My thoughts regarding Gorgias ‘On Nature’:
1) Gorgias claims makes no sense.
2) If Gorgias claims did make sense, I still wouldn’t
understand them.
3 )If I did understand them, I would likely dispute them.
My thoughts regarding Gorgias ‘Encomium of Helen’:
1) Gorgias argues in favor of relieving Helen of personal
responsibility.
2) Gorgias paints Helen as a victim of her situation, her
surroundings, the deities and the written and spoken word.
3) Gorgias is an old-fashioned ‘spin doctor’.
I think conversations with Gorgias would have frustrated me,
but speeches by him would have entertained me. The arguments he proposes to be
logical are quite circular. In essence, in both of the works mentioned above,
situations just ‘are’. There is no beginning, middle or end. There are few
connections besides persuasive words. Of course, I struggle with this because I
believe in atoms and physical science. In that way, EVERYTHING is connected and
exists as part of a cycle that does have a beginning, middle and end. Yet Gorgias was an eloquent and engaging speaker that drew his audience in. “Gorgias
excelled in ceremonial oratory” (p. 22). He offered more than just the words he
said, he offered an experience.
I see this ceremonial aspect of Gorgias’ work as
particularly relevant to my work and research interests. The part of the ‘message’
that has no words, takes on an important role in persuading an audience to
think, feel or act a certain way. For me, this non-word part of the message is
the image. The visualizations that accompany and decorate a message are just as
important as the actual message. On this topic, Gorgias and I would likely have
not only agreed, but engaged in lively conversation.
Ha! I love how you begin this post, Trish. Clever. I appreciate your view of Gorgias, and understand it considering your background in science; however, my background is in literature, where there is rarely one right answer, so I am less troubled by his circuity. It's easy to take him to task now, in light of all we know about argument, but he must have been quite refreshing--though, as you say, frustrating--for his contemporary audience.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you brought up the point about visual rhetoric since I hadn't yet made that connection in Gorgias's work. Of the five canons, it seems Gorgias was primarily fixated on style and delivery, which can both be applied to visual rhetoric to enhance the suasory value of a written or oral text. I've always appreciated your insights and look forward to hearing more from you in class.
I find the orators particularly interesting, perhaps its because I work in clinical/regulatory. Can you image law and regulations done on the oral tradition? They would almost have to be more circular. Makes me wonder if new media (oration vs. writing, writing vs. web) has the potential to even further change policy and regulations. :) Its a fun worm-hole to go down.
ReplyDeleteFunny. Do you really thing Gorgias makes no sense? Yes, the arguments seem circular. But then again, at some point, we take something to be true, even if it resides in language itself. All argumentation, at some level, is based on some a priori assumption, isn't it? Perhaps you can engage in lively conversation asynchronously here!
ReplyDeleteMy notion of Gorgias not making sense is in reference to his 'On Nature' work. While our book only mentions a few lines from this "Nothing exists; or if it does exist, we cannot know it; or if we can know it, we cannot communicate our knowledge to another person" (p. 43), I was intrigued (and confused) by this line of 'reasoning' and so found a different reference to the work which described this passage in more detail:
DeleteGorgias: On Nature or What-Is-Not
Nothing Exists
1. If anything exists, it must be Being, Not-Being, or both
2. But it cannot be any of these
a. It cannot be Non-Being
i. Non-Being does not exist
ii. Hence, what exists cannot be Non-Being
b. It cannot be both
i. It cannot be Non-Being
ii. Hence, it cannot be both
c. It cannot be Being
i. If it were Being, it must be everlasting (eternal), created (temporal), or both
It is not temporal
a. If it is temporal, then it has a beginning
b. Thus it came from what is not Being (i.e., Non-Being)
c. But Non-Being does not exist
d. Hence, it is not temporal
It is not both
a. It cannot be either eternal or temporal
b. Hence, it cannot be both
It is not eternal
a. If it is eternal, then it has no beginning
b. Therefore it is without limit (apeiras) and so boundless
c. Therefore it has no position
To have a position is to be contained in something. But to be boundless is not to be so contained. A container is larger than what it holds But nothing is larger than the boundless Hence, the boundless is not contained.
a. Therefore it is nowhere
b. But to exist is to be somewhere
c. Hence, it has no position
e. Hence, it is not eternal
(http://sweb.uky.edu/~rsand1/phi100/PDF_docs/Gorgias.pdf)
This sounds to me like someone who wants to speak and argue just for the sake of speaking and arguing. I do find that this short passage is circular at best and makes no sense at worst. Even if I conceded to the line 'It cannot be Being', I would dispute the idea that nothing is eternal. Maybe it's my own 'circular' kind of argument, but how can we say for sure that there was no beginning:)
I suspect Gorgias enjoyed embarking on these kinds of lavish orations and in fact our book also points out that the paradoxes themselves 'invite interpretation as parody' (p. 43). That is why I said I would likely be entertained by him. He seems like a very colorful character.
"I think conversations with Gorgias would have frustrated me, but speeches by him would have entertained me." Nicely phrased...Gorgias would be proud. mws
ReplyDeleteI'm noticing that I'm reading people's posts in their "voice" now that we've had a class session together. Your perspective & insight are interesting and unique.
ReplyDeleteSomething sticks in my craw about the term "ceremonial oratory". I wonder if I'm the only one.
I'm not sure if it's evoking some 3rd Reich or cult-founder cognitive dissonance, or if it's from running into some egomaniacs in Toastmasters in the past, or if it's from not trusting religious zealots who claim to "preach" the will of the divine, or if it's from a combination of them all.