The sacred art of the spellbinder- rhetoric. I've been schooled in public educational institutions. My family was/is miseducated/uneducated, and are comfortable in their ignorance. I say this to say I was an empty vessel, filled with the knowledge of how to be a blockhead, and my school masters made me an adept. There was no mention of logic, or rhetoric; no mention of logical fallacies, debating; the art of communicationl persuasion, or anything. As Dorethy Sayers said in her essay "The Lost Tools of Learning", they let me go out into the world unprepared, and ill equiped into this ocean of words, words, words. Being a slave to words in my emotions, rather than a master of them in my intellect. Of course, this miseducation is deliberately employed by the elite of society, who glut and occult the tools of learning as best they can, while injecting within the lower elements of society, a negative stigma on being educated. In other words, in the lower levels, ignorance and impulsiveness is encouraged by peers.
@@RickyMier I've just seen this now weirdly. I'm currently going through a textbook by Eugene Moutoux on drawing/diagramming sentences. How is your study going?
I'm glad the host keeps asking for more specificity. Sometimes intellectuals in the humanities can get a little abstract to the point where actual discussion stops.
Sum of 1st half: Plato = hostile to rhetoric, though in Phaedrus he has Socrates leave open the possibility of a productive and ethical form of it directed towards apprehension of truth/s. But more generally, he sees it as a form of flattery, a way of appealing to irrational elements to exercise influence on others. Dialectic vs. Rhetoric thus aligns with the Philosophy/Sophistry dichotomy in Plato. Sophists had largely emerged to meet needs of litigants. As such, many of them were less committed to finding truth than winning arguments. Some denied objective truth altogether, though Plato may exaggerate according to more recent scholars. But P is responding to this aspect of sophists, and seems to assume that all or most rhetoric instantiates these perceived deficits in the sophists. Plato also thinks only philosophical elites need to worry about public life and politics. Both in Republic and Laws, there's really little room for most people in the polis to exert an influence over the polity. Aristotle = Much more supportive of rhetoric as an integral part of *public life* and much less elitist. He favors a mixed constitution with room for all citizens (free members of the polis) to play some role in public life. He sees that rhetoric may be used for good or ill, but if placed in the context of ethical and philosophical precepts on which a good polis is based, it becomes an important practical skill. Governmental, educational (Paideia) legal, philosophical and political communication should be enacted with excellence. He lays out 3 key elements: ethos, logos and pathos. Appeal to ethos = appeal to that common goodness that inheres in a public or social group such as one's fellow citizens. It says, "I'm with you" or "we're all in this together as Athenians, Greeks" or fill in the blank. You establish CREDIBILITY as a character-- a respectable member of some group/s which includes those you are addressing (say a nation, class, political chamber). Logos is the element of rationality associated with dialectic or logic. It includes such things as ability to gather relevant info, and finding and presenting evidence for your claims via well reasoned arguments. Pathos = appeal to the emotions of those you address. We see lots of this in ancient and modern politicians, as when appeals to resentments fuel, say, anti-immigration invective. The danger of pathos-dominant discourse is real, but Aristotle envisions good rhetoric as being ruled equally by ethos, logos and pathos. You want to establish your character and group membership vis a vis your audience as we're social beings. You want to think in a rational way which appeals to good evidence used in well formed arguments, and you want to *move* or persuade people to the point that they will take a decisive stand and so be moved to believe and act in accord with the speech (e.g. vote for a particular law, say). So it's a matter of balancing all 3. If all this is observed, the truth, says A, is at least likely to emerge. But no guarantee. In all this we see an important legacy of acknowledging interlocutors, asserting the importance of their views, beliefs and decisions. In many society you don't bother acknowledging and persuading, but govern by decree. Here we see roots of Republicanism, res publica-- the public thing. Cicero, Quintillian and other Roman rhetoricians: Rhetoric is a way of, ala Arist., acknowledging the importance of having other people on board with you-- recognizing their importance as fellow citizens (egalitarian bent here, though this won't extend to unfree populations). You can be taught to speak well and govern, not nec. innate talent. 3 main branches of Roman rhetoric = Judicial or Forensic (appeals to reason to judge things that happened in the past) Deliberative (appeals to willing or decision-making going forward) and Epideictic (appeals to your passions asking "do you like X or not?" ) Judicial might be establishing guilt or innocence of accused persons. Deliberative might be attempt to convince you to vote X or Y (again by appeal to ethos, logos and pathos). Epideictic or Demonstrative might include wedding speeches, funeral orations (like Pericles' famous one) et al. There develops in Rome many handbooks and pedagogical systems for developing variations and combinations of these 3 branches. (to be cont'd)
I'm very much interested in What these quite learned teachers are talking about and I do Share most of what they say I do appreciate the Link between Plato,Gorgias and ARISTOTLE because the three of them were deeply concerned by Rhetoric. Now one must'nt Forget that PLATO hated GORGIAS and only liked ARISTOTLE. Now we Know he prefered Speusippe his nephew at the head of the Academy to ARISTOTLE.
i dont know if its dyslexia but i dont understand this at all and yes it 100% sounds like it is manipulative and bad because it confuses the hell out of me when someone dances around a point.
and for more information please visit the following web page … The History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps Peter Adamson, Professor of Ancient and Medieval Philosophy at King’s College London, takes listeners through the history of Western philosophy, “without any gaps.” Beginning with the earliest ancient thinkers, the series will look at the ideas and lives of the major philosophers (eventually covering in detail such giants as Plato, Aristotle, Avicenna, Aquinas, Descartes, and Kant) as well as the lesser-known figures of the tradition. ( please using the right click of your mouse, and Open Link in Next Private Window, ) sites.google.com/site/niactecenglish/podcast-series-covering-the-history-of-philosophy-without-any-gaps ==
She was my tutor at one point. She's alright. A bellfry bursting with bats, but she always seemed to me to be beyond office politics and so on. Yes, a genuinely kind and caring person I thought. I sort of tried hitting on her once--I don't think she even noticed.
The sacred art of the spellbinder- rhetoric. I've been schooled in public educational institutions. My family was/is miseducated/uneducated, and are comfortable in their ignorance. I say this to say I was an empty vessel, filled with the knowledge of how to be a blockhead, and my school masters made me an adept. There was no mention of logic, or rhetoric; no mention of logical fallacies, debating; the art of communicationl persuasion, or anything. As Dorethy Sayers said in her essay "The Lost Tools of Learning", they let me go out into the world unprepared, and ill equiped into this ocean of words, words, words. Being a slave to words in my emotions, rather than a master of them in my intellect. Of course, this miseducation is deliberately employed by the elite of society, who glut and occult the tools of learning as best they can, while injecting within the lower elements of society, a negative stigma on being educated. In other words, in the lower levels, ignorance and impulsiveness is encouraged by peers.
Adam Southworth Much experience challenges literacy in retort to corruption
Did you manage to educate yourself sufficiently when you found out about the Trivium? I'm in the process of giving myself a classical education.
❤️
Adeel Ali Hey me too, how are you studying?
@@RickyMier
I've just seen this now weirdly.
I'm currently going through a textbook by Eugene Moutoux on drawing/diagramming sentences.
How is your study going?
I'm glad the host keeps asking for more specificity. Sometimes intellectuals in the humanities can get a little abstract to the point where actual discussion stops.
Sum of 1st half:
Plato = hostile to rhetoric, though in Phaedrus he has Socrates leave open the possibility of a productive and ethical form of it directed towards apprehension of truth/s. But more generally, he sees it as a form of flattery, a way of appealing to irrational elements to exercise influence on others. Dialectic vs. Rhetoric thus aligns with the Philosophy/Sophistry dichotomy in Plato.
Sophists had largely emerged to meet needs of litigants. As such, many of them were less committed to finding truth than winning arguments. Some denied objective truth altogether, though Plato may exaggerate according to more recent scholars. But P is responding to this aspect of sophists, and seems to assume that all or most rhetoric instantiates these perceived deficits in the sophists. Plato also thinks only philosophical elites need to worry about public life and politics. Both in Republic and Laws, there's really little room for most people in the polis to exert an influence over the polity.
Aristotle = Much more supportive of rhetoric as an integral part of *public life* and much less elitist. He favors a mixed constitution with room for all citizens (free members of the polis) to play some role in public life. He sees that rhetoric may be used for good or ill, but if placed in the context of ethical and philosophical precepts on which a good polis is based, it becomes an important practical skill. Governmental, educational (Paideia) legal, philosophical and political communication should be enacted with excellence.
He lays out 3 key elements: ethos, logos and pathos. Appeal to ethos = appeal to that common goodness that inheres in a public or social group such as one's fellow citizens. It says, "I'm with you" or "we're all in this together as Athenians, Greeks" or fill in the blank. You establish CREDIBILITY as a character-- a respectable member of some group/s which includes those you are addressing (say a nation, class, political chamber). Logos is the element of rationality associated with dialectic or logic. It includes such things as ability to gather relevant info, and finding and presenting evidence for your claims via well reasoned arguments. Pathos = appeal to the emotions of those you address. We see lots of this in ancient and modern politicians, as when appeals to resentments fuel, say, anti-immigration invective.
The danger of pathos-dominant discourse is real, but Aristotle envisions good rhetoric as being ruled equally by ethos, logos and pathos. You want to establish your character and group membership vis a vis your audience as we're social beings. You want to think in a rational way which appeals to good evidence used in well formed arguments, and you want to *move* or persuade people to the point that they will take a decisive stand and so be moved to believe and act in accord with the speech (e.g. vote for a particular law, say). So it's a matter of balancing all 3. If all this is observed, the truth, says A, is at least likely to emerge. But no guarantee. In all this we see an important legacy of acknowledging interlocutors, asserting the importance of their views, beliefs and decisions. In many society you don't bother acknowledging and persuading, but govern by decree. Here we see roots of Republicanism, res publica-- the public thing.
Cicero, Quintillian and other Roman rhetoricians: Rhetoric is a way of, ala Arist., acknowledging the importance of having other people on board with you-- recognizing their importance as fellow citizens (egalitarian bent here, though this won't extend to unfree populations). You can be taught to speak well and govern, not nec. innate talent.
3 main branches of Roman rhetoric = Judicial or Forensic (appeals to reason to judge things that happened in the past) Deliberative (appeals to willing or decision-making going forward) and Epideictic (appeals to your passions asking "do you like X or not?" ) Judicial might be establishing guilt or innocence of accused persons. Deliberative might be attempt to convince you to vote X or Y (again by appeal to ethos, logos and pathos). Epideictic or Demonstrative might include wedding speeches, funeral orations (like Pericles' famous one) et al. There develops in Rome many handbooks and pedagogical systems for developing variations and combinations of these 3 branches.
(to be cont'd)
Can you continue this comment?
The Socratic method? A more active, engaged, naturally evolving way than being spoken to.
That was great, randomly suggested to me.
I'm very much interested in What these quite learned teachers are talking about and I do Share most of what they say I do appreciate the Link between Plato,Gorgias and ARISTOTLE because the three of them were deeply concerned by Rhetoric. Now one must'nt Forget that PLATO hated GORGIAS and only liked ARISTOTLE. Now we Know he prefered Speusippe his nephew at the head of the Academy to ARISTOTLE.
Good history on rhetoric by a panel of European experts
i dont know if its dyslexia but i dont understand this at all and yes it 100% sounds like it is manipulative and bad because it confuses the hell out of me when someone dances around a point.
Did Mr. Leibniz get deep fried or was it just a light sauté?
Thanks :)
and for more information please visit the following web page …
The History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps
Peter Adamson, Professor of Ancient and Medieval Philosophy at King’s College London, takes listeners through the history of Western philosophy, “without any gaps.” Beginning with the earliest ancient thinkers, the series will look at the ideas and lives of the major philosophers (eventually covering in detail such giants as Plato, Aristotle, Avicenna, Aquinas, Descartes, and Kant) as well as the lesser-known figures of the tradition.
( please using the right click of your mouse, and Open Link in Next Private Window, )
sites.google.com/site/niactecenglish/podcast-series-covering-the-history-of-philosophy-without-any-gaps
==
What about "reason"?
Cool !
Carrie is wonderful. I must admit I need to take a few deep breaths occasionally.....
She was my tutor at one point. She's alright. A bellfry bursting with bats, but she always seemed to me to be beyond office politics and so on. Yes, a genuinely kind and caring person I thought. I sort of tried hitting on her once--I don't think she even noticed.
She didn't hyperventilate?
Anything to help you be a better salesman is a plus.
My comment is not a critique of this video*
In general I gotta agree, Aristotle is really boring with the exception of his _Politics_
i hear nerdgazms
Anyone else hear the random panting sound 08:22 ?
9:28
I'm with Plato. All rhetoric sounds pretentious to me. It's clearly contrived, far from commonsense and everyman's language.
rhetoric is a tool of the devil to make you question the Lord Jesus Christ
The way that lady speaks is beyond annoying.