In the beginning of Book I there is a strong emphasis on emotion and the controlled effect of rhetoric on swaying human feeling. We've talked about this in past classes and pieces - I wish I could remember the specifics.
A passage on page 179, right column, reads, "It is not right to pervert the judge by moving him to anger or envy or pity - one might as well warp a carpenter's rule before using it." Then, on page 181, left column, "It is absurd to hold that a man ought to be ashamed of being unable to defend himself with his limbs, but not of being able to defend himself with speech and reason... use of rational speech is more distinctive of a human being than the use of his limbs."
It's interesting: the first time I read this second passage, I read "distinctive" as "destructive," but it works the same way. In a discussion of the effect of speech on human emotion, it is as easy as speaking the words. Because, as Aristotle wrote, "The true and approximately true are apprehended by the same faculty" (108, right column). And if a human being believes an approximate truth, they move on in with that knowledge as absolute truth and construct their life around it.
For this reason, Aristotle claims the manipulation of emotion through speech is wrong. It is a choice in rhetoric, but he believes it to be false because emotion is faulty. In a creative writing class we discussed the genres in which an audience expects to be told the truth, so is public speech a forum for absolute truth? Or is it an entertainment venue where one must be aware of emotional manipulation? And how does this idea pertain to writing today?
Slightly side note: every time we talk about this in class I think of Hitler - using manipulation of emotional speech to persuade. Anyone else?
Sabrina,
ReplyDeleteIt's easy to comment on your posts because you actually ask questions. First off, Hitler is absolutely the public speaking figure I have in mind when we discuss any aspects of persuasion. For me, it's because of how astonishing it is that he persuaded almost an entire country. It seems impossible, inhuman even, for a single person to have such a massive effect. I don't understand German, but watching videos of Hitler giving his speeches illustrates how important his body language was to get his message across. Never has such a small package with awful facial hair embodied so much disgust and hatred as Adolf. Even so, his rhetoric was clearly effective. I agree with Aristotle that manipulation of emotion through speech is wrong, but emotions tend to have their own autonomy, and even if the intent is not to affect emotion, it can still happen. That being said, to answer your question about whether or not public speech can be a forum for absolute truth, as long as humans have emotions, nothing can be trusted or accepted as truth. Like you said, public speeches could very well just be an entertainment venue, and clearly they must be since so many of us are likely to eat dinner on a comfy couch while we watch the president try to unfuck whatever predicament we are in. It's a riot, yet we all tune in, in spite of ourselves. Manipulation of emotions to get a point across is wrong, but we all like to be manipulated because it gives us something to talk about, complain about, brag about. It gets us thinking and discussing issues that we might not have cared about before someone reached into our heads and scrambled our emotions. At most, emotive manipulation moves us forward just by inspiring discussion. It may not be what the speaker intended to happen, but at least some sort of impact was made.