279 Matching Annotations
  1. Dec 2015
    1. You must be alert at the inception. Then you will not waste your time attempting to do something which is already done by virtue of the immovable completeness of your Being. Indeed, your Being will be identified completely, and is identified completely—and that means manifest completely. Otherwise, the omnipresence of your Being would be only partial, which is an impossibility. You must be willing to face the suggestion of lack, and meet it head on, with the recognition that such a suggestion is an exact opposite of the Fact. If you will reverse the suggestion and be conscious of the specific truth which you will discover in that Place where you are right now, and abide with that truth, then you will be able to respond appropriately. Everything you do will identify the Fact. It is not enough to know what the Fact is. You must also include consciously in your awareness of the Fact that It is not omnipresent if It is not present as that which identifies your completeness. This must be done from that Place wherein you are experiencing the omnipresence of your Being as Conscious Being. It is essential that you keep this in mind.

      Use time wisely: don't try to fix what is not true.

      Be willing to face illusion - head on, recognizing that it cannot be true from the place of conscious Being.

      What is True (not illusion, not FACT) is present only from that place of being conscious of Being. Here Truth is what identifies your completeness.

      He is not talking about a concept of Truth but and experience of Truth.

    1. RAJ: Don’t add that “but.” Stay with the simple Fact you have just stated. The “but” is the hooker! “All is infinite Mind and Its infinite manifestation.“1 There aren’t any “buts” about it! Being is “neither behind the point of perfection nor advancing towards it. It is at that point and must be understand therefrom.“2 It will never be understood from the standpoint of the three-dimensional frame of awareness (ego). You must stop looking for clues, helpful hints, or reassurances objectively. Being doesn’t need them, and “ego” only needs them in order to hook you. Remember, as you “do battle,” that there is no battle going on at all. It is a process by which you are becoming less slipshod in your self-identification. It seems as though it is an attempt to influence you in the direction of misidentification, but you are at a point where the thrust truly cannot reach you because you are hidden in the Secret Place of the Most High. You have experienced It.

      The expression - "But" is to express the belief that there is an exception to what was previously stated. This is like saying The Truth is not True always, which, of course, cannot be True.

      Here is where the fight is - to NOT ALLOW suggestions of ego to have any credibility whatsoever!!

      Or, from a positive perspective, to lean on your experience of Being and identify with nothing less than that.

      This is an inside job.

      The Battle is one of self-identification. A diagram of this would be a good method of illustration.

      Quote: There aren't any "buts" about it!

  2. Nov 2015
    1. However, it must become clear that the apparent relationship of a three-dimensional consciousness becoming the Door and then the Christ-Truth—the direct perception of Reality as It is—flowing through that Door as the conscious experience of a three-dimensional, finite man, does not then become the new “norm.” Man, as he conceives himself to be three-dimensionally, does not simply forever remain the “conduit” for Reality to flow through. The fact is that the more consistently he is willing to stand as the Door, the more consistently he will begin to experience himself less and less as “a three-dimensional man standing as the Door.” He will become consciously aware of himself as that conscious experience of Reality which includes no distortions of any kind—the Christ-consciousness, the means by which God, or Conscious Being, experiences Its Infinity.

      I hear this as 'stay at the edge of my mat' so to speak... desire, faith.....

    1. I want you to begin an extremely thorough study of the functions of your Mental Body. Dissect it. Look at it. Don’t be afraid to delve into every nook and cranny you find. It is you, and yet it is the infinite Reality you have been looking for in all your studying and listening for the Truth.

      The importance of understanding our mind and psychology.

    1. PAUL: How does Substance function? RAJ: It functions by being the omnipresent omniaction of Being. The substance of Mind is Consciousness. The substance of Truth is Principle. The substance of Principle is Intelligence/Law. The substance of Soul is Love. The substance of Love is Life. And the substance of Life is Mind.

      "Substance functions by being the omnipresent omniaction of Being. The substance of Mind is Consciousness. The substance of Truth is Principle. The substance of Principle is Intelligence/Law. The substance of Soul is Love. The substance of Love is Life. And the substance of Life is Mind."

    2. PAUL: Very well. My first question is: What is Substance? RAJ: Your first answer is that Substance is infinite, nondimensional, and pure Energy—the Life Force, as it were. It is Intelligence. It is Soul. It is Spirit. It is Principle. It is Love. It is Life. It is Truth. It is Mind. It is, in the final analysis, what is meant by the word God. It is omnipresent. It is omniactive. It is the nondimensional or Universal “stuff” of which all that is made is made. It is that which constitutes You and your entire experience as Conscious Being, whether you are being “out from Mind” or not.

      Substance is; Infinite, Nondimensional, Pure Energy, Life Force, Intelligence, Soul, Spirit, Principle, Love, Life, Truth, Mind, Omnipresent, Omniactive. Nondimensional or Universal “stuff” of which all that is made is made. That which constitutes You and your entire experience as Conscious Being, whether you are being “out from Mind” or not. It is GOD!

  3. Oct 2015
    1. Paul, it is impossible for your world to become integrated if you do not understand what the Substance of that Totality is. This is why we are discussing this point this morning. The only Substance there is throughout the Universe—and throughout all dimensions—is Light. This Light, in Its various aspects, is Life, Truth, Principle, Mind, Soul, and Spirit. It is also Intelligence and Substance. In everything you do, I want you to begin to be conscious of this idea that all there is to you—and all there is to everything—is this Light of Living Love. There are not two things going on. This Light is eternally living Itself as the intelligent expression of Conscious Experience, universally and specifically.

      My world cannot be healed unless I come to understand that the totality of all things is Light, which is Love.

      Here he equates Light to Life, Truth, Principle, Mind, Soul, and Spirit.

      He gives Paul an exercise. To begin to be conscious, in everything he does, that all there is to him - and to everything - is Living Love (God!!!!)

      There is not two things going on, there is not the perceived drama of life and Living Love. And this is where the practice is important because it the insanity of the world seems to be true.

    2. Paul, it is impossible for your world to become integrated if you do not understand what the Substance of that Totality is. This is why we are discussing this point this morning. The only Substance there is throughout the Universe—and throughout all dimensions—is Light. This Light, in Its various aspects, is Life, Truth, Principle, Mind, Soul, and Spirit. It is also Intelligence and Substance.

      Light IS everything.

    1. Our conversation right now is not the result of a thinking process at all. When you stand at the Door as the Door, the Wisdom, the Truth, the Knowledge that flows through and as your conscious experience of Being, is not the result of thought processes, nor of reasoning. Because It continues to flow on past you, It truly does not become a stored body of knowledge from which you may draw in the future. Standing as the Door means that, in this so-called “future,” whatever Knowledge and Understanding is applicable to the unfolding at that time will be there in exactly the same manner that It is here right now.

      Again from previous sharing he comes back to supporting Paul to understand that this type of communication is in 4d, not 3d.... I hear Raj say that when we stand at the Door, in our Conscious Being, this is where Wisdom, Truth and Knowledge flow from and this isn't stored in our thinking mind yet is available to us always if we are Conscious.

  4. May 2015
    1. Peoplelokbacktotheirtimeasdualisticthinkers,andto theirfaiththatiftheyjustputenoughefortintoproblem solvingsolutionswouldalwaysapear,asagoldeneraof certainty.Anintelectualapreciationoftheimportanceof contextuality and ambiguity comes to exist alongside an emotional craving for revealed truth.

  5. Mar 2015
    1. Beloved friends, as we speak of these things, though, let not seriousness enter the mind. For in Truth, all we are really doing is describing for you what you need to do, and can do, in order to release the burden of illusion that seems to cause you to feel a heaviness upon your countenance, a sense of a lack of safety in the world. You could think of it as taking your rheostat and turning it up a bit by enlightening you, taking your burden of guilt and judgment from you.
    2. Therefore, beloved friend, when you judge, you have moved out of alignment with what is true. You have decreed that the innocent are not innocent. And if you would judge another as being without innocence, you have already declared that this is true about you. Therefore, to practice forgiveness actually cultivates the quality of consciousness in which, finally, you come to forgive yourself. And it is, indeed, the forgiven who remember their God.
    3. It is, then, through you that I come to discover all that God is. And as a man, when I walked upon your plane, I began to realize that the greatest gift that I could ever receive would only come to me as I chose to surrender every perception that I might conjure up about you, my brother or sister, that would veil the Truth that is true about you always.
  6. Jan 2015
    1. After 2004, I believed the story that the protesters in Ukraine and elsewhere were mobilized through text messaging and blogs.

      believes the story ... it's a story he believes.

    2. We were supposed to be saving the world by helping to promote democracy, but it seemed clear to me that many people, even in countries like Belarus or Moldova, or in the Caucasus, who could have been working on interesting projects with new media on their own, would eventually be spoiled by us.

      Applies to these activities wherever undertaken, including any country in the West, he just so happens to be interested in former Soviet Block countries

  7. Nov 2013
    1. What then is truth? A movable host of metaphors, metonymies, and; anthropomorphisms: in short, a sum of human relations which have been poetically and rhetorically intensified, transferred, and embellished, and which, after long usage, seem to a people to be fixed, canonical, and binding. Truths are illusions which we have forgotten are illusions- they are metaphors that have become worn out and have been drained of sensuous force, coins which have lost their embossing and are now considered as metal and no longer as coins.

      truth

    2. The venerability, reliability, and utility of truth is something which a person demonstrates for himself from the contrast with the liar, whom no one trusts and everyone excludes.

      The idea that truth exists only in contrast to its opposite, with no fundamental autonomous, self-determining, independent, or sovereign foundation.

    3. Truths are illusions which we have forgotten are illusions- they are metaphors that have become worn out and have been drained of sensuous force, coins which have lost their embossing and are now considered as metal and no longer as coins.

      Forgetting the emblematic property of words as concepts, we adhere false "essence" to concepts and call it "truth" for the construction of convention and thus empty rhetoric, metaphors, and illusions. Not that we can actually construct convention that is not void of essence, but we might consider the folly of acting as if "truth" is real.

    4. But the further inference from the nerve stimulus to a cause outside of us is already the result of a false and unjustifiable application of the principle of sufficient reason. If truth alone had been the deciding factor in the genesis of language, and if the standpoint of certainty had been decisive for designations, then how could we still dare to say "the stone is hard," as if "hard" were something otherwise familiar to us, and not merely a totally subjective stimulation!

      Rhetoric cannot be escaped through rhetoric.

    5. It is only by means of forgetfulness that man can ever reach the point of fancying himself to possess a "truth" of the grade just indicated.

      Memory, selection, and choices.

    6. It is in a similarly restricted sense that man now wants nothing but truth: he desires the pleasant, life-preserving consequences of truth. He is indifferent toward pure knowledge which has no consequences; toward those truths which are possibly harmful and destructive he is even hostilely inclined.

      "tell me lies. tell me sweet, sweet lies" The maintenance of convention. Truth and/or consequences.

    7. That is to say, a uniformly valid and binding designation is invented for things, and this legislation of language likewise establishes the first laws of truth. For the contrast between truth and lie arises here for the first time.

      "... as it were, to engage in a groping game on the backs of things."

      Creating the very basis from which a lie, or the act of lying, can become manifest, vis-a-vis, truth telling. The $25,000 question: "What is Rhetoric?"

    8. This peace treaty brings in its wake something which appears to be the first step toward acquiring that puzzling truth drive: to wit, that which shall count as "truth" from now on is established.

      Not actual truth, but a contraction of that which is generally accepted as the place of balance between good and evil, right and wrong, etc., yet is in fact, fluid and contextually based, evolving with human/societal values. convention.

    9. a continuous fluttering around the solitary flame of vanity-is so much the rule and the law among men that there is almost nothing which is less comprehensible than how an honest and pure drive for truth could have arisen among them

      Good point. On the other hand, this "drive for truth" could arise from an innate need to see beyond the constructs of the ego.

    10. And he requires shelter, for there are frightful powers which continuously break in upon him, powers which oppose scientific "truth" with completely different kinds of "truths" which bear on their shields the most varied sorts of emblems.

      The idea that "truths" are not Big or Little T truths, they are simply an act of perception.

    11. A movable host of metaphors, metonymies, and; anthropomorphisms: in short, a sum of human relations which have been poetically and rhetorically intensified, transferred, and embellished, and which, after long usage, seem to a people to be fixed, canonical, and binding. Truths are illusions which we have forgotten are illusions

      This is not his view on truth, just his view of "truth." I wonder what his view on empiricism would be. Probably something terrible...

    12. He says, for example, "I am rich," when the proper designation for his condition would be "poor." He misuses fixed conventions by means of arbitrary substitutions or even reversals of names. If he does this in a selfish and moreover harmful manner, society will cease to trust him and will thereby exclude him.

      This seems like a punishment, but we are looking at it with our moral lens.

    13. if he will not be content with empty husks, then he will always exchange truths for illusions

      I think that definitely depends on how one define's truth, and where they believe truth comes from

    14. man now wants nothing but truth: he desires the pleasant, life-preserving consequences of truth. He is indifferent toward pure knowledge which has no consequences; toward those truths which are possibly harmful and destructive he is even hostilely inclined

      This is actually an interesting observation that I can see being true about much of mankind

    15. The liar is a person who uses the valid designations, the wo rds, in order to make something which is unreal appear to be real.

      This shows the power in words. The ability to deceive and the ability to at least describe truth.

    16. We don't understand the laws of nature but only how we can relate to them

    17. In the same way that the sound appears as a sand figure, so the mysterious X of the thing in itself first appears as a nerve stimulus, then as an image, and finally as a sound. Thus the genesis of language does not proceed logically in any case, and all the material within and with which the man of truth, the scientist, and the philosopher later work and build, if not derived from never-never land, is a least not derived from the essence of things.

      I'm not sure exactly what he is trying to say here. Is he saying that while language is not pulled from out of know where, words and language are built upon connections to other words instead of the intrinsic nature of a thing?

    18. It is this way with all of us concerning language; we believe that we know something about the things themselves when we speak of trees, colors, snow, and flowers; and yet we possess nothing but metaphors for things--metaphors which correspond in no way to the original entities.

      Truth = the original entities

    19. The "thing in itself" (which is precisely what the pure truth, apart from any of its consequences, would be) is likewise something quite incomprehensible to the creator of language and something not in the least worth striving for. This creator only designates the relations of things to men, and for expressing these relations he lays hold of the boldest metaphors.

      Language vs. Truth

    20. Truths are illusions which we have forgotten are illusions- they are metaphors that have become worn out and have been drained of sensuous force, coins which have lost their embossing and are now considered as metal and no longer as coins.

      Money was originally precious metals, and then signs for precious metals (paper money), and then signs for the signs for precious metals (debit/credit cards), and is now turning into signs for the signs for the signs for precious metals (apps that represent debit/credit cards). Just as money underwent this transition, so did truth. We now take truth to mean something fixed, but we have just forgotten that truth is a sign for a social illusion.

    21. to wit, that which shall count as "truth" from now on is established. That is to say, a uniformly valid and binding designation is invented for things, and this legislation of language likewise establishes the first laws of truth. For the contrast between truth and lie arises here for the first time. The liar is a person who uses the valid designations, the wo rds, in order to make something which is unreal appear to be real.

      Truth vs. lie

    22. This peace treaty brings in its wake something which appears to be the first step toward acquiring that puzzling truth drive: to wit, that which shall count as "truth" from now on is established. That is to say, a uniformly valid and binding designation is invented for things, and this legislation of language likewise establishes the first laws of truth.

      Truth without morality. Truth because of social conventions.

    23. What men avoid by excluding the liar is not so much being defrauded as it is being harmed by means of fraud. Thus, even at this stage, what they hate is basically not deception itself, but rather the unpleasant, hated consequences of certain sorts of deception.

      We think we dislike deception, but we really hate the consequences of that choice. It has not yet gained the moral distinction.

    24. first laws of truth

      definitions

    25. as if "hard" were something otherwise familiar to us, and not merely a totally subjective stimulation!

      Truth is subjective

    26. It is only by means of forgetfulness that man can ever reach the point of fancying himself to possess a "truth" of the grade just indicated. If he will not be satisfied with truth in the form of tautology, that is to say, if he will not be content with empty husks, then he will always exchange truths for illusions. What is a word? It is the copy in sound of a nerve stimulus.

      Truth is an illusion, an imitation of a previously known idea.

    27. And besides, what about these linguistic conventions themselves? Are they perhaps products of knowledge, that is, of the sense of truth? Are designations congruent with things? I

      I wanted to highlight "Is language the adequate expression of all realities?"

      Without language, what exists?

      If deception is only deception because of a negative result, is deception without a negative result still deception?

    28. What men avoid by excluding the liar is not so much being defrauded as it is being harmed by means of fraud. Thus, even at this stage, what they hate is basically not deception itself, but rather the unpleasant, hated consequences of certain sorts of deception.

      Men don't dislike the act of deception, but rather the consequences of deception.

    29. His moral sentiment does not even make an attempt to prevent this, whereas there are supposed to be men who have stopped snoring through sheer will power.

      A man's morals do not prevent him from the illusion and deceptions of the world, is it possible that will power alone will wake his desire for truth.

    30. This drive is not truly vanquished and scarcely subdued by the fact that a regular and rigid new world is constructed as its prison from its own ephemeral products, the concepts

      We limit ourselves by formulation a frame for truth and then filling it, not seeing anything outside it.

    31. "the correct perception"-which would mean "the adequate expression of an object in the subject"-is a contradictory impossibility. For between two absolutely different spheres, as between subject and object, there is no causality, no correctness, and no expression; there is, at most, an aesthetic relation:

      No absolute truth, all subjective and relative. Reality much more complex

    32. unstable foundation, and, as it were, on running water. Of course, in order to be supported by such a foundation, his construction must be like one constructed of spiders' webs: delicate enough to be carried along by the waves, strong enough not to be blown apart by every wind

      Foundation of truth. Society, it is unstable and built on concepts and generalizations meant to only make ourselves feel more secure

    33. What then is truth? A movable host of metaphors, metonymies, and; anthropomorphisms: in short, a sum of human relations which have been poetically and rhetorically intensified, transferred, and embellished, and which, after long usage, seem to a people to be fixed, canonical, and binding. Truths are illusions which we have forgotten are illusions- they are metaphors that have become worn out and have been drained of sensuous force, coins which have lost their embossing and are now considered as metal and no longer as coins.

      Definition--ironic he uses metaphors to define truth as metaphor

    34. Just as it is certain that one leaf is never totally the same as another, so it is certain that the concept "leaf" is formed by arbitrarily discarding these individual differences and by forgetting the distinguishing aspects

      Modifying Platonic ideas of truth. Truth is the farthest from reality because it conflates individuality and real circumstances and specificity

    35. empty husks, then he will always exchange truths for illusion

      Shadows, dreams

    36. It is in a similarly restricted sense that man now wants nothing but truth: he desires the pleasant, life-preserving consequences of truth. He is indifferent toward pure knowledge which has no consequences; toward those truths which are possibly harmful and destructive he is even hostilely inclined.

      We want only what benefits us. Operant condition.

    37. That is to say, a uniformly valid and binding designation is invented for things, and this legislation of language likewise establishes the first laws of truth

      Truth socially constructed, desire to be part of the "herd"

  8. Oct 2013
    1. unarmed against falsehood

      Is the logic of truth not enough to defend against false?

    2. And assuredly it is preferable, even though what is said should be less intelligible, less pleasing, and less persuasive, that truth be spoken, and that what is just, not what is iniquitous, be listened to with pleasure.
    3. who will dare to say that truth in the person of its defenders is to take its stand unarmed against falsehood?

      For one that does not intend to give a treatise on rhetoric, he sure gives a very strong point as to why rhetoric is important.

    4. But as some men employ these coarsely, inelegantly, and frigidly, while others use them with acuteness, elegance, and spirit, the work that I am speaking of ought to be undertaken by one who can argue and speak with wisdom, if not with eloquence, and with profit to his hearers, even though he profit them less than he would if he could speak with eloquence too.

      truth before eloquence

    1. We must not, therefore, start from any and every accepted opinion, but only from those we have defined -- those accepted by our judges or by those whose authority they recognize

      "Truth" as defined by social opinion.

    1. If any statement you make is hard to believe, you must guarantee its truth, and at once offer an explanation, and then furnish it with such particulars as will be expected.
    1. as if you had failed to do right rather than actually done wrong. You may be able to trust other people to judge you equitably.

      Persuading oneself that one isn't actually in the wrong. Rhetoric can be used to change one's own perspective, it seems.

    1. Rhetoric is the counterpart of Dialectic.

      Is rhetoric NEVER concerned with seeking Truth? I believe rhetoric to be a useful tool in helping us explain and understand Truth.

  9. Sep 2013
    1. The true and the approximately true are apprehended by the same faculty; it may also be noted that men have a sufficient natural instinct for what is true, and usually do arrive at the truth. Hence the man who makes a good guess at truth is likely to make a good guess at probabilities.
    2. The true and the approximately true are apprehended by the same faculty; it may also be noted that men have a sufficient natural instinct for what is true, and usually do arrive at the truth.

      Different from Plato. Insists there are half truths and men are drawn towards it naturally

    1. The honest rhetorician has no separate name to distinguish him from the dishonest.

      What profession does have a name to separate the honest from the dishonest?

    1. If all who are engaged in the profession of education were willing to state the facts instead of making greater promises than they can possibly fulfill, they would not be in such bad repute with the lay-public.

      Interesting statement in view of Isocrates' later defense in Antidosis. There, he states that he is in poor repute with the lay-public due to calumny.

    2. And yet those who desire to follow the true precepts of this discipline may, if they will, be helped more speedily towards honesty of character(24) than towards facility in oratory.

      This presupposes an inherent truth.

    3. Now as for the sophists who have lately sprung up and have very recently embraced these pretensions,(20) even though they flourish at the moment, they will all, I am sure, come round to this position

      Ignorance will always be displaced (eventually) by truth).

    4. the teachers who do not scruple to vaunt their powers with utter disregard of the truth have created the impression that those who choose a life of careless indolence are better advised than those who devote themselves to serious study.

      Is this stating that traditional teachers that hesitate to boast their knowledge without regard to the truth (possibly meaning the same thing as plato's "experience") inadvertently seem less educated than those who choose a life of careless indolence (sophists?)?

    1. me and the truth

      This is interesting in that he aligns himself with truth (or Truth); he claims truth is on his side.

    2. I want neither to descend to the level of men whom envy has made blind nor to censure men who, although they do no actual harm to their pupils are less able to benefit them than are other teachers. I shall, however, say a few words about them, first because they also have paid their compliments to me; second, in order that you, being better informed as to their powers, may estimate us justly in relation to each other; and, furthermore, that I may show you clearly that we who are occupied with political discourse and whom they call contentious are more considerate than they; for although they are always saying disparaging things of me, I shall not answer them in kind but shall confine myself to the simple truth.

      Truth... but with an agenda. Although I recognize it is impossible to not have an agenda when defending oneself.

    3. But when my eyes were opened, as I have said, to the fact that a greater number than I supposed had mistaken ideas about me, I began to ponder how I could show to them and to posterity the truth about my character, my life, and the education to which I am devoted, and not suffer myself to be condemned on these issues without a trial nor to remain, as I had just been, at the mercy of my habitual calumniators.
    4. Be assured, therefore, that you shall hear from me the whole truth, and in this spirit give me your attention.

      Building credibility, trying to appeal to truth, honesty, relate to audience

    5. But it occurred to me that if I were to adopt the fiction of a trial and of a suit brought against m

      Can fiction generate a "true image" or truth? What is the relationship between truth and fiction

    1. those who know

      I want to know how Socrates tells the difference between belief and knowledge. Capital letters Truth and Knowledge seem pretty important to him, but in this statement he's assuming that the ignorant and the knowledgeable are easily distinguished.

    2. And which sort of persuasion does rhetoric create in courts of law and other assemblies about the just and unjust, the sort of persuasion which gives belief without knowledge, or that which gives knowledge

      experience versus Truth

    3. SOCRATES: And now let us have from you, Gorgias, the truth about rhetoric: which you would admit (would you not?) to be one of those arts which act always and fulfil all their ends through the medium of words? GORGIAS: True.

      Rhetoric alway uses words.

    4. And I am afraid to point this out to you, lest you should think that I have some animosity against you, and that I speak, not for the sake of discovering the truth, but from jealousy of you. Now if you are one of my sort, I should like to cross-examine you, but if not I will let you alone. And what is my sort? you will ask. I am one of those who are very willing to be refuted if I say anything which is not true, and very willing to refute any one else who says what is not true, and quite as ready to be refuted as to refute; for I hold that this is the greater gain of the two, just as the gain is greater of being cured of a very great evil than of curing another.

      Socrates again showing concern with ascertaining truth (love of truth/knowledge). Interested in a dialectic, not a debate concerned with being right.

    5. And here let me assure you that I have your interest in view as well as my own

      not arguing for the sake of argument, but clearly in pursuit of truth - the psychology of his approach - his method

    6. in short, he can persuade the multitude better than any other man of anything which he pleases, but he should not therefore seek to defraud the physician or any other artist of his reputation merely because he has the power; he ought to use rhetoric fairly, as he would also use his athletic powers.

      Who determines the proper behavior of the rhetor? What if the rhetor believes it is necessary to defraud of the physician? obviously, the physician and others may oppose. There is no constant truth, so there is no constant fairness that the rhetor can exercise. POLITICS. This is ideal, but it is not practical.

  10. Aug 2013