Conely's quick summary of the different classes of rhetoric proved to be interesting and extremely helpful for me to put my rhetorical understanding in focus. His comparison of each thinker was brief and to the point which was a good way to handle the summary.
What struck me the most was the power assigned to language by all the thinkers. They did not focus on a person's actions but by his words or his delivery of them. Persuasiveness as a force that could be used for the good of the people or for the opposite presents an interesting connection with the behavior of one person or a crowd. Gorgianic rhetoric seems to rely a lot on the mood of an audience and how effectively the speaker manipulates them. This is why I lean towards the thoughts of Aristotle as my preferred school. Aristotle realizes the "wool over the eyes" nature of Gorgianic rhetoric, says it's still relevant, but develops his own method of figuring things out.
To my ultimate dismay the book store still hasn't stocked Readings from Classical Rhetoric...
I understand now how lawyers can defend a client who is clearly guilty: it's not about the truth. There is no truth, and to an extent, I agree with this. In terms of society and its actions and beliefs, people have different motives for doing things. The job of the laywer, I've surmised, is that one must persuade a jury to believe that a client did the right thing according to him/her. The truth to one is not the truth to the other. Example: I believe in UFO's, someone else doesn't, so what's the truth? What proof is better to support either perception of the "truth." In that sense, I understand and agree that there is no truth. But when it comes to FACTS, like there were no weapons of mass destruction, I have my issues.
ReplyDeleteI have issues with lawyers using rhetoric to sway mostly because we are dealing with finding the "truth" when a criminal act has been committed. Whether or not a person believes he or she did the right thing according to his/her conscience does not matter when there is a law that has been broken. I realize there are gray areas (assisted suicide) where some things are unclear, but the majority of the time lawyers persuade in order to make money not arrive at the truth.
ReplyDeleteBilly Bragg has a wonderful song where an incredulous (and innocent) man stands before a judge during his sentencing and the judge says, "this isn't a court of justice, son, this is a court of law."
ReplyDeleteWe profess to love honest, altruistic action, but when a handsome man (or woman) arrives with a honey-tongued entreaty, we so often succumb. Why else would we spend money on Swiffer Sweepers when brooms and mops really do work?