3 Matching Annotations
  1. Apr 2025
    1. RAUPADI ONCE M ORE THE CHER/5HED QUEENOF POWERFULVIRTUOUSKIN <35

      Draupadi's revenge was finally addressed in the epic battle of the Mahabharata. The Pandavas won the war and got their rightful kingdom back from the Kauravas. And Draupadi once again became the queen. Draupadi's sufferings motivated the brothers to be unified and fight against them. Draupadi always made sure that they were reminded of their wrongdoings towards her and fight for her, fight against those who did wrong to her. At the end, good won against evil. It makes me happy to know that even though it was late, she as able to see the demise of those who attempted to sexually harm her, she got justice at the end. It can be understood that they expected Draupadi to go through all that but not raise voice against it at all. She was supposed to be a voiceless girl who dared not speak against unjust done to her. Likewise, her husbands and their cousins were right to abuse her physically, mentally and even sexually. Nevertheless, they were neither accused of the wrongdoings nor prosecuted for that. It seems that what ever they did was absolutely fine. And her voice was not even heard when she did so, meaning that, powerless Draupadi's words were not even considered worthy to be listened.

  2. Oct 2013
    1. Now, the art of rhetoric being available for the enforcing either of truth or falsehood, who will dare to say that truth in the person of its defenders is to take its stand unarmed against falsehood? For example, that those who are trying to persuade men of what is false are to know how to introduce their subject, so as to put the hearer into a friendly, or attentive, or teachable frame of mind, while the defenders of the truth shall be ignorant of that art? That the former are to tell their falsehoods briefly, clearly, and plausibly, while the latter shall tell the truth m such a way that it is tedious to listen to, hard to understand, and, in fine, not easy to believe it? That the former are to oppose the to melt, to enliven, and to rouse them, while the latter shall in defence of the truth be sluggish, and frigid, and somnolent? Who is such a fool as to think this wisdom? Since, then, the faculty of eloquence is available for both sides, and is of very great service in the enforcing either of wrong or right, why do not good men study to engage it on the side of truth, when bad men use it to obtain the triumph of wicked and worthless causes, and to further injustice and error?

      Since it can be used for good and evil "equally", Augustine suggests it should be used as a counter to the evil use of rhetoric; fight fire with fire so to speak.

    1. And if it be objected that one who uses such power of speech unjustly might do great harm, that is a charge which may be made in common against all good things except virtue, and above all against the things that are most useful, as strength, health, wealth, generalship. A man can confer the greatest of benefits by a right use of these, and inflict the greatest of injuries by using them wrongly.

      The first time in this class that someone has noted the dual nature of the power of rhetoric to do good or bad.