When we read
Phaedrus’ speech from Lysias last week and it seemed to drag on and on, well
that is how I felt reading Book I of Aristotle. He made some interesting points
but I found myself getting either confused or completely distracted reading
certain sections due to all the examples used. Book I was practically a
handbook for the orator consisting of part psychology, part theory and part
logic. However, I think Aristotle had a much more direct approach to the idea
of rhetoric, which I appreciated, than Plato.
Aristotle
defines rhetoric as “the art of discovering the means of persuasion available
for any occasion” and the art of rhetoric “requires that the rhetor investigate
systematically both the situation with which he (almost always he) is presented
and his own inner resources for handling it” (p. 30). Aristotle then classifies
speech into deliberative/political oratory, epideictic/ceremonial oratory, and
forensic/legal oratory.
In Chapter 5 of
Book I, Aristotle discusses how the political orator must show his audience
that he understands and has an eye for their happiness when trying to persuade
his hearers to take or avoid action. On p. 188-189 he defines happiness and lists
its constituent parts, which is a pretty detailed list. Deliberative/political oratory
is “intended to recommend a future course of action” (p.30). As I read the list
of constituents to happiness I wondered how this list could change. Were
certain items more important back then than they are today? What could be added/taken
out? Happiness is definitely something to consider within political oratory,
but I think about the use of political/deliberative oratory now and how the
list of constituents, as described by Aristotle, has evolved. I think this list
and Aristotle’s definition of happiness created a foundation for how we view
happiness in deliberative/political oratory today and its constituents should
not be disregarded. It is just interesting to see how ways of thinking and
rhetoric have changed from then until now.
Jennie; I, too, found Aristotle to be much more straightforward than Plato, and also focused on his ideas about happiness. I enjoyed very much the constraints in which he places his definition of happiness, but I can see now after reading your post the flexibility that is within the list of what its constituent parts are. He sights many material things-- wealth, beauty, fame, physical strength, good birth-- and these are the things I think we would falter upon including in our definition today. Though our society's priorities have shifted even more towards an appreciation of material objects, I think most would opt to dis-include these things from any certain importance in the construct of happiness. I feel almost like we could assimilate Aristotle's definition to one we may see come from a rich, anglo-saxon man-- in other words, a set of parameters that are only applicable to the 1% in the occidental west.
ReplyDelete