"Silence is Golden"

The idea of knowledge and understanding as explained in Spencer's blog caught my attention. This principle had been taught many'a'times by my father in the walls of the place I call home. With this in mind I desire to take the invitation presented by Thomas and add on to the comments found in Macey's post in regards to comparing the De Oratore and Gorgias.

Although similar in some ways, ultimately both dialogues are extremely different in nature and purpose. Plato's Gorgias has a very clear purpose; to prove that Plato (as well as his mentor Socrates) are correct in their logic and ultimately have the moral truth.

On the other hand Cicero allows both sides of the argument to be heard as he creates the dialogue between Antonius and Crassus, thus producing an environment of exploration and deeper understanding of the principles of rhetoric. This could be interpreted as a sophist ideology.

Plato claimed that orators have no specific skill and intellect but rather a broad understanding of many things (which in my mind seems immoral or more amoral) while it is apparent that Cicero believes that, “the orator must know the facts of his case.” This adds a level of morality and truth to his definition of rhetoric. 

The final point I wish to make is the most significant I have to offer. Yes, Plato was able to trump his foe in Gorgias but did he truly come away as victor? In reality, Cicero's ability to use rhetoric has swayed our class to trust his interpretation of rhetoric over Plato's. How? The answer is found in Proverbs 29:11, "A fool uttereth all his mind: but a wise man keepeth it in till afterwards." Cisero recognized that to persuade requires trust in the persuader and gained that trust through allowing Crassus hear out the angle of Antonius. Plato failed to understand that mere logos is not enough to persuade when we don’t have all the facts in this life.

Be real!

I don't feel I could make a better comparison between Plato's Gorgias and Cicero's De oratore than has already been made by Macey Richardson in her post. I agree with all of the points that she made and even found greater insight of how the two treatises relate by reading her post.

I don't know if any of you have seen the BBC series Sherlock, but I like it enough
to watch it, which is saying a lot... I'm a fan of  Benedict
Cumberbatch, who plays Sherlock Holmes in the series. I think I'm a fan because the actor
has become Sherlock, he has taken on his emotions, his personality, everything that is
Sherlock Holmes, so that I actually believe him when he's acting, he's genuine because in a way
what he feels when he acts as this fictional character is probably what the writers felt as they
created that character.

In the closing paragraphs of De oratore Cicero narrates the dialogue of Crassus, who is discussing style. But he finishes powerfully by declaring that "...delivery is the supreme factor in successful oratory." and then goes on to say that the emotions and the delivery used in oratory cannot be faked. He says that artificiality is easily and quickly detected. Many of the previous blog posts have aligned Cicero with the Sophists, which I mostly agree with. But in the dialogue between Socrates and Gorgias in Plato's Gorgias one of the common points brought up by Socrates his belief that it would be better for the masters of any given subject to speak about their subject instead of a professional orator, because it is more genuine. In De oratore Cicero seems to bridge a disconnect fabricated by Socrates; good rhetoric and oratory does need genuine deliverers, but just because someone isn't a specialist in a given subject doesn't mean he or she isn't passionate about it. (However, having more knowledge about a subject definitely makes it easier to talk about that subject; notice how much shorter this blog post is than my posts about architecture... I usually have to cut stuff out of those posts because they're too long.) 

It's very interesting to see Cicero draw his knowledge from so many different sources of learning, I think that is a part of what Macey was talking about in her post about the difference in the dialogue in De oratore  versus the dialogue in Gorgias; the dialogue was much less biased and more open, or as Macey put it; "mature". 

My nephew!!! Isn't he cute? He's so happy in this picture
because he's doing his favorite thing, dipping things and then eating them.
He's passionate about it and you can tell, so the emotion is contagious!

Cicero, the Sophist

Macey R has done a great job introducing the differences between Cicero’s De oratore and Plato’s Gorgias. She pointed out how they approach truth. In short, Cicero uses dialogue to explore all the different facets of rhetoric. Whereas Plato uses dialogue to praise Socrates, and belittle Rhetoric.

As such, it would appear that Cicero uses a moral aspect to his oratory, whereas Plato is not very moral, at least not by our standards. Analyzing the form of his speech (we will set aside the content for a moment) he allows various characters to discuss, question, and elaborate on their points of view. This is something that is very fair to both sides, and that which is fair is moral (do you see the enthymeme there? :)  He is striving to show his audience that he has approached this from a fair perspective.

As for content, he speaks of the need for someone to be very well versed in all the different categories so that he can then make the right choice when orating. Thus what is right in one situation will be different then what is right in another. Each time it is right, but time to time it is different. Thus the sophists would welcome Cicero into their camp.

My, what a Gorgeous Oration!

Let's talk dialogue.

So, in Cicero's De oratore, we've got this group of buds hanging out at their friend's house, having a chat about oratory (you would think there would be more to talk about in ancient Rome, but hey, whatever floats their boat). There's a very productive, respectful discussion about what oratory has done, what oratory requires, and how to become a great orator. All parties who speak are equally heard--and even when disagreements arise, all turns out well in the end. This is especially true because Antonius was just arguing with Crassus for the fun of it (p. 172). Everyone's opinions and experiences balance out and puzzle piece into each other quite nicely.

Now rewind your brains to when we read Plato's Gorgias. I don't think you need to be reminded what happened in this dialogue. With Socrates' loyal student at the reins, things went a little differently for Gorgias than for Antonius and Crassus. The dialogue could've looked something like this:

Not as nice and friendly, huh? So why such a big difference?

Let's look at Plato again. Well, he was Socrates' student. He was probably less experienced (like the young Cicero that James talked about). He did have a lot of respect for Socrates. And he did subscribe to his views. Naturally, he wanted Socrates to look like the tough guy in the dialogue--to create a masterful persona in his work to honor his teacher (and beat up the sophists while he was at it).

We oughta note that Cicero, too, included his tutor as a character in De oratore. Crassus represents Cicero's own views in the dialogue. Instead of making Crassus "win," though, Cicero lets Antonius and the other friends have a turn. Crassus doesn't smash them into the ground, but listens as they explain their views and even admits his own faults as an orator and rhetorician. Cicero thus uses his characters in a more mature way: to explore the different ideas about rhetoric and oratory.

Plato was more interested in proving his point than exploring other ones. He wanted to show how good Socrates was as well as how right he was, and he does a pretty good job of it. If we looked at who Gorgias was and how he spoke, though, we might find that his portrayal in Gorgias is a little skewed.

Cicero, on the other hand, provides a pretty accurate depiction of the theories of his characters' actual counterparts. We can tell because of the brief history included on page 166: Antonius, though playing the opposition in De oratore, actually held the more popular view of rhetoric at that time.

Memeology

To respond to Courtney's and Adam's posts:

Courtney, your examples of cause and effect are also great representations of the almighty enthymeme, which I had no idea happened so often in oratory, writing, and everyday life. Let's take a look at a couple that are different from the ones you mentioned:

1) In paragraph three, Gorgias says that

• Helen's father "was in fact the god...Zeus"

so she

• "was the foremost of the foremost men and women." 

Because everyone in ancient Greek society held the view that the gods were greater than man, and Gorgias knew that, he leaves out the premise "gods are the foremost of, or better than, all mankind" (in this case, the middle premise).

2) In paragraphs 18 and 19, Gorgias discusses how

• perfect bodies are "a pleasant sight to the eyes"

and

• Helen "[took] pleasure" in seeing Alexander.

Again, because Gorgias understands the knowledge his audience has--about the story of Helen in general--he need not add "Alexander had perfect abs" or whatever he would have added (also the middle premise).

Now, as Adam says, we're not really persuaded by this stuff. Gorgias unfortunately didn't have any knowledge about US, about this new and different audience, and our feelings and views. Because of this, he couldn't tailor his enthymemes to appeal to us (kind of going into the topic for the next post). Gorgias was, however, incredibly aware of his audience of ancient Greeks. Thus, his speech would have been more (though maybe not entirely) persuasive to them. Interestingly enough, we still understand the enthymemes Gorgias uses because the story of Helen and the ways of ancient Greeks are still known topics today. Plus, it's easy to determine the middle premises because enthymemes are so familiar to us anyway. (So familiar that we hardly notice them).

Helen: the in-depth perspective

Considering that few people in our class seem to have enjoyed Gorgias' "Encomium of Helen", I decided to give it another chance, now that I have a better understanding of rhetoric in general.

Recognizing first that Gorgias is a sophist - skilled in the ways of persuasion, I recognized that he used several of the skills that Aristotle pointed out. He defends Helen using judicial oratory as the story of her fate occurred centuries before him. He sets it up like a court case, and makes an interesting point in that it is needed to visit this subject, as we humans seldom learn from the past and thereby repeat our mistakes.

"For if all people possessed memory concerning all things past, and awareness of all things present, and foreknowledge of all things to come, discourse would not be similarly similar; hence it is not now easy to remember the past or consider the present or foretell the future;"

Gorgias use of hyperbole to magnify her tragic life may be
impressive, but it doesn't convince many.

Gorgias then uses a common but classic combination in his argument. He uses amplification for each of his points to Helen's alleged innocence, but adds hyperbole with them, exaggerating Helen with finesse to convince for his cause. He describes her as a goddess on earth, who could woo all men with the same skill as Aphrodite. He dramatizes the event of her betrayal and victimizes her, each time elaborating on another use of rhetoric that Courtney described in her post: Cause and effect.

From this, I conclude that the man was indeed skilled in understanding the many underlying powers that rhetoric possesses - even before a time when they were catagorized, which does add a bit of credibility in my eyes. Sadly, his work fails to bring up any kairos and there is also a significant lack of ethos which fail once again to convince me of her innocence.

The Battle Against no Foe

Largely in response to John's post, I would like to piggyback off of the cause and effect theme he discussed.  Due to the judicial nature of Gorgias' Encomium of Helen, reasoning is everything.  There must be a cause and effect, an A leading to a B.  With Gorgias, he sides with and defends the underdog, Helen, so that he might woo listeners with seemingly flawless pathing of logos.  In reality, Gorgias mostly lures in the audience with sweet words so that they can watch him glory in beating up a straw man.  Gorgias sequentially lays down the pieces of his case without an opponent to rebut, simply reveling in how amazing he is with the occasional "Am I right or am I right?" to the audience.  There was no real concern for the case itself. 

Aside from that digression and going on to Katie's post, though Gorgias does attempt to make his monologue epideictic in nature by praising Helen's hopeless frailty to the power of the gods, the method he utilized was one of judiciary rhetoric.  Going back to the opening theme of the previous paragraph, Gorgias piles enthymeme upon enthymeme so as to amass sound reasoning for a case he most likely cares nothing for.  Gods are superior to men, so who was to blame Helen for succumbing to the sway of Love?  Gorgias sure was not one to point his finger, as it net him more food for his ego. 

I say this is Gorgias, so this is Gorgias.  No one to contend?  Too bad.

Ceasing the bashing on Gorgias' methods and motives, as Katie said, the excellent use of Helen's inferiority to the superiority of the gods proved highly beneficial in terms of persuasion.  By taking something that hit home to the audience and following it up with skillful use of enthymemes, Gorgias was successful in unopposedly asserting his views.  Unfortunately, a single testimony proves insufficient.  Even if Gorgias was speaking the truth, he was running a one-man race.  Alone, one is both the winner and the loser.  

Cause and effect, Virtue and Vice.

In Gorgias’ Encomium of Helen we see a heavy usage of cause and effect throughout the entirety of the speech. This make a lot of sense in a judicial speech because one needs to describe why something happened. Why did someone do something? What caused it? However I might classify this particular speech epideictic in nature. The word encomium actually means “praise of a person or thing”, it also is nearly synonymous with the word epideictic, which means "fit for display." Gorgias is bold enough to praise Helen so that he might flex his rhetorical muscles. He praises and defends a woman reviled by the Greeks for her lewdness. Gorgias still uses cause and effect in his faux-judicial speech as he analyzes why Helen left subsequently starting the Trojan War.  Her actions are clarified by defining several plausible causes i.e. abduction, the will of the gods, love etc. Through dissection of the plausible causes of Helen’s abdication Gorgias acquits her of her charge by stating that what she did was permissible. Circumstance demanded that she had to do what she did. He argues that one cannot blame Helen.

It is important to note the idea of virtue and vice which is mentioned in the ninth chapter in Aristotle’s Rhetoric. Basically virtue is good and beautiful, and vice is evil and ugly. The common coconscious between the Greeks at that time is that what Helen did fell under the vice category and therefore shameful. Gorgias infers that it is more shameful to accuse Helen in ignorance. In the very last paragraph Gorgias says, “I tried to put an end to the injustice of blame and ignorance of opinion.” In reality I’m sure Gorgias doesn’t really care about clearing Helen, I think he is more concerned with showing his prowess in speaking. 

Monkey See, Monkey Do

"It is in the nature of the visual sense to
long for some things" -Gorgias    

The sum of Wendy's, McDonalds,
Taco Bell, Panda, pasta, and the Creamery

My roommates gave in,
not I.

Two years ago I witnessed my friends surrender to a very irrational persuasive influence known as the Gilmore Girl sitcom.

In said television show, the mother and daughter binge on fast food when times get tough. They give in to the body's natural desire to eat, much like Helen's natural desire to follow after Alexander, as explained in Gorgias' "Helen's Encomium." After my friends watched episodes of binge eating, they wanted to give it a try. One night during finals week, I accompanied them to seven different fast-food restaurants and...the rest is history. My point is that Gorgias is right when he says, "It is in the nature of the visual sense to long for some things and for other things to give it pain. And in many there is produced much love and desire for many things." By simply seeing the Gilmore Girls eat incessantly, my roommates desired to do the same.

But is Gorgias logical when he claims that such actions, brought about by seeing, "ought not to be blamed as a sin but ought rather to be accounted a misfortune"? I don't think so. We have been given agency, as Katie J mentioned, and we are expected to choose the right over the wrong. I believe Gorgias' logos fails when he ignores the fact that an attraction to one choice or the other is necessary to act on our agency. He makes it sound as though seeing something automatically persuades one to act upon it. Although such was the case with my roommates, I believe that in most cases we are more rational creatures, endowed by God with the ability to discern, and have the power to say, "I see the good or the bad here, and I will choose the good." Helen really did have the choice to follow after Alexander or not. She wasn't so forced into it as Gorgias claims.

Small and Simple Things

“… by small and simple things, are great things brought to pass.” (Alma 37:6-7)

As you can all see, I am one of the last blog posters of the night to get this assignment complete on time. This is due to the fact that I just spent two hours in the Finance club where we learned about the different groups we can join to compete in the cut throat world of finance. There were representatives for investment banking, corporate finance, networking, marketing, and financial consulting. Each group got up to present their importance and made a fancy pitch as to why their group was the best option and how we would become very wealthy and successful. 

Ironically, it wasn’t the big elegant speeches that drew my attention. It were the two pictures of New York City and the picture of Goldman Sachs that got my heart pumping. As I saw these pictures and thought of all of the ambitions that I have had all my life, I knew that corporate finance was the group for me. 

Gorgias teaches us “…for if all people possessed memory concerning all things past, and awareness of all things present, and foreknowledge of all things to come, discourse would not be similarly similar”. He mentions this as he discusses the possibility of Helen being deceived by a discourse to commit something that would eventually lead to the Trojan War. Isn’t that interesting though? Really, if we had a perfect knowledge of all things in the past and all things to come, what would the point of life be? I think that’s the reason why I got an adrenaline rush sitting in the Tanner building as I watched these presentations. There are endless possibilities in the future. Though Gorgias wasn’t directly addressing this point, the hope for a better world and future is what caught my attention. 

Sacrifice Your Body to the Beats

I want to talk about dancing and what persuaded me to do it. I used to be an active member of a group of dancing friends. We used to go to the “dirty thirty” held once a week in a cleared out living room of a house in southeast Provo. The DJ would play 30 minutes of loud dance music but even before he started, I would see the flashing lights and as I walked up the pathway to the front door I was compelled to start moving my body. We also went to the IDP twice a week at 10:30 or 11:00pm. This was a dance party held outdoors, usually at a traffic circle, public garden area, or on the top level of a parking structure. Each dancer would arrive with his or her own headphones and the 30-minute long track queued up on his or her iPod. Then the person who created the mash-up of electronic/pop/dance music would get up on top of a rock or pole, hold his or her iPod in the air, and shout “SACRIFICE YOUR BODY TO THE BEATS!” After which each person pressed play on their iPod and started dancing. 

This was crazy and irrational, but for me, the excitement of anticipating a fun hard dance session and hearing the loud music with strong beats was extremely persuasive. I was always driven to dance.

Now for Gorgias. I noticed that Gorgias talks about incantations, or magic spells. He says that, “By means of words, inspired incantations serve as bringers-on of pleasure and takers-off of pain (paragraph 10).” I would like to relate the dance music to the “inspired incantations” that Gorgias talks about. The lyrics and beats of the songs were definitely “bringers-on of pleasure” and they also took off the pain of feeling tight. They helped me loosen up and let go of my inhibitions and always persuaded me to move my body.

Here is a link to a mom’s blog post about attending an IDP with her daughters. This group was a little different than the one I used to dance with, and I have never met or communicated with this mom.

Irrational Love?

Maybe it’s me, or maybe it’s this old text, but I had a hard time wrapping my heard around this text. The only things that really stuck out to me was Gorgias’s focus on heeding to the irrational persuasion of love. He kept coming back to this as a major idea as to why Helen was in the situation she was. Maybe she was convinced by love. Gorgias almost made the irrational seem rational and tangible when talking about love and its compelling nature.

How many times in our lives have we let the irrational guide our opinions or actions? Of course, I’ve seen many women become tainted with irrational thought so much that it compelled them to action. Just today, I was talking with a friend about my desire to be nice and live guilt-free (in this particular situation, I was speaking of trying to let someone down without hurting feelings) and asking for advice for what to do in this situation. My friend and I were commiserating with each other, thinking about similar problems. Both being girls, we were letting our emotions guide a lot of our feelings. Luckily, there was a man standing behind us while we were talking who chimed in and gave us a more rational train of thought. My guilt (completely irrational) was guiding my thoughts and almost guided my actions. Luckily, this man was using much more persuasive logic.

Both of these stories question the validity of feelings and the pressures that we feel irrationally. I’m not sure what it was that caused Helen to do what she did, but Gorgias makes a very convincing argument that irrational thought may have been the culprit. After today’s events, I’d believe it, too.

Love the sinner, hate the sin?

After reading the Encomium of Helen, it's apparent to me that people have been finding ways to excuse behavior since before Christ. In his persuasive essay, Gorgias writes what he finds a well reasoned argument to dissuade the belief that Helen is innocent of guilt for starting the Trojan war. He has a few points that are believable, but out of the several major possibilities he gives for Helen's betrayal, he gives two that I don't buy:

1. Divine intervention

2. Natural instinct

In a nutshell, Gorgias argues that Helen would be innocent of crime if the Gods were involved in this, because Gods are more superior in every way to humans, and humans could not possibly deny destiny. In continuing to feign the poor accused Helen, he adds that Helen could have been persuaded by discourse to abandon her people. He elaborates on the many ways this could have been done, from verbal persuasion to seduction.

"It has been said that if she was persuaded by discourse, she did no wrong but rather was unfortunate... she escapes without difficulty from the blame for the sin alleged to have taken place. For the things we see do not have whatever nature we will, but rather that which befalls each. The soul receives an impression in its own ways through the sight." (Gorgias, P. 15)

That said, Helen did it because she was convinced it was the right and necessary thing. I could go on a long tangent about ethics here, but more accurately, Gorgias is describing in multiple ways an excuse we all share:

Who's ever used that one before?

I did, back in the third grade. I was at school and some of the other kids were making me mad. So with my lack of restraint, I started beating one of them up. The teacher came and stopped us and asked me why I had done it. My response? "Aw, the Devil made me do it!" My teacher was not amused. Later, my Mom told me that Satan could never make me do anything. He could tempt me, or try to persuade me but only I had control over my actions. That truth stuck with me. No actions of Helen's, claimed by Gorgias to be from the Gods themselves or her own surrender to temptation excuse the fact that she is guilty for the start of the Trojan war.

Hugs and Harassment

According to Gorgias, we are not to be held accountable for our actions, should the reasoning—logical or not—be sound enough for acceptance.  Though Helen had and utilized her agency, Gorgias argued in her defense.  It must be noted, however, that words are not the only means of persuasion, though they are often the keys used to these other means of getting someone to behave in any particular way desired. 

A potentially deadly creature, the stingray can be soothed
and converted by a calculated touch.

In his defense of Helen, Gorgias argued that Love, the goddess, was to blame.  Helen was not to be held accountable for her actions, as she, a mere mortal, had become subject to the power of the divine.  Being a member of the Church, I find that reasoning absolutely ridiculous.  Helen had her agency—initially at least for sure—but compromised it for whatever reasoning she had, logical or illogical.  Though, I do suppose that in the particular setting and culture in which Helen was the topic of debate, Gorgias must have seemed a master of reasoning and persuasion. 

Thinking back to my own experiences on the topic of persuasion without logic, my mind brings me to that of my girlfriend and my three younger brothers.  Even though my brothers and I are all related, my girlfriend approaches persuading us in different ways.  If, say, she wishes to play a certain videogame with my brothers, she will (as mentioned in one of the previous posts) instill fear by means of harsh words and exercise dominion through her seniority.  On the other hand, my girlfriend is younger than, shorter than, and in a much different relationship with me as opposed to my brothers.  When she wants me to start on a new game server with her, the approach is one of cooing, cuteness, and coaxing ever so cleverly.  Both approaches are different, neither are especially logical, and yet, both are impressively effective.  

The Power of Verbal Persuasion is Declining

           When Helen is described as having godlike beauty and the foremost of the foremost of men and women, I instantly compared her to some of the women in my life that may “fit” that description. Unfortunately this did not help me to decide on whether Helen was truly persuaded, or was the persuader herself, because most of the women (and I guess men that I know that “fit” her description as well) can take on both of these roles at different times and situations in their lives. These people I have in mind to contrast with Helen can be good at using both their words and appearance to persuade others, but I have also noticed that they can easily be persuaded by someone with similar traits that match their own.

*Note: To learn about Mormons don't go here. Thanks.

For these reasons I don’t know which side to take on Helen, but would rather point out what I felt was the most important take away from this reading, and apply it to our class and the direction we seem to be heading. In the paragraph that starts with “(11)” Gorgias explains that without perfect memory or knowledge of past, present, and future that persuaders use lies and opinions to persuade others. By the nature of what Gorgias has said her it leads me to believe that the power of verbal persuasion was much greater in the 5^th century than it in our day, as well have things like the internet, and places to access facts. The power of verbal persuasion is still real, but unlike the ancient Greeks we have the power to go and really find out information on our own. The Greeks ability to access truth and answer their own questions with ease, pales in comparison to us in our own time.

Isn't this the truth?

Once I was very logically persuaded about a religious matter that I had previously had different feelings on until I was persuaded otherwise. However even after being persuaded I was able to do my own research and in a way “persuaded” myself to my previous belief. Technology and the mediums we have now are a huge factor upon how verbal persuasion works today. 

For One Persuasively Painful Moment

In Gorgias’ Encomium of Helen, Gorgias heavily relies on deliberative oratory as his topic of invention. Mainly, he did this in the beginning of the text. He makes a claim about goodness and unworthiness when he stated that, “it is equal error to blame the praiseworthy and praise the blameworthy” (par. 1). This was then the medium used to prepare the audience for the ultimate message of “is it just to blame Helen” when her actions could be due to being “passionately in love, or being persuaded by discourse or abducted by force or constrained by divine constraints” (par 20). Thus, by having an initial introduction stressing that the goodness of society as a whole suffers by the praise of the blameless and the blame of the praiseworthy, followed by an ending that causes the reader to doubt whether Helen’s motives are to be praised or blamed thus heightens the pressure of the situation and sets a more serious tone. As a reader, I was persuaded to be slow to cast judgment and think through the situation thoroughly. But such thoroughness lead to a lack of response or conclusion on my own part.

There have been many times where casting doubt has been used as a means of persuasion to motivate me to be thorough in consideration of the presented material. Mostly, this mode of persuasion has been most heavily utilized by teachers. I’ve had more experiences than I can count where I have been called upon in class and been asked a question. Regardless of if I answer confidently or with obvious unsurety, the professor will often respond by restating my answer in the form of a question. This question is then followed by a painful moment of panic spanning all of eternity where I frantically go through all the information again in my head so that I can confidently defend or reject my own answer. These succeeding moments following such questions are some of the most persuasive moments I have experienced. In such cases I am pressured to think. Unfortunately, panic-driven thinking, at least in my case, rarely leads to rational conclusions or deeper understanding of information. In fact, a very anticlimactic, “. . . ummmm I don’t know” is almost sure to follow. Surely this is evidence of irrational persuasive influence.

Arrangement is everything

My mission president once called one of my companions a “silver tongued serpent”. This particular companion was very skilled at using words to get things done the way he wanted. Sometimes it was a good way, sometimes not so much. He would follow the same arrangement that ancient Greeks employed, namely:

1)      Introduction

2)      Statement of Facts

3)      Division

4)      Proof

5)      Refutation

6)      Conclusion

As I read through Gorgia’s “Encomium of Helen” I saw this same pattern. For Gorgia’s, the arrangement is something like

1)      Helen is not to be blamed

2)      Stating who Helen was

3)      It was either by the wishes of Fortune and plans of the gods and decrees of Necessity she did what she did, OR abducted by force, OR persuaded by speeches, OR conquered by Love

4)      If it was the Gods will, then she had no choice she needed to follow.

 If it was force, then she is a victim, not an inciter, and received injustice, not caused it.
 If by a convincing speech then surely she cannot be blamed because speech has such great persuasive power that we cannot help but follow, for better or worse.
 If it came as a result of Love either it came from the Gods so she couldn’t resist or it came as a result of her mortal condition so she can’t be blamed because of her genetics.

5)      Surely it was one of these, how could it be anything else?

6)      I have shown that Helen is innocent.

He’s got me convinced. The same arrangement has worked on me before. That companion from my mission is the reason I am not a psychology major. His argument was arranged like this:

1)      Psychology isn’t a good major.

2)      If you want to support a family comfortably with a psychology major you need to get an advanced degree.

3)      You need to do more school for that major then another one. Also you need to have a certain personality type to make it in that field.

4)      The money to support a family simply isn’t really there.

5)      You have failed at talking to people for free, how will you do it for a job? Also, look at the stats.

6)      Psychology isn’t for you.

Needless to say, I’m not a psychology major.

I Pity the Fool (who is so Easily Persuaded)

Gorgias’s Encomium of Helen attempts to acquit Helen from the crime of causing the Trojan war.  Gorgias claims Helen was either persuaded by the higher authority of the gods, abducted by force, or, his most important point, persuaded and conquered by love.  Gorgias, though a rhetorician himself, insists that “those who have persuaded and do persuade are shapers of lying discourse.”  Furthermore, he expounds upon the idea that “He who persuaded…did wrong; while she who was persuaded as one constrained by means of discourse is wrongly blamed.”  Is he being a hypocrite when he tries to persuade us that persuasion is bad?  And is there no chance of it being Helen’s fault because she was so easily persuaded? 

Is Gorgias Genuine?

             Maybe Gorgias’s take on persuasion is already a little doubtful because he is a persuasionist.  He obviously wanted to persuade us that persuasion is wrong in order to acquit the beautiful, legendary Helen of her crimes.  As a Sophist, Gorgias was most interested in persuading people and creating belief.  He was not so much concerned with truth.  Therefore, it stands to reason that Gorgias could be a hypocrite while still convincing others that persuasion is incredibly wrong.  He did not try to delve into the psyche of Helen, just prove that she was innocent.  Furthermore, Gorgias’s lexis, or the style and delivery of his speech, becomes extremely persuasive himself because he employs various examples of how common people cannot help but be persuaded by superiors and Love.  This hypocritical but effective persuasion reminds me of the time where my brother Jake persuaded me to have an “eat-your-ice-cream-as-fast-as-you-can” contest because it would be fun.  I ate mine in three bites and he hypocritically, slowly savored his. 

Mr. T would not approve of Helen's decisions.

 

Is Helen Easily Persuadable?

            Although Gorgias claims that the persuaders are totally and utterly at fault, I completely disagree.  We all have our agency.  However, it is much easier and popular for Gorgias to claim we are not at fault when we are persuaded to do something dumb than for us to suck it up and take responsibility.  Gorgias as a Sophist was more interested in popularity than right or wrong.  Helen, then, should have some responsibility for her persuasion.  Likewise, when, persuaded by anger and hunger, I angrily grabbed Jake’s unfinished ice-cream, I could have blamed Jake as the original persuader, but in actuality, I needed to blame myself for my own actions.

Ice Cream is a Understated yet Powerful Form
             of Persuasion, especially when younger brothers
          still have theirs when you are finished.