Gorgias and Socrates dialogue approached a lot of concepts that I had never really though about before. Such as, the differences between knowing and believing and the various different convictions it can possess. In this portion of the reading Gorgias and Socrates separate the idea of persuasion from teaching. This portion seemed a bit contradicting to me because, they are claiming that oratory, engenders belief without knowledge. Yet to me I feel there is knowledge in everything and while I do agree there is a difference in the two, I find it difficult to separate them as Gorgias and Socrates do.
When Gogias explains the control Oratory has on the human sphere he mentions, "Just because a man has acquired such skills in boxing or all- in wrestling or armed combat that he can beat anyone." Immediately after reading this I thought back to our class discussion on Kairos and how there is a time and place for everything. Whereas opportunity might present itself in the gym to punch someone, the same opportunity to punch someone is probably not going to happen in your household.
Another, component of Gorgias and Socrates argument I had a problem with was, the discussion on a man who has learned right from wrong will always be righteous. In regards to their conversation leading up to it about a man who studies medicine will become a doctor, it makes sense. However, when applied to the real world it doesn't make sense, if it did then our crime rate would be much lower.
Gorgias also makes the claim that you can't blame the teacher who taught the skills but rather the blame has to be put on the person who learned and used the skills. Do you guys agree that the teacher has no blame for actions involving their teachings?
Political power and the power orators possess gets discussed heavily in the reading as well. When it comes to the topic of power, it seems as though Socrates and Polus get very sassy and defensive on their positions. Socrates seems to think orators are pandering. Therefore, essentially he is calling himself a panderer, although he would never have admitted that. Is Socrates being a hypocrite during is debate with Polus regarding the power or orators?
The reading also discusses heavily this notion everyone posses regarding, the lesser and greater evil of things. Is it ok to steal a fish to feed your family? vs is sealing ok? Its this constant debate in society of morality vs. ethics. A particular part in the reading this idea was brought up was, Socrates and Polus debate about, one of two shameful things is the more shameful.
This week's reading was filled with many interesting components but, the above is what stood out to me most!
Saturday, January 25, 2014
Monday, January 20, 2014
The Sophists
After completing the reading about the Sophists, I now feel I have a much better understanding about their lifestyle. On their most basic level, it seems as if the Sophists are individuals who pushed social boundaries. Not only did they push social boundaries but, they also seemed to have a much higher intellectual level/desire than most individuals of the time period. Protagoras, Gorgias, Prodicus, Hippias, and Thrasymachus, were among some of the most prominent Sophists of the time. They were all well known orators and teachers of rhetoric.
After reading about the above Sophists, it brought me back to our conversation in class about, ethos, pathos, and logos. It seemed as if many of these men relied on ethos as a means of supporting their argument. Through out the reading their skills of oratory were frequently discussed. "Both amazed and instructed by his extraordinary, dazzling oratory, particularly his verbal innovations, they received him enthusiastically." After reading this part and some other parts, it almost seemed as if these men manipulated/ took advantage of their audience. They knew their audience wasn't educated and took this as an opportunity to influence the audience. They were able to talk the talk and present it in a manner that made it seem like it was impossible not to believe. But, I guess that is what rhetoric is all about and there is no doubt these men knew rhetoric.
Another part that stood out to me was, "They were subversive intellectuals and professors: dangerous people in their community."It can be scary to think of how powerful knowledge is and what it is capable of. We have all heard of an event in time where knowledge led to tragedy. Homemade bombs take knowledge to make and that knowledge leads to destruction. Knowledge should not be feared but the potential of how someone could use such knowledge should be feared.
A component of the reading that related back to cultural practices of today was; "Laws and customs are derived from social agreement, not from human nature." This relates to the struggle some people have today with, morality vs. ethics. As the reading is suggesting laws much like today are based on social norms. However, individuals must articulate where their personal ethics fall in line with such social norms.
The whole pushing social norms and going against the grain is still relevant today as well, probably more than ever. Our society puts such an emphasis on fitting in with your peers. We view people who go against the grain as outcasts. Back in the day they just had a different name for it, Sophists.
My questions to the class would be:
Did anyone have a different modern interpretation of the poem on pg. 29? Or do you thing the one provided is adequate?
Do you agree with the ideologies of one Sophist more than another?
After reading about the above Sophists, it brought me back to our conversation in class about, ethos, pathos, and logos. It seemed as if many of these men relied on ethos as a means of supporting their argument. Through out the reading their skills of oratory were frequently discussed. "Both amazed and instructed by his extraordinary, dazzling oratory, particularly his verbal innovations, they received him enthusiastically." After reading this part and some other parts, it almost seemed as if these men manipulated/ took advantage of their audience. They knew their audience wasn't educated and took this as an opportunity to influence the audience. They were able to talk the talk and present it in a manner that made it seem like it was impossible not to believe. But, I guess that is what rhetoric is all about and there is no doubt these men knew rhetoric.
Another part that stood out to me was, "They were subversive intellectuals and professors: dangerous people in their community."It can be scary to think of how powerful knowledge is and what it is capable of. We have all heard of an event in time where knowledge led to tragedy. Homemade bombs take knowledge to make and that knowledge leads to destruction. Knowledge should not be feared but the potential of how someone could use such knowledge should be feared.
A component of the reading that related back to cultural practices of today was; "Laws and customs are derived from social agreement, not from human nature." This relates to the struggle some people have today with, morality vs. ethics. As the reading is suggesting laws much like today are based on social norms. However, individuals must articulate where their personal ethics fall in line with such social norms.
The whole pushing social norms and going against the grain is still relevant today as well, probably more than ever. Our society puts such an emphasis on fitting in with your peers. We view people who go against the grain as outcasts. Back in the day they just had a different name for it, Sophists.
My questions to the class would be:
Did anyone have a different modern interpretation of the poem on pg. 29? Or do you thing the one provided is adequate?
Do you agree with the ideologies of one Sophist more than another?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)