Although I was told reading Aristotle's Rhetoric was as confusing as reading it in the original Attic Greek, I found it to be no more difficult than any other really technical writing I have encountered. Aristotle made some very good points about rhetoric and its uses in the political, forensic, and ceremonial contexts. He also made a pretty observation that all men use rhetoric to discuss statements, maintain them, and defend or attack them when provoked.
I found it pretty funny that he referenced a court in Areopagus that did not allow talk pertaining to "non-essentials," namely things that would cause a judge to make a ruling on his emotions as opposed to facts. Its slightly ironic that the ancient Greeks foresaw this problem, because today it seems that is the main tool that lawyers use to persuade juries to give out the verdicts they desire for their clients. Aristotle was point on when he said that "it is of great moment that well-drawn laws should themselves define all the points they possibly can and leave as few as many to be to the decision of the judges." I fully agree with this statement, due to the fact today, even laws as explicitly defined as murder can be twisted and altered in a courtroom to be portrayed as something it is not, or into something less than it appears to the normal viewer.
Almost borrowing from the phrase "the pen is mightier than the sword," Aristotle put in a very witty comment on how he thinks it is absurd that a man should be ashamed of being unable to defend himself physically, but not to be ashamed if he cannot defend himself with speach and reason. He even points out that the ability to use rational speech is one of the things that defines us as humans as opposed to being just another animal in the food chain. I find it a little ironic that Aristotle's puple Alexander the Great, did not seem to heed the words of his tutor, and proceeded to conquer nearly the entire known world.
Overall the reading went by pretty well with my cup of morning coffee. I enjoyed listening to and contemplating the thoughts of a man who has been studied and critiqued since before the time of Christ. It stuns me to think of how many other generations of men have read his works and have been spurred to think more about the uses of rhetoric and language as a form of offensive and defensive prose, instead of merely shooting the breeze.
Referring to the second paragraph, it is amazing that after a couple millennia courtrooms are still plagued with "non-essentials". Emotion can overpower faculties of reason in anyone if the moment is right; it's human nature. I think we should all have a basic knowledge of rhetoric and its modes of persuasion in order to defend our reason against such "non-essentials" in daily life.
ReplyDeleteGoing off what was just said, i think it's interesting how many people believe they can control emotions completely, whether it be theirs' or others'. Human nature is to feel and feelings be overpowering, like KStone said. But again and again, one finds that using rhetoric distorts the emotions and instead promotes another emotion instead. So in a way one can control emotions through the use of rhetoric. When you think about it, don't we all control each other's emotions with our everyday words and relationships?
ReplyDeleteExactly, humans have some control over their emotions, but the use of pathos in rhetoric can sway emotions one way or another. If the orator uses a powerful use of emotion in their rhetoric, it can deeply change the emotions of someone and potentially change their point of view on a topic.
ReplyDeleteI think this all directly relates to how modern day courtrooms are exploited. Instead of following Aristotle's advice, we continue to allow issues to be solved with the use of rhetoric. Although I can't really see the system working "fairly" without lawyers, I feel like we turn disagreements and crimes into which side has the best explanations or stories.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the previous statement that crimes sometimes seem to be solved by the side who has the "best" story, but isn't that the whole basis of law anyway. Are laws not just a collection of ideals that the masses have agreed upon by the use rhetoric anyway. Therefore since the system is based on rhetoric to begin with it only follows that all judgments must too be made through this imperfect but effective means of persuasion and reason.
ReplyDeleteI really don't believe there ever will be a truly "fair" court system. We just have to go with what we believe will be the least biased judgment, which sadly does not happen all that often.
ReplyDelete