way he was perceived by the others and his lack of rhetorical technique. Thersites is described in Book 2 as "a man of many words, and those unseemly ... who cared not what he said." This strange soldier delivered a message that mirrored the King's, yet he presented it so poorly that no one could get behind him. We learn from Homer that even if the content is sound, the presentation and perception of the speaker does make a critical difference in audience reception.

Using the same example mentioned above, Thersites is also described as "a railer against all who were in authority." In his less-than riveting speech, he criticizes the conduct of King Agamemnon through antirrhesis, the rejection of the opinion or authority of someone. Thersites' rejecting of the King's conduct does not help his argument, but instead has the opposite effect. This interaction from speaker to speaker illustrates the topic of invention of authority and one of the canons of rhetoric, arrangement. Thersites' speech is sandwiched between three other men that possess great authority: the King, Ulysses and Nestor. Homer places Thersites speech in the middle to illustrate the importance of authority in addition to the presentation and content. This ties to the idea of perception and ethos; Thersites has no authority, while the other men are trusted leaders who have earned their position of respect. As a result, or cause and effect, the men listen to the compelling words of Ulysses and Homer, spurring off to battle. For these reasons Homer's writings are so very significant to the history of rhetoric.

Essay Question #5
Every four years we hold the Presidential elections, involving a compilation of speeches and debates which each candidate must participate in to gain the support needed to take the presidency. Viewers tune in to be persuaded one of two things: either he/she is the right candidate or he/she isn't. This tradition of rhetoric and politics dates back to ancient Greece. The Greeks followed a similar process when selecting who would be the next influential political figure. Each speech or argument given by the Greeks required the proper "recipe" or combination of the persuasive appeals logos, pathos and ethos. If one was left untouched, the speech would be incomplete. A political leader needs to have an authoritative background (ethos), be a logical and intellectual thinker (logos) with a balanced measure of emotion (pathos).

In The Republic Plato undertakes the immense task of taking his philosophy and beliefs into a real political utopia. While the political system had developed tremendously up to Plato's day, his work illustrates that he saw many inconsistencies and flaws in the system they employed at the time. One positive element of politics and rhetoric is that rhetoric was considered a civic art. Through its proper use it was able shape communities and mold the characters of citizens for the better. Politicians spoke using the third branch of oratory, deliberative oratory, to communicate future actions that would improve the community and citizens' lives in order to gain support. Promises made in speech, as we have learned in our modern political campaigns, are not always fulfilled.

The eloquence of politicians in ancient Greece also wielded a great potential for the worst. As mentioned by Nathan, the example of Scipio Africanus demonstrates that political prowess and authority can be used to determine outcomes rather than following the proper political processes. Opinion of the masses could be swayed one way or the other with relative ease. While I agree that it was important for each person to be able to communicate well, not everyone in ancient Greece were successful rhetoricians. Just as in our society, there were farmers, blacksmiths, tailors, stonemasons, etc. The uneducated masses would turn to their political leaders who were selected based on their rhetorical appeal.

Midterm Essays

6) Interpreting Greek Speeches

In an avant-garde, reformist kind of way, I think Pericles’ Funeral Speech should be considered as an epideictic oratory.  The occasion was certainly ceremonial, though even from the outset Pericles does say he does not subscribe to the idea of delivering a commiserating eulogy.  The audience (both ancient and present-day) should take note that in these prefatory remarks of the speech, there is a “breaking of the fourth wall”.  Pericles is essentially saying, “Hey everyone, this custom of a funeral ceremony is great, but I don’t love how we include a speech.  Anyway, since it’s my duty and our tradition, here I go--.”  The narrator took a step back and made it decently clear he was delivering an epideictic speech.

Aside from Pericles’ disapproval of the funeral speech tradition as a whole, there is no other real mention of vice, but there is vivid and constant description of virtue in Athens. (SilvaRhetoricæ – Virtue & Vice)  Pericles thoughtfully weaves in an encomium of Athens’ developed success and exceptional civilization. He refers to values of freedom, democracy, and courage.

For the sake of accuracy, it would be more fitting to say the oration was a hybrid of both epideictic and deliberative speech.  Being a military leader and a respected member of the society, Pericles naturally held an ideal of patriotism was likely self-aware of the nature of his praise.  Slightly shifting gears, Pericles moves on to invoke ideals to the citizens with considering how to usher on Athens’ legacy through an “ethical and philosophical line” (Silva Rhetoricæ – Good & Unworthy) 

1) The Irrational

Before the Age of Enlightenment and the now-ubiquitous Scientific Method, ancient civilizations needed answers to questions ranging anywhere from nature to societal standards.  For the Ancient Greeks, nearly everything knowable was enshrined within even more ancient written and oral accounts.  The Greeks mingled gods and other immortality with humans to design mythically rich dramas.  Bearing little resemblance to truth, human difficulties with no foreseeable solutions were often resolved by deus ex machina—an artificial twist with an immortal hero or heroine.

The takeaway of every drama was different.  Some were simple and settled and merely had useful rules of thumb entrenched as dogmas.  Others were intricate and left open to invite profound discussion.

Euripides, like many other ancient tragedians, likely wanted his audience to be presented with an ethical crisis and feel catharsis for the characters.  In the drama Electra, Euripides used complex devices and strong emotions like misery and triumph to illicitly ask the audience if vengeance can be considered the same as justice.  Are we arbiters of right and wrong?  Matters like this and a slew of others that carry paramount moral and ethical dimensions are difficult to reason though.  Ancient Greek drama was so popular because it offered a chance to feel and reflect and have an attempt at making sense of an irrational life.