100 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2013
    1. But man has an invincible inclination to allow himself to be deceived D and is, as it were, enchanted with happiness when the rhapsodist tells i him epic fables as if they were true, or when the actor in the theater acts more royally than any real king.

      interesting. Different realities?

    2. e. But when the same image has been generated millions of times and has been handed down for many generations and finally appears on the same occasion every time for all mankind, then it acquires at last the same meaning for men it would have if it were the sole necessary image and if the relationship of the original nerve stimulus to the generated image were a strictly causal one.


    3. As a "rational" being, he now places his behavior under the control of abstractions. He will no longer tolerate being carried away by sudden impressions, by intuitions.

      rational vs. unconscious

    4. Thus, to express it morally, this is the duty to lie according to a fixed convention, to lie with the herd and in a manner binding upon everyone.

      lying, inherent to society and morality?

    5. 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.


    6. 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.

      honesty and trust

    7. Insofar as the individual wants to maintain himself against other individuals, he will under natural circumstances employ the intellect mainly for dissimulation. But at the same time, from boredom and necessity, man wishes to exist socially and with the herd; therefore, he needs to make peace and strives accordingly to banish from his world at least the most flagrant bellum omni contra omnes

      Don't know what last clause means, but interesting difference between the individual and social world.

    8. Moreover, man permits himself to be deceived in his dreams every night of his life. 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.

      The unconscious realm?

    9. As a means for the preserving of the individual, the intellect unfolds its principle powers in dissimulation, which is the means by which weaker, less robust individuals preserve themselves-since they have been denied the chance to wage the battle for existence with horns or with the sharp teeth of beasts of prey, This art of dissimulation reaches its peak in man. Deception, flattering, lying, deluding, talking behind the back, putting up a false front, living in borrowed splendor, wearing a mask, hiding behind convention, playing a role for others and for oneself-in short, 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.

      I just like this.

    10. For this pride contains within itself the most flattering estimation of the value of knowing. Deception is the most general effect of such pride, but even its most particular effects contain within themselves something of the same deceitful character.


    11. And just as every porter wants to have an admirer, so even the proudest of men, the philosopher, supposes that he sees on all sides the eyes of the universe telescopically focused upon his action and thought.


    12. For this intellect has no additional mission which would lead it beyond human life.


    1. For although I admit that rhetoric is a virtue, it is virtue of the mind and the intelligence, as in all the true liberal arts, whose followers can still be men of the utmost moral depravity. Nor is rhetoric a moral virtue as Quintilian thinks, so that whoever possesses it is incapable )f being a wicked man.

      exercise of the mind.

    2. There are two universal, general gifts be-stowed by nature upon man, Reason and Speech; dialectic is the theory of the former, grammar and rhetoric of the latter.

      inherent to man: reason and speech.

    3. Quintilian decrees that there are five parts to the art of rhetoric - I shall talk about these afterwards - invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery. He thinks there are no more and no less.


    4. Is it because the orator ought to control the state and its citizens that moral training will therefore be a proper part of rhetoric?


    5. I assert indeed that such a definition of an orator seems to me to be useless and stupid: Why? Because a definition of any artist which covers more than is included in the rules of his art is superfluous and defective.

      I love this.

    6. ine are truthful and distinct, as both the art and its practice prove when they have been thoroughly investigated.

      Because he has studied it for so long, it make it truthful and distinct?

    7. Because the dialectical and rhetorical arts of Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian are fallacious and confused in their treatment of the dialectical and rhetorical usage of reason, and then of speech - -the usage, I repeat, which one observes in their books.

      Argument against. misuse of dialectic and rhetoric

    8. But the writings of these scholars reveal that while they indeed collected a lot of material, they did not evaluate it sufficiently, for in some places I look in vain for a syllogism.

      quantity over quality

    9. I wish I had not known the wretched-ness of wasting so much of my youth in this way. I wish that the scholars of rhetoric and dialectic would heed my advice and would sometimes think of the truth and usefulness of their subjects instead of tenaciously and obstinately quarreling over matters which they have naively accepted at a first hearing, without ever giving them proper consideration

      Regret. Ever achievable? Too quick to argue. Maybe difference between education and schooling?

    10. n this disputation, however, I shall, as far as I may, apply dialectic, the mentor of speaking with truth and constancy, in order that I may evaluate the subject with more incisiveness and wisdom.

      Why dialectic? I may still be sturggling to distinguish between rhetoric and dialectic

  2. Oct 2013
    1. or what does it profit a man that he both confesses the truth and praises the eloquence, if he does not yield his consent, when it is only for the sake of securing his consent that the speaker in urging the truth gives careful attention to what he says? If the truths taught are such that to believe or to know them is enough, to give one's assent implies nothing more than to confess that they are true. When, however, the truth taught is one that must be carried into practice, and that is taught for the very purpose of being practised, it is useless to be persuaded of the truth of what is said, it is useless to be pleased with the manner in which it is said, if it be not so learnt as to be practised.

      relationship between "hearer" and "speaker"

    2. For when he says, "Though I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge, (2) he seems to speak as if granting so much to his detractors, not as confessing that he recognized its truth. If he had said, "I am indeed rude in speech, but not in knowledge," we could not in any way have put another meaning upon it. He did not hesitate plainly to assert his knowledge, because without it he could not have been the teacher of the Gentiles. And certainly if we bring forward anything of his as a model of eloquence, we take it from those epistles which even his very detractors, who thought his bodily presence weak and his speech contemptible, confessed to be weighty and powerful

      Is speech an extension of knowledge? Can they be different?

    3. For it is because they are eloquent that they exemplify these rules; it is not that they use them in order to be eloquent.

      eloquence is the quality one must have to be skilled? Is it then a quality one is born with?

    1. It is, essentially, a matter of the right management of the voice to express the various emotions -- of speaking loudly, softly, or between the two; of high, low, or intermediate pitch; of the various rhythms that suit various subjects

      Tempo of speech as well, to provide emphasis.

    1. In your closing words you may dispense with conjunctions, and thereby mark the difference between the oration and the peroration: "I have done. You have heard me. The facts are before you. I ask for your judgement."


    2. 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.

      contextual intelligence, adaptability, and agility.

    3. Four faults of prose style, with illustrative examples: (1) misuse of compound words; (2) employment of strange words; (3) long, unseasonable, or frequent epithets; (4) inappropriate metaphors.

      Depended on audience.

    1. All such good things as excite envy are, as a class, the outcome of good luck.

      Interesting. I like how here (and above) he explains the specifics of what the words/ideas mean.

    2. The constituents of wealth are: plenty of coined money and territory; the ownership of numerous, large, and beautiful estates; also the ownership of numerous and beautiful implements, live stock, and slaves. All these kinds of property are our own, are secure, gentlemanly, and useful. The useful kinds are those that are productive, the gentlemanly kinds are those that provide enjoyment. By "productive" I mean those from which we get our income; by "enjoyable," those from which we get nothing worth mentioning except the use of them. The criterion of "security" is the ownership of property in such places and under such Conditions that the use of it is in our power; and it is "our own" if it is in our own power to dispose of it or keep it. By "disposing of it" I mean giving it away or selling it. Wealth as a whole consists in using things rather than in owning them; it is really the activity -- that is, the use -- of property that constitutes wealth.

      Locke & property. Wage workers vs. wealth

    3. From this definition of happiness it follows that its constituent parts are: -- good birth, plenty of friends, good friends, wealth, good children, plenty of children, a happy old age, also such bodily excellences as health, beauty, strength, large stature, athletic powers, together with fame, honour, good luck, and virtue. A man cannot fail to be completely independent if he possesses these internal and these external goods; for besides these there are no others to have. (Goods of the soul and of the body are internal. Good birth, friends, money, and honour are external.) Further, we think that he should possess resources and luck, in order to make his life really secure. As we have already ascertained what happiness in general is, so now let us try to ascertain what of these parts of it is.

      The right to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Could relate to the American dream.

    4. It may be said that every individual man and all men in common aim at a certain end which determines what they choose and what they avoid. This end, to sum it up briefly, is happiness and its constituents.

      Depends on context and individuals.

    1. he political speaker will also find the researches of historians useful. But all this is the business of political science and not of rhetoric.

      I'm having trouble discerning between the two. Political Science's focus may not be rhetoric, but it utilizes rhetoric quite a lot.

    2. It is useful, in framing laws, not only to study the past history of one's own country, in order to understand which constitution is desirable for it now, but also to have a knowledge of the constitutions of other nations, and so to learn for what kinds of nation the various kinds of constitution are suited.

      But what about "framing" laws for personal interest over the common good of other nations and one's own?

    3. understand the subject of legislation; for it is on a country's laws that its whole welfare depends.

      If only.

    4. The main matters on which all men deliberate and on which political speakers make speeches are some five in number: ways and means, war and peace, national defence, imports and exports, and legislation.

      Technical, the main focuses of oration and deliberation. How has this perhaps changed with globalization and the information age?

    5. hat rhetoric is a combination of the science of logic and of the ethical branch of politics; and it is partly like dialectic, partly like sophistical reasoning.


    6. Clearly counsel can only be given on matters about which people deliberate; matters, namely, that ultimately depend on ourselves, and which we have it in our power to set going. [1359b] For we turn a thing over in our mind until we have reached the point of seeing whether we can do it or not.

      Need to collaborate?

    1. but often make it a ground of actual praise that he has neglected his own interest to do what was honourable

      emphasizing the collective or another over individual self-interest?

    2. hose who praise or attack a man aim at proving him worthy of honour or the reverse, and they too treat all other considerations with reference to this one.

      Setting a standard?

    3. he political orator is concerned with the future: it is about things to be done hereafter that he advises, for or against. The party in a case at law is concerned with the past; one man accuses the other, and the other defends himself, with reference to things already done. The ceremonial orator is, properly speaking, concerned with the present, since all men praise or blame in view of the state of things existing at the time, though they often find it useful also to recall the past and to make guesses at the future.

      Different purposes within "time", determines different types of interactions in the divisions of oratory. Very interesting use of past, present, and future. I hadn't thought about rhetoric contextually that way before.

    4. -(1) political, (2) forensic, and (3) the ceremonial oratory of display.


    5. For of the three elements in speech-making -- speaker, subject, and person addressed -- it is the last one, the hearer, that determines the speech's end and object

      each level holds certain authority, but who has the most impact and power?

    1. I mean that the proper subjects of dialectical and rhetorical syllogisms are the things with which we say the regular or universal Lines of Argument are concerned, that is to say those lines of argument that apply equally to questions of right conduct, natural science, politics, and many other things that have nothing to do with one another.

      there are constant appeals and lines of argument, but they depend on the context?

    2. There are, then, these three means of effecting persuasion. The man who is to be in command of them must, it is clear, be able (1) to reason logically, (2) to understand human character and goodness in their various forms, and (3) to understand the emotions-that is, to name them and describe them, to know their causes and the way in which they are excited

      qualities needed to effectively persuade.

    3. Our judgements when we are pleased and friendly are not the same as when we are pained and hostile.


    4. Of the modes of persuasion furnished by the spoken word there are three kinds. The first kind depends on the personal character of the speaker; the second on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind; the third on the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itsel

      the format of persuasion, dependent on audience. The persuader is unsuccessful if he cannot shape the audience.

    1. What makes a man a "sophist" is not his faculty, but his moral purpose. In rhetoric, however, the term "rhetorician" may describe either the speaker's knowledge of the art, or his moral purpose. In dialectic it is different: a man is a "sophist" because he has a certain kind of moral purpose, a "dialectician" in respect, not of his moral purpose, but of his faculty.

      !!!! I like this explanation of distinguishing between the three. Very interesting.

    2. No other of the arts draws opposite conclusions: dialectic and rhetoric alone do this. Both these arts draw opposite conclusions impartially

      dialectic vs rhetoric. dialectic AND rhetoric? When are they same and when are they not?

    3. For argument based on knowledge implies instruction, and there are people whom one cannot instruct. Here, then, we must use, as our modes of persuasion and argument, notions possessed by everybody, as we observed in the Topics when dealing with the way to handle a popular audience.

      Appealing to core beliefs, irrespective of the amount of knowledge, to be successful? Meaning... there is a base of knowledge and/or beliefs the the "instructor" must appeal to?

    4. In a political debate the man who is forming a judgement is making a decision about his own vital interests. There is no need, therefore, to prove anything except that the facts are what the supporter of a measure maintains they are. In forensic oratory this is not enough; to conciliate the listener is what pays here. It is other people's affairs that are to be decided, so that the judges, intent on their own satisfaction and listening with partiality, surrender themselves to the disputants instead of judging between them.

      Multiple actors in different contexts of judgment.

    5. They will often have allowed themselves to be so much influenced by feelings of friendship or hatred or self-interest that they lose any clear vision of the truth and have their judgement obscured by considerations of personal pleasure or pain

      Context and circumstance cloud judgment, rhetoric, and rules.

    6. he modes of persuasion are the only true constituents of the art: everything else is merely accessory

      Persuasion the root of all "Art"

  3. Sep 2013
    1. (1) laws, (2) witnesses, (3) contracts (4) tortures, (5) oaths.

      How are these not subject to rhetoric?

    2. democracy, oligarchy, aristocracy, monarchy, and their characteristic customs, institutions, and interests

      different style of rhetoric for different governmental systems.

    3. In urging his hearers to take or to avoid a course of action, the political orator must show that he has an eye to their happiness.

      rhetorician as leader.

    4. Rhetoric has regard to classes of men, not to individual men; its subjects, and the premisses from which it argues, are in the main such as present alternative possibilities in the sphere of human action; and it must adapt itself to an audience of untrained thinkers who cannot follow a long train of reasoning.

      if rhetoric is adapted for untrained thinkers, does that make rhetoric untrained reasoning?

    5. . Hence rhetoric may be regarded as an offshoot of dialectic, and also of ethical (or political) studies.

      Instead of the counterpart? ethical and political are exchangeable?

    6. (1) the speaker's power of evincing a personal character which will make his speech credible (ethos ); (2) his power of stirring the emotions of his hearers (pathos ); (3) his power of proving a truth, or an apparent truth, by means of persuasive arguments (logos )

      The necessary parts for rhetoric. Is rhetoric still effective if it's missing one of these? For instance, not appealing to pathos.

    7. enthymeme

      an argument where one's premise isn't explicitly stated?

    1. although exhorting others to study political discourse, neglected all the good things which this study affords, and became nothing more than professors of meddlesomeness and greed.(23)

      hahahahaha. I love this. And also is pretty true.

    2. in a word, I hold that there does not exist an art of the kind which can implant sobriety and justice in depraved natures.

      No universal truth.

    3. fitness

      key word.

    4. For what has been said by one speaker is not equally useful for the speaker who comes after him; on the contrary, he is accounted most skilled in this art who speaks in a manner worthy of his subject and yet is able to discover in it topics which are nowise the same as those used by others.

      differences in speeches and individual capability.

    5. since it has no such power, I could wish that this prating might cease. For I note that the bad repute which results therefrom does not affect the offenders only, but that all the rest of us who are in the same profession share in the opprobium.

      Education has no power, shift to a different type.

    6. For the latter have no interest whatever in the truth,(12) but consider that they are masters of an art if they can attract great numbers of students by the smallness of their charges and the magnitude of their professions and get something out of them. For they are themselves so stupid and conceive others to be so dull that, although the speeches which they compose are worse than those which some laymen improvise, nevertheless they promise to make their students such clever orators that they will not overlook any of the possibilities which a subject affords

      I think this is entertaining and comical, particularly applied to some of our politicians today.

    7. For it is not to be supposed that men who are honorable and just-dealing with others will be dishonest with the very preceptors who have made them what they are.


    8. although they set so insignificant a price on the whole stock of virtue and happiness, they pretend to wisdom and assume the right to instruct the rest of the world.


    9. But these professors have gone so far in their lack of scruple that they attempt to persuade our young men that if they will only study under them they will know what to do in life and through this knowledge will become happy and prosperous.

      Reminds me of the American Dream....

    10. -not that he knew their minds but that he desired to show us that for mankind this power lies in the realms of the impossible.

      power is unattainable, because there is no absolute truth?

  4. caseyboyle.net caseyboyle.net
    1. The reason, as I conceive, is that the makers of laws are the majority who are weak; and they make laws and distribute praises and censures with a view to themselves and to their own interests;

      Interesting. I disagree partly, but also see how this relates to the 1% and how they "frame" the information and policies going to the public. Interesting.

    2. Convention and nature


    3. but rather be immortal in his wickedness; or, if this is not possible, let him at any rate be allowed to live as long as he can. For such purposes, Polus, rhetoric may be useful, but is of small if of any use to him who is not intending to commit injustice; at least, there was no such use discovered by us in the previous discussion.

      ... Rhetoric used to avoid the truth? and/or judgment?

    4. let him who has done things worthy of stripes, allow himself to be scourged, if of bonds, to be bound, if of a fine, to be fined, if of exile, to be exiled, if of death, to die, himself being the first to accuse himself and his own relations, and using rhetoric to this end, that his and their unjust actions may be made manifest, and that they themselves may be delivered from injustice, which is the greatest evil.

      Is left to man to judge himself?

    5. we admit what has been just now said, every man ought in every way to guard himself against doing wrong, for he will thereby suffer great evil?

      Is the "evil" of rhetoric inescapable? In that you can't necessarily un-see things are un-hear things?

    6. And you would admit once more, my good sir, that great power is a benefit to a man if his actions turn out to his advantage, and that this is the meaning of great power; and if not, then his power is an evil and is no power. But let us look at the matter in another way:—do we not acknowledge that the things of which we were speaking, the infliction of death, and exile, and the deprivation of property are sometimes a good and sometimes not a good?

      Power, power, power, power.

    7. . Now, seeing that there are these four arts, two attending on the body and two on the soul for their highest good; flattery knowing, or rather guessing their natures, has distributed herself into four shams or simulations of them;

      Reference, four arts, basis.

    8. Which condition may not be really good, but good only in appearance? I mean to say, that there are many persons who appear to be in good health, and whom only a physician or trainer will discern at first sight not to be in good health.

      The deceptions of appearance.

    9. To say the truth, Polus, it is not an art at all, in my opinion.

      Reference I think Gorgias, he discusses opinion?

    10. with the ignorant; for with those who know he cannot be supposed to have greater powers of persuasion.

      Personal: Perhaps use to reference Stiglitz chapter on framing, and also Bertels on the uninformed public. The ill informed and ignorant are subject to the powers of persuasion.

    11. I should like to cross-examine you, but if not I will let you alone.

      Socrates using rhetoric to prove Gorgias wrong about rhetoric?

    12. 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.

    13. knowledge and belief differ.

      separation in our types of personal language, we have language of belief and language of intellect/mind. Disconnect? how does this change rhetoric?

    14. I answer, Socrates, that rhetoric is the art of persuasion in courts of law and other assemblies, as I was just now saying, and about the just and unjust.

      here rhetoric is dependent on audience? Rhetoric primarily meant for politics?

    15. Now I want to know about rhetoric in the same way;—is rhetoric the only art which brings persuasion, or do other arts have the same effect? I mean to say—Does he who teaches anything persuade men of that which he teaches or not?

      rhetoric outside of language. Visual rhetoric.

    16. persuasion is the chief end of rhetoric

      Is rhetoric just the title we give to innate, self-interested, behavior? Is the term 'rhetoric' to blame, or is it simply just a label we give to human interactions?

    17. art of rhetoric; and you mean to say, if I am not mistaken, that rhetoric is the artificer of persuasion, having this and no other business, and that this is her crown and end. Do you know any other effect of rhetoric over and above that of producing persuasion

      Defining rhetoric as persuasion.

    18. hat is there greater than the word which persuades the judges in the courts, or the senators in the council, or the citizens in the assembly, or at any other political meeting?—if you have the power of uttering this word, you will have the physician your slave, and the trainer your slave, and the money-maker of whom you talk will be found to gather treasures, not for himself, but for you who are able to speak and to persuade the multitude.

      Relatioship between rhetoric and power. Dominance.

    19. Well, then, let me now have the rest of my answer:—seeing that rhetoric is one of those arts which works mainly by the use of words, and there are other arts which also use words, tell me what is that quality in words with which rhetoric is concerned

      Defining qualities of rhetoric.

    20. in some of these speech is pretty nearly co-extensive with action, but in most of them the verbal element is greater—they depend wholly on words for their efficacy and power: and I take your meaning to be that rhetoric is an art of this latter sort?

      When is the verbal most powerful? Dependent on audience or on the art itself?

    21. but there is no such action of the hand in rhetoric which works and takes effect only through the medium of discourse.


    22. Then why, if you call rhetoric the art which treats of discourse, and all the other arts treat of discourse, do you not call them arts of rhetoric

      I really like the layers, if language is the means in which other "arts" or professions are expressed, and rhetoric is language, is not rhetoric the root of all discourses?

    23. for I see, from the few words which Polus has uttered, that he has attended more to the art which is called rhetoric than to dialectic.

      Are they not engaging in a conversation then, if it is more rhetoric than dialectic? Is Polus the Rhetor?

    1. But truly whenever the painters perfectly complete one body and figure from many colors and bodies, they delight the sight;

      Do artists and does art operate within the same societal structures an customs? Or does it exist outside of it?

    2. For the strong habitual force of law is banished because of the fear prompted by the sight, which makes one heedless both of what is judged by custom to be admirable, and of the good that comes about by victory.

      Fear supersedes law?

    3. Persuasion belonging to discourse shapes the soul at will:

      Is persuasion then a manipulator in reference to the paragraph above? Or is it a means to find certain truths? (Or maybe I'm off all together)

    4. For it is not natural for the superior to be hindered by the inferior, but for the inferior to be ruled and led by the superior--for the superior to lead and the inferior to follow. And a god is superior to a human being in force, intelligence, etcetera.

      The hierarchy of power, gives little opportunity for the uprise of 'man' or community. How does one prove to be superior if they are not born as one?

    5. The order proper to a city is being well-manned; to a body, beauty; to a soul, wisdom; to a deed, excellence; and to a discourse, truth--and the opposites of these are disorder.

      Sets the standards for a proper city. Point of reference to how things will be compared and evaluated.

    1. And if you investigate in this way, you will see another law for mortals: nothing is always seemly or always disgraceful, but the right occasion takes the same things and makes them disgraceful and then alters them and makes them seemly

      Right & wrong, seemly & disgraceful are contextual. Not just in opinions of individual, but in communities, and institutions. Why do we love sinners who have sought redemption? There acts are no less disgraceful or sinister, but "remorse" is enough to shift public opinion. Right and wrong have the value we give them, which is forever changing.