Stephen Colbert's 2010 Testimony - Essay Example

Task: Stephen Colbert’s Testimony The following paper aims at describing various aspects of rhetoric. The document introduces the whole topic of study by defining rhetoric in detail and explaining the different applications rhetoric. These include sophistic and Platonic rhetoric. The two diverse parties have dissimilarities and similarities that I have addressed. The document ends in an analysis of Colbert’s 2010 testimony, in a manner, which establishes the rhetoric party he belongs. Rhetoric is an art of discourse. It aims to enhance the facility of writers or speakers who endeavor to persuade, inspire or enlighten an audience in specific situations (Richards 1). Rhetoric is contemporarily a formalized study and a civic practice. Westerners most commonly apply this practice in numerous situations, in their daily lives. Aristotle defines it to as a counterpart of both politics and logic. He also refers to it as the faculty of looking into the case at hand and finding available persuasions. Just as the Aristotle’s appeals - ethos, pathos and logos, rhetoric also provides heuristics available for conferring, discovering and making arguments for given situations. This practice aims at making speakers adept to engage an audience when delivering a speech, hence a potent tool in discourse (Richards 176). Classical Romans devised the first of the canons of designing rhetoric that moves audience. These codes encompass aspects of innovation, arrangement, fashion, recollection and delivery. Rhetoric is among the first of the three arts of communication of the earliest times. This is alongside grammar and logic. In the ancient western civilizations, there was a dire need to educate speakers from the precise basic levels of education delivery in schools, to make them competent enough to move audiences and deliver plausible arguments. Westerners employ the use of rhetoric in courtrooms, public, political meeting and other assemblies. Believers of rhetoric confer it to bring order or shape communities and considerably influence civic life. Isocrates confers that rhetoric is an essential practice, not taught just to anyone; that can shape a man’s character and is a part of civic life. Aristotle further reinforces Isocrates ideas regarding rhetoric as a civic art that devises any means of persuasion, which various people could utilize in public places or settings in three diverse ways. He gives an instance of an assembly personality deciding on future events, a member of the jury establishing past events and orators who are able to persuade others with a command. He, therefore, divides the oratory practice into political inducement, forensic concerns and ceremonial speechifying or mere flaunt. The nature of rhetoric, being a civic and public art, is, thus, capable of performing opinion shaping (Aristotle et al. 15). Therefore, Plato considerably criticizes sophism use of rhetoric to falsely articulate ideas. Sophists make use of their rhetoric using doxa or exploitation of public judgment. Plato profoundly challenges sophistic use of rhetoric. He views effective and rightful use of rhetoric through application of episteme or true knowledge (Richards 20). He asserts that rhetoric users ought to apply justice in it, and they should observe the use of justice in their arguments. Additionally, he asserts that every rhetoric user should aim at the welfare of both the individual and the city-state. Sophists confer that everything is relative, there is no dichotomy between reality and appearance. Thus, whatever one thinks is right they should explore. However, Plato disputes this, claiming that it is not everything that one personally confers to be suitable that is so. There is a dichotomy between reality and appearance of things. Sophists also confer that virtue is not as weighty as personal immorality. Plato disputes this view insinuating that virtue and the common interest should be the first option in use of rhetoric. He discourages against the illegitimate and greedy manipulation of rhetoric in achieving personal, subjective desires at the expense of the common good. Sophists additionally consider moral norms and virtues to be mentalities or mere social constructs. They assume these purely conventional and not long lasting. However, Plato disputes this rhetoric, claiming that people should not downplay or sacrifice these norms for personal advantage. Every person should apply rhetoric with moral inclination in the top priority. Plato asserts that sophistic rhetoric is a prank for persuading people through speeches, which lack any plausible foundation in morality and justice. However, modern scholars criticize Plato’s bitter criticism and condemnation against the sophists, who were the precursors to modern day democracy, teachers, professors, politicians and lawyers. Additionally, the sophists brought about the modern elevated education standards and systems (Aristotle et al. 53). In addition, both Plato and sophists seem to have various characteristics common, though one criticizes the other. Evidently, Plato seems to endorse the use of sophistic rhetoric in his works. He asserts in the “Apology” that people should be argumentative, because Socrates presses on when enforcing his ideas and perceptions to the teachers. Moreover, both assert and stress the use and mastery of language with rhetoric. Through the mastery and command of language and rhetoric, one is able to succinctly lay forward their objections and stances regarding various topics and arguments presented to them. Sophists, however, have a more profound belief in the real world and deception and deceit to gain their desired outcomes. Thus, the modern world is full of these people, who include lawyers, lecturers, politicians, judges among others. Colbert is talking about the plight of immigrant workers in the US. He asserts that he has been there for ten hours and knows the hardships and braves the workers have to face (Judiciary.house.gov). Contradictorily he says, the workers do not have their rights, yet they work in the US and the immigration officers can send them back to their country at will. This is true, according to him, but he does not prove evidence regarding his claims. When asked to prove that the workers are unregistered, he refutes, claiming that he did not know. Truly, Colbert has a strong and competitive sense of rhetoric application identified by the consistent employment of grammar and twists in his speech. He makes his audience listen to him. At one instant, he silences Arturo from interrupting him as he speaks, asserting that it would be rude (Judiciary.house.gov). He employs captivating style. He jokingly asserts that the scientists would rather manufacture tomatoes that would pick themselves or make a human-fruit hybrid. He has a profound command of language, considering that he is a comedian and satirist. Apparently, Colbert manipulates the audience and the congressional representatives to a point that they order him out of the house. This shows that he uses too much satire against the members, a rhetoric quality. Colbert’s twists and adamant deliberation leave the audience overwhelmed by his aptitude. He does not seem to give up anyway in these deliberations as he negotiates his way to the end. In such a case, Colbert takes the role of Socrates, questioning and criticizing the sophists. Apparently, most of the audience knows the plight of the immigrant workers. They apparently know how hard it is to do such rough jobs. The Americans also know that the government is not keen in such matters as evidenced by the audience reaction when Colbert concludes by the term “as always”. He perceives it as a truth that the government does not look into the needs of the workers. Moreover, his criticisms direct to the immigrant personnel and the authorities who do not play their role in ensuring average working conditions for all farm workers, something that discourages the Americans from working in these farms. He takes an active step, just as Socrates did, to justify the case and prove the sophists wrong by their disgruntled and inconsiderate actions. This depicts Colbert as a perfect example of a Platonic rhetoric user. He uses his rhetoric to justify the immigrant situation just as Plato, in his work, used Socrates to prove the sophists all wrong. This shows that the contemporary society consists of Sophistic leaders in the government, since they do not look into and rectify the quandaries faced by minority groups. The sophistic leaders merely concentrate on other affairs that they perceive to be advantageous and relevant to them alone. This is what Colbert aimed at in his speech. Works Cited Richards, Jennifer. Rhetoric. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2008. Print. Aristotle et al. Rhetoric. New York: Cosimo, Inc., 2010. Print. Judiciary.house.gov. Protecting America’s Harvest. 24 Sep, 2010. Web. 10 Feb, 2012. Read More