ARCS, chap3
Summary
According to Ancient Rhetorics for
Contemporary Students, Stases is defined as the place where two rhetors can agree
what they disagree. The chapter also shows sometimes it’s difficult for rhetors
to agree on the point of disagreement, especially in issues like child abortion,
rhetors and their opponents may argue right past each other because they don’t
like to meet each other on the same ground; rhetors prefer to support their own
positions rather than counter-argue their opponents’ view-points. In addition,
the chapter indicates the idea of theoretical questions and practical questions.
Theoretical question refers to questions that address the origins and natures
of things (p. 60). Practical questions are questions that involve proposed
actions (p. 60). Practical questions involve the reasons behind the actions and
results of the actions. The chapter also defined general and specific
questions. General questions deal with political, ethical or philosophical
matters, while specific questions relate to smaller or more detailed problems
like actual people, places and events. General questions require a broader
knowledge and thus more research works. Differently, specific questions need
personal decisions, private reflection and a little hand-on research. Usually,
a person will consider a general question first before he consider about the
related specific question. The chapter reveals the level of generality of a
question depends on ethical factors as well as rhetorical situations
(audiences, settings, audience’s feeling, concerns and others). The chapter
gives four questions which help rhetors find the point where they agree to
disagree and prepare an argument. They are conjecture, definition, quality, and
policy. Conjecture is the questions determine whether an idea or thing exists.
Definition is the questions about classification of the thing or idea. Quality
helps determining whether the rhetor and his audiences agree about the value of
the thing. And finally, policy is to ask what should be done in the rhetorical
situation.
My reaction:
The idea of Stases has reminded me of my
argument with people I met in my life. I totally agree that it’s difficult to
find Stases or the point where you can agree that disagree. Just like the
chapter said, I think sometimes you are so eager to win a debate you frequently
support your own opinion and you just don’t want to exchange positions with
your opponents to look for a solution, because that way you wouldn’t have won
the debate. This brings a lot of unnecessary confusion and frustration (just
like the book has discussed). I remember one time I failed to find peace with
my dad, I was too angry to even think of a solution with him, I yelled about
what I think is right over and over again, instead of trying to think in his
situation. He on the other hand was smart and waited for me to calm down so we
could talk (a way of reaching agreement with me). I think that if two people
are both able to talk and think straight when it comes to a conflict or fight, it
will make it a lot easier to find an agreement on something they disagree. Take
my own example, I was being childish, uncooperative and unwilling to talk when
arguing with my dad, that is why it takes so long to solve our issue. If only I
can keep calm and try to persuade him that his position is not so workable, the
fight might not last or grow into a bigger one. I noticed that everyone in my
life has used bad ways to argue or persuade such as shouting at their opponent
about their opinion, and sometimes violence. It makes me think of how little we
have cared or paid attention to other people’s lives and perspectives, and instead
how we have weighed a great deal about our own lives.
The Rhetorical Tradition: Plato, p. 80-168
Summary
The reading mainly includes two major
parts, Gorgias and Phaedrus. Gorgias depicts an argument between Socrates with his friends
(Gorgias, Polus, and Callicles); they argued about the value of rhetoric. In
the first argument, Gorgias said rhetoric is beneficial because it gives the
power to convince anyone including the experts. Socrates countered this idea by
asking Gorgias to define the concept of art and justice. Socrates said rhetoric
is not an art but a skill to persuade; and he believed rhetoric is not at all
good for men because it made speech about unjust. Then Polus defended Gorgias’s
argument by saying that rhetoric is good for rhetors because it enables them to
get what they want. Socrates then countered Polus by saying rhetoric enables people
to seek pleasure instead of good virtue, thus is unbeneficial and harmful. Lastly,
Callicles challenged Socrates by stating that treating others unfairly is not
an evil act if the orator has the power to do so; rhetoric can enhance orators’
power by exploitation. Socrates countered Callicles by saying a man’s strength
are enriched by his goodness, thus pursuing pleasure, an act which destroys one’s
goodness, may weaken one’s strength. That is why rhetoric is unbeneficial. In Phaedrus, Socrates and Phaedrus talked about
orator’s effort to persuade is similarly manipulative to a lover’s persuasion.
Both orators and lovers will get morally affected while trying to please and
persuade for their benefits and desires. In addition, Socrates said such
persuasion is wrong and unjust because it involves a more powerful being working
to rule over the inferior one. In addition, Socrates and Phaedrus argued that
the persuasion exposes true knowledge and belief is the kind that fights
against the power of the superior and the desire to seek pleasure. In order to
achieve this persuasion, teachers need to raise the student up to the teacher’s
level, while the student needs to make sure not to bring the teacher down to
his inferior level. Socrates and Phaedrus tried three speeches (regarding love)
in order to create this kind of persuasion. In the speeches, Socrates defined
the difference between “persuasion to belief” (the bad rhetoric) and “persuasion
to knowledge” (the rhetoric that only brings good). Socrates said rhetors will
need to discover the truth first before they create a persuasion to knowledge;
to find the truth, the orator need to do some analytic and synthetic works, and
apply them to rhetoric itself.
My
reaction:
According to the reading, I realize that in
both Gorgias and Phaedrus, Socrates focused its rhetoric on goodness and virtue. In
speech, addressing virtues and goodness can empower an argument, just like
Socrates did. In real life however, good souls don’t always win, when the
situation puts one’s life at stake, even strong and good people surrender or retreat
to pursuing pleasure and profits. Especially on one’s career, the person cannot
always show that he or she dislike the idea of doing bad. Assume you work at office,
you will have to listen to your boss regardless he or she is treating you
fairly because you know otherwise he or she may fire you, and your life will be
miserable without a job and salary. Everyone thinks about their own benefit
before they consider about the well-being of others because if you cannot take
care of yourself you cannot take care of anybody. In that case, if Audrey
Hepburn doesn’t have any money, she hardly will establish Children’s Fund to
help poor kids, and what is the use of good virtue if one does not have the
ability to practice it? I recall that Aristotle has once said “money is evil”,
just like Socrates said in the reading that rhetoric is harmful, yet I doubt
anybody in this world can live without money or the attempt to earn more
profits for himself, whether it’s by persuasion or exploitation or act on authority.
That is why our world is unbalanced and problematic, but it can never be so
pure as Plato and Socrates defined; there’s not just white and black, good and
evil, but a middle ground where it works for everybody.
没有评论:
发表评论