According to Ancient Rhetorics for
Contemporary Students chapter 2, Kairos is a very useful tool for
developing effective rhetoric argument. Kairos refers to the time period when
opportunities take place for rhetors to take advantage of them. In order to create
effective rhetoric, rhetors need to pay attention to opportunity and catch it
before it slips away. In order to do so, rhetors will need to do research and
know about the histories and different situations about certain issues, so that
when the opportunity comes, they are prepared to talk about or write about the
issue in every way. To ensure an effective argument, rhetors also need to be
aware of the urgency of the issue (whether the issue suits the current
situation and audiences), power dynamic (opinions of different groups or
parties), and additional problems related to the issue. Personally, I agree
that Kairos is a crucial element for successful rhetoric, because without a
good timing and the right audience, the rhetor cannot make a compelling and
well-expressed argument. I remember one time I confronted an unsuccessful
rhetorical situation due to the lack of rightful timing and suitable audiences.
I was sharing my favorite movie to my high school classmates, but I did not know
their best interests at heart (I was unprepared and did not do any research on
my audiences). As a result, my classmates were not convinced that the movie is
a good one, thus none of them wanted to watch it. I believe that good capture
of Kairos not only benefit people through their careers, but also help people
solve problems from their daily life.
Chreia
is defined as a brief saying or action that makes a point (p. 52). The chapter
also includes the amplification of Chreia as well as a few examples. I feel
connected to Isocrates’ saying that “The root of education is bitter, but sweet
are its fruits” (p. 53). This Chreia sounds reasonable and common for everyone
who pursues knowledge. As an example, in order to learn about rhetoric, I will
have to read 20 pages out of my textbook, which process is bitter, but the
outcome is sweet because I eventually learned something valuable.
From
page 42 to 46 in the Rhetorical Tradition, the reading mainly covers Gorgias’s
background and his argument that Helen is not to blame. Gorgias was born in Leontini
in Sicily. He has traveled to many places to teach rhetoric during his life
time. He has argued that Hellen is not the one to blame for the war and the
damage of Troy, because her kidnap was predetermined by God, and forced by her lover.
Gorgias argued that Hellen was raped and deceived by the prince of Troy, thus
she is not blamable but instead unfortunate and the victim from the story. I
think that many of Gorgias’ argument in Hellenism are very considerate for
Hellen, as if these arguments start out from a woman’s perspective. These
arguments are very similar to today’s law that protects women’s right and
benefits. I think it’s interesting even in ancient centuries, rhetoricians
constructed arguments that protect women.
According
to Dissoi Logoi (p. 47-55), the author talked about the definitions of good and
bad, seemly and shameful, just and unjust, truth and falsehood, wisdom and
moral excellence. I find it interesting that on page 49, the author indicate
that “it’s seemly for a boy in the flower of his growth to gratify a
respectable lover, but it’s shameful for a handsome boy to gratify one who is
not his lover.” This saying reminds me of the novel Unbearable Light of Being,
because in the novel the boy has gratified both a respectable lover and someone
who is not his lover. It is interesting because then he should be considered
both seemly and shameful, which proves the statement on page 49 “the same thing
is both seemly and shameful.” And it appears that a man can be seemly and
shameful at the same time.
This reading also embodies the idea of just and unjust. The narrator
said if someone try to kill himself using a sword, it’s just to steal the sword
even if it means to commit the crime of stealing (p. 51). I find this statement
arguable because to others it might seem unjust to let the man kill himself,
but the man may think it’s unjust for himself if he can’t die because he wanted
it. People hold different and opposite views towards the same situation, so it’s
difficult to make decisions that satisfies everyone’s needs. This section reminds
me of Game of Thrones. In season 4,
Tyrion has killed his father because his father wanted to kill him, it’s
arguable whether Tyrion’s action is just or not. I would say it’s just that
Tyrion stopped his father from killing him (because he was trying to fight back
the social persecution and unjust), but it is also unjust that Tyrion has murdered
a man to protect himself, and most of all that was his father.
没有评论:
发表评论