Respond to any of the readings from the first two weeks, whether Priam, Gorgias, Dissoi Logoi, or the story of Corax and Tisias. In your post, paraphrase or quote some of the reading and write what you think about it. The paraphrase/quote is very important. Don’t just respond in general—respond specifically. Write at least 15 sentences beyond the length of the paraphrase/quote.
The image above is of an ancient statue of Gorgias.
16 comments:
"And death is bad for those who die but good for the undertakers and the gravediggers" This quote from Dissoi Logoi highlights the twofold argument concerning the relevance of perspective and circumstance to reveal the good or the bad of things. Many looked at most things as either being good or being bad, while this writer argued that they could be the same due to the individuals' affect, perspective or circumstance. The author used examples of food, drink, and sexual pleasures as commonly portrayed as "good" under normal circumstances but then argued that a sick man may look at these same things as "bad". This concept of thinking, Plato criticized, could and was used by some rhetoricians to make a weaker case appear the stronger.
In some cases when truth appears to be the weaker case because of the audience, Plato thus believed this concept must be utilized to argue the truth to be stronger in order for it to win out.
I understand the argument in extremes and how used in rhetoric could skew the viewpoints of audiences to agree to weaker points due to isolated logic. With keeping that in perspective I believe that rhetoricians are unethical when knowingly implementing this practice without at least aknowlodging societal norms of what is considered "good or bad" or "seemly or unseemly". When contextualized by the rhetorician the audience can better decipher for oneself the validity of the message or argument.
Dissoi Logoi - "a thing might be good for some persons but bad for others, or at one time good and at another time bad for the same person"
Though this may be true in an everyday sense, this argument doesn't really establish whether things like food and drink are good or bad, but only makes us include context in the discussion. This leads me to think that maybe things like food, drink, or death are neither good nor bad in themselves but are facets of human existence that can be used or abused as our free will dictates. That means that our choices are what should be evaluated, probably on an ethical or virtuous basis. I think I agree with Plato that the twofold argument method doesn't seem that useful in in a search for Truth. It may, however, be a useful tool in making decisions or reaching consensus or even to practice one's rhetorical skills.
A quote that grabbed my attention from Dissoi Logoi is as follows, “Some say that the good is one thing and the bad another, but others say they are the same.” The quote goes on, but that’s the real meat of it. This intrigues me because it demonstrates the idea of perspective. If the Bears beat the Vikings, I can either say it’s terrible because the Bears won or it’s awesome because the Vikings lost. It all depends on my perspective in the matter. With the same situation, someone else might say that it’s, God forbid, great the Bears won. I can never see it that way because of my perspective on the matter, though, but someone might.
Arguing a point is all a matter of perspective. In the movie Anatomy of a Murder (1959), Jimmy Stewart’s character is taking on the argument that a husband, played by Ben Gazzara, whose wife, played by Lee Remick, was raped, so he killed the man who did it. It was argued that the killing was based on insanity. There is both good and bad in that situation, in that the good is that the husband exacted his revenge, but it’s bad he killed a man. From the perspective of Lt. Manion, the husband, the killing was purely good because of what the man did to his wife, but from the perspective of the assistant DA, played by George C. Scott, it was not good, which is why they were in court. I won’t reveal how the jury found the Lieutenant, but I will say that it’s available at the Klamath County Library for check out. Anyway, the quote holds true for any argument or conflict because it’s all a matter of how something is perceived.
Corax and Tisias, retold by Dr. Schnackenberg. "You're a bad egg from a bad bird." I really like the argument between Corax and Tisias because they both have vaild points. I belive that the judge said this quote to give Corax some part of the win. And he threw the case out to give Tisias the other half of the win. I truly do not belive it was just for the money.The judge at first seems like he is not as smart as Corax or Tisias. The quote proves that the judge is very intelligent. Corax and Tisias had to go to court just to find out that they are the same. They are both full of rhetoric. I do not think either one would win in thier debate. Then needed to agrue with someone they could beat.
Post Discussion 1
Com-301 Rhetorical Theory and Application
Instructor: Matt Schnackenberg
BY: Michael L Martin
Gorgias’s “Encomium of Helen”
Quote; For either by will or Fate and decision of the gods and vote of Necessity did she do what she did, or by force reduced or by words seduced or by love possessed”.
I thought this was a very interesting quote mainly because of the implications that it introduces plus I like that the quote can be broken down into sections.
I wanted to start by breaking down this quote into workable sections because now as one reads the quote the reader can form their own opinion of what may have happened. The quote it’s self for me is creating different possibilities. Quote; For either by will or Fate and decision of the gods and vote of Necessity did she do what she did, or by force reduced or by words seduced or by love possessed”.
• “For either by will or Fate and decision of the gods” I liked the way this is worded because it makes the reader think, did she act by her own will or was her will influenced by the gods they believe in. It’s a great way to get the reader thinking.
• “vote of Necessity did she do what she did” This section again backs up the first breakdown because again it makes the reader think about the different possibilities.
These next three sections again I like because they are creating further accounts of what may have happened. Past her will and past her Fate however; these three sections could still fall under the decisions of the gods because of the belief that the gods control all actions.
o “by force reduced” to me this means that the gods or by other man could have forced Helen to act the way she did, meaning things were out of her control.
o “by words seduced” to me this means that man could have seduced Helen or influenced her actions in a way that she could not control her own actions.
o “by love possessed” to me this means that Helen could have been so over powered by love she never thought past that love and what could have happened then later in the future.
I am unsure if my if my thoughts for his quote are correct but after I read that statement it felt like to me that he was trying to create confusion for the readers or at least give them some else to think about.
Kimberly Luna
Com 301: Blog 1
In reading Gorgious’s “Encomium of Helen”, one element which captured my attention was “The effects of speech upon the condition of the soul is comparable to the power of drugs over the nature of bodies…some distress, other delights…and some drug and bewitch the soul with a kind of evil persuasion.”
So, which is gorgeous referencing? Are the effects of a well spoken speech in fact a powerful drug that can cause one to become bewitched and circum to its witchcraft? On the other hand are the effects of the same well spoken speech able to bring the soul delight?
Ahh, to directly answer a question with an answer would be much too definite. Hence, to answering a question with a question, or two statements of contradicting opinions, would make the question appear much more rhetorical.
There’s much to learn about making a statement, or giving a compliment, while taking it back within the same phrasing. Keen are they, whom can play on words and then retreat those same words in a moments rush. Confuse their audience as they may, their intended craftsmanship, I tip my hat to such applause.
I believe that what Gorgious is relating is that anyone can be bewitched by a good speech. I think Gorgious makes a fair appeal to the honor of Helen. Gorgious is able to give a fair speech on Helen’s behalf, at least enough to stir questions of doubt of her guilt.
I do believe that the proper usage of speech and word-play is undoubtedly able to persuade an audience to believe in the speakers words. This is true, even if the persuasion is due to rhetorical illusion.
Holly Sharp
10/6/10
Prof. Schnackenberg
Encomium of Helen
I chose to write about "Encomium of Helen" because of the opinions that it sparked when I read it. It seems honorable to want to redeem a woman's reputation after such a lengthy period. Gorgia's spends much time building up his argument and giving his audience the idea that he is highly invested in the redemption of this Queen. Gorgia's uses words such as "virtue, praiseworthy, and praisable" to set the scene. It is very clear at the beginning of his speech that his purpose is to draw emotion out of the audience. He refers to a curse that has loomed over Helen, "a woman about whom the testimony of inspired poets has become univocal and unanimous as has the ill omen of her name, which has become a reminder of misfortunes." This quote reflects the beginning of Gorgia's manipulation of his audience.
I enjoyed this particular speech because it gives the audience something to chew on. Listeners are forced to ask themselves what the speakers' motivation might be. Does Gorgia truly believe that Helen she be redeemed? On the other hand, is it possible that the speaker has a hidden agenda?
Gorgia spends particular time explaining the plausibility of his inferences. He articulates each and every inference. "For either by will of Fate and decision of the gods..." Gorgia brings together words such as "will, fate, and gods" to convey intensity. He seems to want his audience to understand how absolutely out of Helens hands this situation was. In each reasoning, Gorgia proposes he follows guidelines. He outlines his excuse and solidifies his reasoning with intense circumstances.
I believe that Gorgia offered plausible theories as to what could have potentially happened. However, I never felt as though Gorgia truly believed any of his argued theories. He offered thought-provoking argument, none of which he seemed passionate about. In an attempt to promote a Rhetoric class, I think that he showed great talent. However, in an effort to redeem the dignified reputation of Queen Helen, I do not believe that was achieved.
"Some say that the good is one thing and the bad another, but others say that they are the same and that a thing might be good for some persons but bad for others, or at one time good and at another time bad for the same person."
This statement, the essence of what Dissoi Logoi is, strikes me as an open minded and early representation of the suggestion of "everything's relative." Indeed all things - be they food, sunlight, conversation, or death itself - are simultaneously a positive and a negative dependent solely on who is involved. It surprises me that this idea surfaced in ancient Greece, since it is also similar to the eastern philosophy of Yin and Yang. While I don't know "which came first", it goes to show how powerful of an ideology this kind of relativism is - one that spreads across cultures.
Its funny that after all these years of a philosophy such as this being in existence that our society is very much opposed to the idea. We want things to be good or bad, right or wrong, true or false. Political parties are budding examples of how one thing could be taken in two completely different ways, and instead of accepting the validity of both arguments act as though there can be only one correct answer.
I'd be interested to see what the author of Dissoi Logoi had to say about our society in the modern age - would he/she have a different viewpoint of the world? Or would he/she continue to stick to the idea of "everything's relative"?
Corax and Tisias "You are a bad egg from a bad bird."
I thought the judge was right in throwing out the case and stating Tisias was a bad egg coming from a bad bird. They didn't use any persuasive arguments. They just used contradictory statements.
Corax had a case against Tisias if he would have proved Tisias knew in advance that he had to pay for his education by earning money from his career. It isn't stated how much money is needed to be paid. Corax lost his case when he said he taught Tisias quite well, so well that Tisias took on his defense in court. The judge thought poorly of Corax because he didn't didn't defend himself properly in court. Corax apparently didn't teach ethics to Tisias because he didn't show any knowledge of it. This would make Corax a bad bird and Tisias a bad egg.
Tisias used a limited amount of rhetoric in his case. He clearly thought he had the better of the two arguments because he was trying to prove that he didn't owe Corax any money. Both of them only used logic to defend themselves and didn't appeal to the emotional aspects of their cases. They both only had winning on their minds as they each thought they had the perfect argument.
When Tisias argued he could not lose the argument, I believe, he did so because he thought that he had learned enough that he could win any argument or at least persuade any others that what he was stating would be the truth. Sometimes lies can be believed, especially when one speaks with total knowledge within their voice or just make others believe they know what they are talking about. When the judge threw the case out of the court and stated to Tisias that he was a "bad egg from a bad bird," it made both of them seem like liars to me. It seemed to be a contest about which liar could be believed more or not.
The statements I read within the Dissoi Logoi excerpt are contradictory in a way which seems like taking the good with the bad. Such as the statement, "Some say that the good is one thing and the bad another, but others say that they are the same, and that a thing might be good for some persons, but bad for others, or at one time good and at another time bad for the same person". One person's misfortune can be another person's luck. I find it hard to believe that a weaker case can sometimes be the truth. I guess, if there is only so much to be said and no more. Persuasion can go either way. I know that sometimes I want to believe that someone else is trying to be so honest that I will get disappointed once I find out I have been lied to all along. Once trust is broken, it is hard to regain.
In Gorgias's "Encomium of Helen," I believe that Queen Helen of Sparta was so beautiful that she had the looks to set any man's heart aflame with passion. Maybe it was her who truly seduced Prince Paris. She was seen as one of the greatest villains of Greece. No offense ladies, but I have seen some women who have no remorse or shame for their actions of loyalty or love to someone. The same is to be said of Eve, who had to have the forbidden fruit. Is much of what we see just a front put on by many others? Or are we just holding back until we find something truly better?
Joseph Foster
"Some say that the good is one thing and the bad another, but others say that they are the same, and that a thing might be good for some persons but bad for others, or at one time good and at another time bad for the same person." The quote truly brings out the real definition of the twofold arguments concerning the good and the bad things. The author pointed out that good and bad could be the same thing to certain people, depending on what situation people are in. For example, some people that are poor run out of options of how they can make money, support, and feed their family; since nobody won't give them a job, they are forced to steal food and other items to sell back to earn a profit towards supporting their family. Although, the person has enough knowledge to understand that stealing is bad, he also understands that stealing items to support his family is good all at the same time.
The author uses examples, such as food, drink, and sexual pleasures, which means that these things are bad for a man if he is sick but good if he is healthy and needs them. I believe that these examples could be either good or bad, regardless if a man is sick or healthy. It all depends on if a person abuses these examples or not. For example, if a person eats and drinks all day without any exercise, he would become overweight and sick, which in this case is bad. On the other hand, if a person is concern with food, drink, and sexual pleasures (if he/she is married) wisely then the situation would be reversed to good.
"What did the judge decide? He threw the case out of court, saying to Tisias, "You're a bad egg from a bad bird," from Corax and Tisias. I find this quote to be very true because if you have a teacher that is teaching someone techniques and odd ideas, then the student is more than likely going to follow the teacher's ideas and use them. It seems to me that Corax liked to twist things around to try to convince people that he is always right. He seemed to me that he was good a persuading people to think like he did. In the story since he said he could win the argument, and if he didn't win against Tisias, he was a really good teacher. I think this is funny because it can be true. I take Corax's word, because it seems true that if the student beats the teacher at an argument, that the teacher did their job about teaching the student how to win.
Georgias’s “Encomium of Helen” the part that sticks out to me the most is the opening paragraph, “man and woman and speech and deed and city and objects should be honored with praise if praiseworthy and incur blame is unworthy, for it is an equal error and mistake to blame the praisable and to praise the blamable.” Also, on the second page, last paragraph. “But come, I shall turn from argument to another.” I feel that Georgias didn’t want to be put in the spotlight for the problem between Helen and the Prince Paris of Troy. Georgias knows that there is trouble to come and he wants nothing to do with blaming anyone so he uses his wise rhetoric to flip flop his arguments from one to another. He does this partly because he knows Helen’s parents Leda, and the god Zeus. That’s why I feel that he was smart to keep the rhetoric flip in order. Say one thing yet mean another, and flip from one side to the other just making great points. Georgias would much rather Helen speak and fight her fight, but her voice has been stolen because of the incident. By playing both sides of the fence he doesn’t look like the hero or the goat, yet he argues to find the truth of the misfortunate issue that has put him on the stand.
Dissoi Logoi – I feel that Miles22 hit it right on the head when it comes to the twofold arguments. “And death is bad for those who die but good for the undertakers and the gravediggers.” It is essentially the ying-yang, karma, and so forth. The two opposing factors affect one another in a negative way yet have a positive effect too. It’s as if there are two men. One man has gold, and one man has food. Both are powerful with what they have, yet without being able to trade they are worthless and will both die. It also depends on your view point. Dissoi really shows how vast his twofold argument is when he states, “…and that a thing might be good for some persons but bad for others,..” Because depending on where you stand the flip flop of the twofold argument doesn’t work. With my food and gold example earlier, it shows that third position. Because if you don’t want food or gold then you are the odd or bad one; the latter option that leads down the path of the sick. Ultimately I agree with his reasoning, “At such times, the weaker case must be argued to be stronger in order for the truth to win out.” You must be able to work beyond each argument to find the one point you can flip to make it your win.
Georgias’s “Encomium of Helen” the part that sticks out to me the most is the opening paragraph, “man and woman and speech and deed and city and objects should be honored with praise if praiseworthy and incur blame is unworthy, for it is an equal error and mistake to blame the praisable and to praise the blamable.” Also, on the second page, last paragraph. “But come, I shall turn from argument to another.” I feel that Georgias didn’t want to be put in the spotlight for the problem between Helen and the Prince Paris of Troy. Georgias knows that there is trouble to come and he wants nothing to do with blaming anyone so he uses his wise rhetoric to flip flop his arguments from one to another. He does this partly because he knows Helen’s parents Leda, and the god Zeus. That’s why I feel that he was smart to keep the rhetoric flip in order. Say one thing yet mean another, and flip from one side to the other just making great points. Georgias would much rather Helen speak and fight her fight, but her voice has been stolen because of the incident. By playing both sides of the fence he doesn’t look like the hero or the goat, yet he argues to find the truth of the misfortunate issue that has put him on the stand.
Dissoi Logoi – I feel that Miles22 hit it right on the head when it comes to the twofold arguments. “And death is bad for those who die but good for the undertakers and the gravediggers.” It is essentially the ying-yang, karma, and so forth. The two opposing factors affect one another in a negative way yet have a positive effect too. It’s as if there are two men. One man has gold, and one man has food. Both are powerful with what they have, yet without being able to trade they are worthless and will both die. It also depends on your view point. Dissoi really shows how vast his twofold argument is when he states, “…and that a thing might be good for some persons but bad for others,..” Because depending on where you stand the flip flop of the twofold argument doesn’t work. With my food and gold example earlier, it shows that third position. Because if you don’t want food or gold then you are the odd or bad one; the latter option that leads down the path of the sick. Ultimately I agree with his reasoning, “At such times, the weaker case must be argued to be stronger in order for the truth to win out.” You must be able to work beyond each argument to find the one point you can flip to make it your win.
I chose to discuss Priam's Pathos. "Think me more pitifulby far, since I have brought myself to do what no man else has done before-to lift to my lips the hand of the one who killed my son."
Could any parent go to the person who took their childs life and not only beg for his body but to also offer a ransom? When my son was killed it was difficult enough to meet the man, I do not believe that i could have begged for his body or paid a ransom for him. That would have pushed this excessivly emotional mother into an explosive volcano destroying everything in my path. The most difficult part of this entire ordeal is that not only is King Priams patient and forgiveness.
I am a loving, forgiving person but this would be too much for me.
The last phrase leads me to believe that not only did he forgive him but to almost worship him. I will beg, bribe and even worship you if you will return the body of my son.
could you do this? could I do this? should anyone have to do this?
Kimberly Luna
Com 301: Blog 1 – Response- Miles22
Miles, I appreciate the outlook you had on this quote from Dissoi Logoi "And death is bad for those who die but good for the undertakers and the gravediggers"
I agree that this quote highlight “the twofold argument concerning the relevance of perspective and circumstance to reveal the good or the bad of things.” The argument that the author had those things can either be “good or bad” depending on an individual’s view or place they are in life.
The “examples of food, drink, and sexual pleasures” as being either “good or bad”, depending on the circumstances or the use in making a weaker argument agree stronger, are good indicators that good speaking can make for good argument and can win influence over the speaker’s audience.
One of the keynotes that I feel that you utilized in this analogy was your perspective on how speech “could skew the viewpoints of audiences to agree to weaker points due to isolated logic.”
However, I don’t necessarily agree with you that rhetoricians are “unethical when knowingly implementing this practice without at least acknowledging societal norms of what is considered "good or bad" or "seemly or unseemly". Instead I may feel that they are quite persuasive in their arguments in attempts to impeach their contradictors, which if you think about it, is quite ingeniously effective. Hence, there may be something to be said for good ole lawyer-talk.
Post a Comment