Did I Miss Something Here?

I was under the impression that Gorgias was trying to defend Helen in what seemed like a court of law. Yet, while he started out well enough, giving Helen ethos and building up sympathetic pathos, I was expecting a lot more logos for an appeal to a court room. He is obviously a skilled rhetorician, but his argument didn't seem to hold much merit when actually analyzed. She was obviously involved in some love affair, and his reason that she is innocent is that she is an innocent girl overcome by a goddess. I wonder if a similar argument would work for someone who murdered someone else. Were they overcome by Ares? Or someone who stole, were they influenced by Hermes? This piece was very aptly named as an “Encomium” is a speech of praise, not one of argument. In my opinion the speech was talking about Helen, not her innocence, but maybe I am just missing an important argument he makes. Does anyone think they can clarify for me?

Anyway, I have quite a few humorous experiences with rhetoric but one that applies the best is probably the time I was babysitting for a little boy and his sister. The boy wanted to do something he wasn't supposed to but he didn’t want to get in trouble by himself. I don't remember exactly what the intended “crime” was, but let's say it was taking another cookie for simplicity’s sake. So as I am sitting right by them he leans over and in a loud whisper says to his sister, "hey let's take a cookie." She protested. "C'mon! It will be fun and we won't get in trouble. Trust me." Then they both look at me guiltily as they start to do whatever it was they weren't supposed to do. I was amazed at how fast this little boy won over his sister. At that moment he was a master rhetorician; he knew his audience wanted a cookie also, he got her emotionally compromised, and he established his ethos by claiming to be trustworthy. However, like Gorgias’ speech, his argument was not very sound; especially since I heard every word.

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.  

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.