78 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2013
    1. but we do know of countless individualized and consequently unequal actions which we equate by omitting the aspects in which they are unequal and which we now designate as "honest" actions.

      Well, how else are people supposed to function in a real world? Nothing's constant, so all we can do is make assumptions and generalizations in an attempt to make sense of our surroundings

  2. Oct 2013
    1. pervert the judge by moving him to anger or envy or pity -- one might as well warp a carpenter's rule before using it.

      The judge is only human, though - sometimes it seems like the Greeks' concept of achieving the ideal got in the way sometimes.

    1. the better sort of man will be just without being forced to be so, and the written laws depend on force while the unwritten ones do not

      Can a person, like in the above scenario, actually be forced to be just? Who determines what's equal, what's fair when it's not a black-and-white situation ("failing to do them good")?

    1. Appropriateness. An appropriate style will adapt itself to (1) the emotions of the hearers, (2) the character of the speaker, (3) the nature of the subject. Tact and judgement are needed in all varieties of oratory.

      Importance of style - speaking in a way that is relatable to the audience.

    2. the right thing in speaking really is that we should fight our case with no help beyong the bare facts; and yet the arts of language cannot help having a small but real importance, whatever it is we have to expound to others

      Again, defining rhetoric not solely as style, but as the ability to persuade using solid arguments (with style in a place of major, but secondary, importance).

  3. Sep 2013
    1. we are in no respect superior to other living creatures; nay, we are inferior to many in swiftness and in strength and in other resources; but, because there has been implanted in us the power to persuade each other and to make clear to each other whatever we desire, not only have we escaped the life of wild beasts, but we have come together and founded cities and made laws and invented arts; and, generally speaking, there is no institution devised by man which the power of speech has not helped us to establish.

      There's a TED talk about mirror neurons, neurons which allow humans to identify with and learn from the actions of others. The speaker credits these with the formation of human civilization and invention of language. In other words, the ability to communicate ideas, emotions, actions, and states of mind with others (rhetoric) may very well distinguish us from other living creatures.

      http://www.ted.com/talks/vs_ramachandran_the_neurons_that_shaped_civilization.html

    1. And let no one suppose that I claim that just living can be taught;(25) for, in a word, I hold that there does not exist an art of the kind which can implant sobriety and justice in depraved natures. Nevertheless, I do think that the study of political discourse can help more than any other thing to stimulate and form such qualities of character.

      Refinement rather than creation of a virtuous soul. Interesting view of nature versus nurture.

    2. practical experience or to the native ability of the student, but undertake to transmit the science of discourse as simply as they would teach the letters of the alphabet, not having taken trouble to examine into the nature of each kind of knowledge

      Reflects Isocrates' educational method.

    3. who devote themselves to disputation,(2) since they pretend to search for truth, but straightway at the beginning of their professions attempt to deceive us with lies?

      He sees strong distinctions between different rhetoricians - the philosophers, educators, and court speakers.

    4. 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.

  4. caseyboyle.net caseyboyle.net
    1. Rhetoric, according to my view, is the ghost or counterfeit of a part of politics.

      Rhetoric defined as trickery; Socrates sees nothing noble about it. Because it's target audience is the ignorant, and it's purpose is to engender belief rather than truth, Socrates seems convinced that rhetoric can do nothing but deceive.

    2. POLUS: O Chaerephon, there are many arts among mankind which are experimental, and have their origin in experience, for experience makes the days of men to proceed according to art, and inexperience according to chance, and different persons in different ways are proficient in different arts, and the best persons in the best arts. And our friend Gorgias is one of the best, and the art in which he is a proficient is the noblest.
    3. SOCRATES: I had that in my admiring mind, Gorgias, when I asked what is the nature of rhetoric, which always appears to me, when I look at the matter in this way, to be a marvel of greatness.

      Flattery

    4. SOCRATES: And that, Gorgias, was what I was suspecting to be your notion; yet I would not have you wonder if by-and-by I am found repeating a seemingly plain question; for I ask not in order to confute you, but as I was saying that the argument may proceed consecutively, and that we may not get the habit of anticipating and suspecting the meaning of one another's words; I would have you develope your own views in your own way, whatever may be your hypothesis. GORGIAS: I think that you are quite right, Socrates.

      Socrates himself seems to be a master of persuasion via making the opinions of his opponents sound an awful lot like his own.

    5. POLUS: O Chaerephon, there are many arts among mankind which are experimental, and have their origin in experience, for experience makes the days of men to proceed according to art, and inexperience according to chance, and different persons in different ways are proficient in different arts, and the best persons in the best arts. And our friend Gorgias is one of the best, and the art in which he is a proficient is the noblest.
    1. hence it is not now easy to remember the past or consider the present or foretell the future; so that most people on most subjects furnish themselves with opinion as advisor to the soul.

      Opinion vs. memory, as if memory were absolute, infallible, objective.

    2. Fortune and plans of the gods and decrees of Necessity she did what she did, or abducted by force, or persuaded by speeches, <or conquered by Love>

      Argument that higher powers absolve Helen of responsibility.

    3. lying

      I've come to understand "lying" as purposeful deceit, but in this case it seems to mean "misinformed." This may be due to error in translation, or perhaps ignorance was considered as bad as deception.

    1. And I don't say that wisdom and virtue are teachable, but that these proofs do not satisfy me.

      Yep, proof is tough. So, rhetorically, how do people persuade without adequate proof?

    2. And even if a particular man did not teach, this would not prove anything, but if a single man did teach, this would be evidence that teaching is possible.

      Issue with forming theories and finding Truth - we don't know all the particulars in the universe. i.e. it's easier to disprove (as the author's doing here) than to prove.

    3. "Does he exist with respect to some particular thing, or just in general?" Then if someone denies that the man exists, he is mistaken, because he is treating (the particular and) universal senses as being the same. Because everything exists in some sense.

      Aha!

    4. And we ought to bring up the question whether it is the sane or the demented who speak at the right moment. For whenever anyone asks this question they answer that the two groups say the same things, but that the wise speak at the right moment and the demented at the wrong one. (10) And in saying this, they appear to be making a small addition, "(the) right moment" or "the wrong one," so that the situation is no longer the same.

      Is the author defining sanity/dementia by the "right moment" or "the right moment" by sanity/dementia?

    5. A talent is heavier than a mina and lighter than two talents; therefore the same thing is both heavier and lighter.

      Important point for the whole argument - the concepts discussed are relative to the world around them.

    6. But to this too an opposite argument is put forward: that the just and the unjust are different things, and that as the name differs, so does the thing named.

      Good and bad, seemly and unseemly, just and unjust, seem to me to be concepts of individual and social morality, not innate characteristics of an action. In other words: because people project moral convictions on things that happen, and people don't all have the same moral code, the moral judgement for that occurrence won't be constant for all humanity. So, "the thing named" doesn't need to have an innate "justice" or "injustice" for the two words to be descriptors of different concepts.

    7. Some say that the good is one thing and the bad another, but others say that they are the same, and a thing might be good for some persons but bad for others, or at one time good and at another time bad for the same person.

      These two concepts don't seem to actually oppose each other, if broken down to the basic arguments. The first argument is that good and bad are separate things. The second seems to be that the two concepts are subjective, and therefore meaningless. However, because they can still have meaning from the perspective of the individual, it doesn't seem logical to say subjectivity=meaningless division between the terms.