Ramblings on Rhetoric
It's quite remarkable that, unlike most other artifacts that tend to lose value
with an effusive supply, words and the power they retain remain pleasantly
unaffected by even the slightest abuse. Sure, the boy who cried Wolf may take
issue with my saying so, but I would hold fast to my stance and argue that the
loss of potency of his words was due to a lack of understanding, his understanding,
for rhetoric.
Further, unfortunately, one, such as himself, could have taken an arguably less
direct choice of words to attract attention and arranged them in such a way that
even the wolf would have had to reconsider.
I suppose this rambling effort is an attempt to use words to come to terms with
how such an instrument of awesome might is left to fallow in mediocrity. I suppose
I simply have a hard time understanding why literate society resigns itself to
articulations of thought that suffer none too many impediments before it begs
either the issuer, the listener, or both to declare that under the pressures of
duly required support, the invocation of a divine right to speak is required to
intervene. It is less so that we are doing any favors for advancing a concept of
natural rights than we are fulfilling some sad post-modern idea that interpretation
is so subjective that even the most blatant of claims are arguably not what they
appear to mean in the most obvious of senses.
To be fair, censorship, or the negation of a disclosure, should be subject to the
same rules as issuing the communication. In other words, an act to suppress a form
of communication by an external force should undergo the same rigor as formulating
the articulation itself. The difference between censorship and editing should not
be so vast. It is analogous to someone who unintentionally commits a crime and faces
some consequential corrective action. While they may disagree with the verdict to
resolve the error, the truth is that any such result could have been avoided by
considering the consequences and using the hypothetical endpoints to refine the
initial act. In terms of writing, the process of editing is perhaps more enjoyable
than sketching up a draft that is bound to be full of holes for the writer themselves
to fill in.
A particular shame that occurs is that the issuing of thought is not a personally
self-satisfying act but an act that seeks satisfaction from external sources.
___________________________________
SOCRATES: Then why, if you call rhetoric the art which treats of discourse, and
all the other arts treat of discourse, do you not call them arts of rhetoric?
GORGIAS: Because, Socrates, the knowledge of the other arts has only to do with
some sort of external action, as of the hand; but there is no such action of the
hand in rhetoric which works and takes effect only through the medium of discourse.
And therefore I am justified in saying that rhetoric treats of discourse.
___________________________________
there is no such action of the hand in rhetoric, which works and takes effect only
through the medium of discourse
Socrates is attempting to understand the subject expertise of rhetoric.
Gorgias finally says rhetoric deals with:
GORGIAS: To the greatest, Socrates, and the best of human things.
Further:
GORGIAS: That good, Socrates, which is truly the greatest, being that which gives
to men freedom in their own persons, and to individuals the power of ruling over
others in their several states.
go on to distinguish the dichotomy of 'learning' and 'believing'
those who learn and those who believe are both persuaded