The Rhetorical Tradition Issues - Term Paper Example

? COM 409: The Rhetorical Tradition  Summer MAKEUP EXAMINATION 1. The concept of rhetoric as described by Plato is one that was based on finding different forms of persuasion and communication which worked effectively. Plato created an understanding that rhetoric, as practiced by the Sophists was illegitimate while a true rhetoric needed to be developed in place of this. The main concepts which Plato created were based on an evolution of rhetoric and changing basic flaws that would change the way in which one communicated. The main belief in which Plato approached was by defining the nature of rhetoric and the power of persuasion. By defining this, there was also the ability to understand the power of rhetoric and both the good and harmful aspects of this. The belief which Plato held was that through true rhetoric, truth and justice could be found; however, this had to be without the intent of manipulation or power, as approached from the Sophists. The first concept which Plato introduces in his work comes from the indictment of rhetoric in Gorgias. The analysis which Plato condemned in terms of the Sophists and Gorgias was based on how rhetoric and philosophy was not able to create crucial or persuasive forces when speaking. Plato stated that the rhetoric used was not defined by finding truth, but instead was based on the other intentions behind the persuasion. “Because Plato so successfully anticipates the major issues that attend rhetoric throughout its long history – issues like power, the potential for manipulation, and rhetoric’s relationship to truth – Gorgias has long been viewed as a valuable treatment of the Sophists in particular and rhetoric in general” (Herrick, 2009, p. 57). The approach which Plato takes toward Gorgias, as well as the Sophists, is based on the concept that manipulation and power were the basis of the intent of speaking and persuasion. This was done instead of working to solutions or finding the truth of a given situation. Plato points out that the politicians as well as others in power had the most use for this, specifically because the rhetoric could be used to persuade others to move in a different manner. The concept of the rhetoric used for power and manipulation was combined with the question of what rhetoric should be used for and how this could change the intent of one speaking for persuasion. The concept which Plato uses is one that shows that there is a need to question the purpose of rhetoric, what it is used for and the intent behind the individual who is speaking. The question was based on what the nature of persuasion was used for and why it was used. “In Gorgias, Plato addresses major questions attending rhetoric throughout its history…What was the nature of rhetoric? Does rhetoric by its very nature tend to mislead? What happens to a society when persuasion forms the basis of law and justice?” (Herrick, 2009, p. 58). The concept that Plato was challenging was based on the intent of rhetoric. If the rhetoric is used for power, then it becomes untrue and doesn’t provide a sense of persuasion. When looking at rhetoric one could define that the nature of persuasion was one which was either for justice or was for power and manipulation. The nature then became dependent on the intent of persuasion as well as the way in which the rhetoric was used. The underlying problem which Plato challenged with the rhetoric of the Sophists became the one which questioned the persuasion as the form of law and justice. If the persuasion was used as a way to convince others of something of justice and truth, then it could be considered fair. However, Plato’s argument was that the Sophists used the persuasion to form law and justice. This was not based on justice, truth or fairness, but was instead based on persuasion and manipulation that could be used to form power and wealth among politicians and others. The concept that Plato defines is the art of rhetoric, in which one could create the belief that the persuasion was based on justice, but was instead based on power, wealth or manipulation to change the laws. In Gorgia’s, Plato shows that the persuasion becomes one based on persuading others who aren’t certain of a specific concept or justice. If this can be done in the correct manner, then it also alters how much wealth and power another individual holds. “Socrates: One part of it would be flattery, I suppose, and shameful of public harangue, while the other – that of getting the souls of the citizens to be as good as possible and of striving valiantly to say what is best, whether the audience will find it more pleasant or unpleasant – is something admirable” (Bizzell, Herzberg, p. 91). This example shows the main belief of Plato, in which he states that rhetoric in nature is supposed to be for law and justice. However, the use of rhetoric from the Sophists view was based on trying to find something admirable to say to an audience, ultimately with the intent of using it to manipulate others, change over ideologies of justice or to have more power and wealth over those uncertain of a condition. Flattery as a part of the persuasion was the main flaw which Plato saw conducted in trying to create rhetoric which was also defined as justice. The second approach which Plato creates is based on creating a rationale for a revised view of the art in Phaedrus, specifically which shows the true elements of rhetoric. Plato believed that there was an art to rhetoric which could be used as a way to show truth, justice and a law. The rhetoric had to be used in a manner that was able to move outside of the manipulation and flattery which was analyzed through the Sophists. Instead, Plato believed that the rhetoric had to be based on finding a sense of truth and using rhetoric as an art, not only for persuasion, but also for allowing others to make decisions about justice and law for those in the community. Plato’s belief was that one had to develop the ideology of rhetoric not only for manipulation and control but also to find a sense of justice and truth. To develop the true rhetoric that Plato spoke of, there was also the need to define the concept of who could speak rhetoric. Plato believed that philosophers, that were constantly seeking the truth, were able to create a stronger rhetoric. The concept was based on building a sense of truth and understanding of justice that was outside of political systems. Philosophers which were not interested in power, wealth or manipulation could then use rhetoric as a tool to enlighten others, as opposed to creating a sense of control and manipulation with the use of persuasion. “This power could be used by a tyrant to wield absolute control over a city, or by a philosopher to draw people toward truth. Those who made their living by their knack for persuasive speaking were ever suspect; at the same time, rhetoric might also be employed by those with a sound knowledge of philosophy to help bring about a healthy social order in the polis” (Herrick, 2009: p. 58). The belief which Plato had was first to recognize the power of rhetoric and how it could be used to persuade others. Those who could speak the truth would then be able to use this to guide others and to bring social order with knowledge, truth and wisdom. This was one which moved against the manipulation and persuasion that wasn’t used in what is referred to as an unhealthy society. Plato’s main objective was to show the power of rhetoric first then to define how manipulation needed to be taken out of the persuasive speech to offer guidance and truth, as opposed to power and control. The concept of rhetoric that Plato approaches is one which is not defined by what should be used in speech or in persuasion. Instead, Plato shows how the nature of rhetoric holds a strong power, specifically because it can change ideologies, laws and justice within a given land. It can be used not only to assist in persuasion, but also brings about a central control among the social order and changes the ideologies which most are faced with. The concept which Plato shows in terms of the rhetoric is one which he divides by the Sophists, which he believes to use rhetoric for manipulation and power. The division is furthered by his understanding that rhetoric can be used for good; however, this has to come from sources that only speak the truth. Philosophers and others who are interested in wisdom, justice and the law, as opposed to manipulation and power, are then able to change the intent of rhetoric and to use persuasive speech to help citizens move toward a stronger social order. 2. The enlightenment is one which many theorists refer to as one which went through a variety of social and intellectual changes. The changes were inclusive of rhetoric and the way in which many communicated during this time frame (Bizzell, Herzberg, 2001: p. 791). The characteristics of the enlightenment were not only inclusive of this framework, but also consisted of specific theories and establishments which are now understood by those within society. Several theorists have established different meanings and beliefs over the changes which occurred as well as how the basis of communication also led to the beliefs that each individual had in terms of the basic functions within society, the government and the culture of the time. The concept of the enlightenment begins with comparisons of vast social and intellectual changes. One specific approach which is defined is based on the belief that rhetoric and communication is one which forms as a reaction to modes of behavior. Explaining the modes of behavior within society also creates an understanding of the psychology of those within the society as well as the accepted forms and functions which were used. The examples which are given come from the examples of rhetoric and explanations of why rhetoric was used. The example of Gorgias is one which defines this by showing how communication was used to change the minds of the audience, specifically which would lead to changed behaviors among those in society. “Rhetoric is a producer of persuasion, and has therein its whole business and main consummation. Or can you tell us of any other function it can have beyond that of effecting persuasion in the minds of an audience” (Bizzell, Herrick, 2001: p. 91). The example of Plato which is given is used to establish the main ideology of how the changes in society were based on behavioral patterns. The reference to the mind of the audience and the need to persuade for consummation relates directly to the effects that persuasion had on the minds of individuals and the overall actions of society. The belief which is created from this perspective is then defined as one which occurred because many were enlightened to new behaviors and conscious levels within society. The beliefs which are given by Bizzell and Herzberg with the form of persuasion for behavioral patterns is one which is also inclusive of other viewpoints of why the social and intellectual climate began to change. The behavioral patterns noted by these philosophies are one which other theorists would believe had an opposing viewpoint. The rhetoric created from the viewpoint of Herrick moves outside of the mindset and the behavioral patterns of society and how this began to change with the reflection of communication. While Herrick still shows that this is important, specifically because persuasion could cause different behaviors, there is also an association with the use of rhetoric. The belief in the enlightenment was formed because of the need to be enlightened outside of the communication and to notice the faults of rhetoric. Instead of pointing out the changing mindset of society, Herrick establishes that the enlightenment formed with noting the flaws that were established in communication. The general ideology that Herrick states agrees with the fact that rhetoric and communication during the enlightenment changed because of the understanding of the importance of persuasion and how it affected society. However, this wasn’t based on the belief that society changed according to persuasion. Instead, Herrick establishes that the social and intellectual knowledge changed, which led to enlightened understanding or a lack of knowledge which led into persuasion for control. The comparison between the Sophists and true enlightenment highlights this. Herrick shows how the Sophists used communication for control and manipulation, whereas the enlightenment should use the same sense of communication for truth, specifically by adding in philosophy to rhetoric. “Plato’s views do point up the long rivalry between rhetoric and philosophy. It is not exaggerating to say that rhetoric and philosophy have been at odds at various crucial points throughout Western history” (Herrick, 2009: p. 57). This quote shows that the vast changes in social and intellectual behaviors was no longer one of changing behaviors and thought processes. Instead, the belief is that rhetoric and philosophy brought the enlightenment, knowledge and ideas to others. If this were one of truth, then it could help to change society, thought patterns and the overall social functions, specifically because law and justice as well as the roots of society would be forced to change. The concept of the changes which were a part of the enlightenment is also established through other theorists who held different beliefs about this time frame. One which contributes to the studies of this is George Campbell. The generalized belief that society went through intellectual and social changes holds the same relevance to Campbell. However, Campbell doesn’t believe that this is through behavioral patterns, developments of philosophy or other relationships to communication changing the level of understanding within society. Instead, Campbell states that this is based on improvement in society and the need to evolve and progress into a better state. The statement of philosophy and the use of expanding the mind with expressions of rhetoric were the most important aspects of the enlightenment, specifically because it created new practices in society that naturally created a new evolution. The human knowledge in which one could have through philosophy and communication also led to higher evolution and understanding. However, there is also the understanding that this natural evolution only occurred because the philosophical rhetoric had an impact of the experiences of those in society. “It is not only that impressions have a greater impact on the understanding than ideas, but that belief depends on impact. We believe those ideas that we experience as impressions, including not only sensations but passions and emotions, or ideas presented in such a way that they resemble impressions” (Walzer, 2000: p 20). The concept which Campbell believed in combined elements of evolution in terms of the mind, behaviors, expectations and experience. This combined with philosophies and rhetoric which introduced new capacities of living and understanding for the changes in society. Another established belief about these changes comes from Richard Whately. The belief in rhetoric that Whately had was based on the creation of logic and reason that went outside of the past behaviors and traditions. The agreement with Whately comes with the understanding that the evolution of behaviors, truth and philosophy was a part of the time frame. However, Whately doesn’t believe that there is an attribute based on psychology or behaviors within this time frame. This was also not a part of the need to have philosophical truth come over those who were looking at changing the approaches to society. Instead, Whately follows the same vein as Campbell, showing that the rhetoric was a part of the natural evolution in trying to understand how to function in a better manner. The rhetoric and communication was used as a logical process to create this deeper understanding. “The process of conveying truth to others by reasoning, the conclusion or conclusions which are to be established must be present to the mind of him who is conducting the Argument and whose business is to find Proofs of a given proposition” (Whately, 2005: p.33). According to Whately, the process of rhetoric was established because reason also was established. Philosophies, finding justice, growth in psychology and behavior, and changes in knowledge aren’t a part of this perspective. Instead, Whately shows that the changes occurred because of the need to have logic and reason in society, as opposed to the past which didn’t need these values. The changes in society and intellect in the age of the enlightenment are attributed to alterations within rhetoric and communication. When looking at various philosophers, it can be seen that the elements of persuasion and communication were not only based on one perspective of why this was needed and led to evolution of communication. Instead, the reasoning of communication is attributed to different theories of why it changed, associated with behavioral psychology, philosophy, reasoning and the development of knowledge within society. Each of these theories brings a different type of insight into the reasoning of why there was a vast change in society and intellect. References Bizzell, Patricia and Herzberg, Bruce. The Rhetorical Tradition. Boston: Bedford/ St. Martin’s, 2001. Herrick, James. A History and Theory of Rhetoric: An Introduction, 4th ed. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc., 2009. Walzer, Arthur (ed). George Campbell: Rhetoric in the Age of Enlightenment. New York: Suny Press, 2000. Whately, Richard. Elements of Rhetoric Comprising an Analysis of the Laws of Moral Evidence and Persuasion with Rules for Argumentative Composition and Elocution. New York: Kessinger Publishing, 2005. Read More