What is rhetoric?

In one of our first class sessions this semester we were asked to define rhetoric. Right away everyone had their own take on the matter. It would seem that defining rhetoric is like defining art, there are a million different little definitions, and ultimately it is a personal decision. While working on my paper I needed to define rhetoric, and it was a little bit of a challenge. Part of the challenge was defining it in a way that helped my thesis of course, but also trying to define something as multi faceted as rhetoric is rather challenging. After some research and some thinking I think I've come up with something that works pretty well.

Rhetoric is the act of communicating in such a way as to persuade one's audience. This can

include speech, text, body language, or movement.

I think this definition works pretty well. Not only to define the type of classical Athenian rhetoric that we have talked so much about, but it even works to define the type of rhetoric that occurs in the animal kingdom.

Cicero's Book Burning

In the last section of last weeks reading, Cicero's dilemma was discussed. The poor guy was really stuck between a rock and a hard place. The new emperor, Antony, was not a fan of his to say the least. So he gave Cicero a choice, either burn the books that you have published, or be put to death. Now of course since this argument involved rhetoric many rhetoricians had to give their two cents on the subject. It seemed no one was really a fan of Cicero the man, only his books. They all said that it was better for him to die than to burn his work.

I do of course understand where they are coming from. I mean, Cicero was old for the time and probably couldn't really expect to live that much longer. Plus in a way his published works do immortalize the guy. But really, if any one of us was put in that position I really doubt we would choose death. You gotta think about it from a practical stand point. Cicero's published works were scattered far and wide. It is physically impossible to burn every single one of them. Why not burn some of the one's that are nearby, and escape with your life? If it was me, I would burn what ever I could get my hands on, a lot of which have duplicates I'm sure, then get the hell outta dodge.

Isocrates

Isocrates makes some interesting points.

He believes that oration is an art form, and because of such he believes that the way many sophists taught the art of oration was wrong. They applied far too many rules and regulations, in an attempt to make oration more of a science. Isocrates didn't like this. He was a strong believer in kairos, or fitness for the situation. This means that there are no hard and fast rules that can be applied to oration for every situation is unique and as such every situation requires a completely different approach. This plays strongly into another one of Isocrates beliefs, that oration is heavily reliant on natural ability. One can be instructed by another in the art of oration but unless they have the god given ability it will all be for naught. He also distanced himself from other sophists of in the way he taught. He didn't travel around teaching, rather he stayed in one place in order to better tutor his pupils for years at a time.

I think that Isocrates cared more about the actual art of oration than other sophists, who I think cared more about the business of teaching for profit. Part of the reason that the sophists tried to apply so many rules and guidelines to oration is that it makes it easier to teach to more people.

Gorgias

First and foremost, I gotta give Gorgias credit; he is one hell of a BSer.

I actually found his four arguments on Helen to be rather clever, and very enjoyable. My personal favorite has got to be his will of the gods idea. I think it makes the most sense in the context of the time in which it was written. Now I'm obviously not saying that I believe in Zues or any of those guys, I'm just saying that divine intervention is a pretty darn good reason for someone to do something. Gorgias says, "god's predetermination cannot be hindered by human predetermination." It is, in my opinion, the ultimate, unbeatable argument. One that people in power have been using for many, many years. The God's will argument. If God is all powerful and controls everything, and he (or she) decides something is to be, then of course all of us mere mortals are completely powerless to change this. You killed your wife? Hey man, what was I supposed to do? It was ordained by the Gods. However, I think that as a rhetorician it's a rather flimsy, low-blow of an argument, simply because it can't be argued against.