Monday, July 10, 2006

Sophists Rule!

Aristotle and Jesse Jackson

In what ways do you think Jesse Jackson's speech makes use of topoi and concepts from Aristotle's Rhetoric? What are the key differences between Aris and Plastico? Which are you--Aristotelian or Platonic--in your teaching and/or work?

I suspect if I were really motivated, I could probably demonstrate how every technique in his speech is discussed in the Rhetoric, but I'm not that motivated.

First, Jackson relies heavily on both ethos and pathos. He really works hard on ethos. He establishes it in very traditional, old-fashioned ways such as introducing his family and also linking himself with previous people like Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks. He also tells his family history as well as some of his accomplishments. In fact, he focuses on himself so much, he also becomes an example--another Aristotelian tact. He shows how he's an example of what can happen in the U.S. when people become politically active.

He also evokes pathos by telling not just his personal story, but also mentioning murdered and disenfranchised Americans in the civil rights struggle. Even his metaphor of his grandmother's quilt being the various factions of the Democratic party evoked pathos.

He also relies extensively on topoi. For example, in B&H 231, one line of argument is demonstrate when cause happens then effect happens and when absent, absent. In Jackson's speech he points out how, when factions put aside their differences Democrates win, when they don't they don't win--classic Aristotle. Also on page 231, pointing out when the incredible happens, such as when Jackson says that he wasn't supposed to be successful as the child of teenage mother who also had a teenage mother. I could go on, but you get the point. Virtually every rhetorical strategy in Jackson's speech is Aristotelian.

For me, the big difference between Plato and Aristotle is an idealistic belief in a higher truth for Plato and Aristotle's more practical view to work with what we know and since we know things through language, work through language in the form of rhetoric and dialectice. Of course, I'm far more Aristotelian than Platonic; I'm more concerned with results not ideals. I liked Jimmy Johnson and thought Tom Landry was a little extreme. I get excited about Christmas and not Easter. A pyrrhic victory is no victory at all. I like baroque architecture and not...well I like Palladian architecture too, but I'm not much for modernist architecture. Fragments can, sometimes, complete a thought. I think learning to sight read is as good as phonetics and the right answer is still right even if you don't show your work. I like the reproduction furniture in my house as much as the few antiques I have. When CD players came out, I got one as soon as I could afford it, and I thought my roommate was a complete idiot when she bought a betamax player. I've never liked Macs and can still just barely get them to work. I readily admit that chianti is my favorite wine. I saw REM open for the Producers in 1982 at the Club Foot; the other opening band, Erector Set, was better. I could go on with lists of why Emmitt Smith is better than Tony Dorsett, but Roger Staubach is better than Troy Aiken, but the non-football people won't get it. The point is, I'm more interested in practical results than purist ideals, so I identify more with Aristotle than Plato.

Kendall

1 comment:

Rich said...

Not that motivated? Oh come on!

;-)

Excellent points, Kendall. You relate key ideas in how ethos and pathos play a role. With this idea of logos being truth or the word, indeed, the speech involves logos as well.

Your contemporary examples that explain differences between P and A are great.