Isocrates
Isocrates
Being titled as the "father of eloquence" by Cicero may prompt one to think: Oh man, he must have been a big deal. And he is, in the history of rhetoric anyway. Isocrates began as a logographer before setting up his school that studied philosophy (or philosophia). The point of his education was to mold students into great, just citizens who served the state. His method of teaching was also to be a foil against the Sophists and the Eristics at the time. Instead of focusing on debate techniques or theorizing on matters such as ethics, Isocrates wanted his students to be instilled with a moral compass and to utilize their persuasive speech to spread it.
Against The Sophists
Isocrates promoted his education as broad and not set on trivial matters. Civic and just education was what Isocrates set for. He considered the rival programs to be overselling what they could actually teach. Not only this, but he also criticized them for saying that eloquence of speech can't be taught (as it requires a talent). Instead of using it for pointless questioning or snake oil salesman tactics, he wanted rhetoric to be a force of good that made changes within society.
A quote that stuck out to me was "For the rest, he must in himself set such an example of oratory." This quote ties into Isocrates and his emphasis on kairos. Not only do you have to be saying something at the right time and place, but you also have to be the right person. If one wants to uphold justice and be a good citizen, the person speaking should just be that. This extends to a teacher who teaches rhetoric. How is a student to believe Isocrates if he does not live just as justly?
If I could question Isocrates in this piece, I would ask why justice is constrained to government. His opinion seems to reflect that behaving as a good citizen and being a just person is more of a benefit to government and society, on a macro level, instead of the person's own benefit or those around them, on a micro level.
The aim of schooling should be to create well-educated individuals who contribute and develop a better society, community, and self. I believe that grades (1st-7th) should be given a broad education while (8th-12th) should have a choice on being broad or becoming narrow. Of course, we would need to make sure courses still employ different skills so that a student who homed in on STEM writes at their grade level.
Allowing flexibility and approaching school through an evolutionary lens (things are constantly updated or tinkered with), would ensure students are well-equipped to deal with today's problems and we would have a variety of specialists and broad thinkers.
While this approach to schooling would be more favorable to the current system, there would still be differences in success. This approach fixes some bugs but when the hardware is broken, there is a much bigger beast to fix. Flexibility allows choice and would be favorable to several students, however, these are for the average and beyond students. We still live in an underfunded public education system. For those with disabilities and are among lower classes, it would not overall change their systematic disadvantages. It would definitely be seen in data points as well. I would have students' overall skills (testing or showcasing), crystalized knowledge (testing), and contributions (volunteering, peer tutoring, projects, creative submissions, technical creations) as data points. Since I would use this data over their school years from 5th-12th, it would show a bigger gap when factoring in class and disabilities. A person with disabilities may not be able to contribute due to physical or neurological constraints and a person in a lower class may not be able to due to working or not able to have a reliable transportation source to do activities outside of class.
Antidosis
Throughout this piece, Isocrates is on the defensive. He attempts to explain and defend what his teaching aims to do. While he was a successful teacher, he did not accumulate a large sum of wealth. His argument in regard to wealth is that he was pursuing justice and morality, not money. However, I would argue, that if he was not greedy and doing it for the betterment of society he would charge less or not at all.
"The man who wishes to persuade people will not be negligent as to the matter of character."
"Therefore, the stronger a man's desire to persuade his hearers, the more zealously will he strive to be honorable and to have the esteem of his fellow-citizens."
My interpretation of Isocrates' quotes above which represent a good portion of this piece's argument is that he believes in this inherent good when learning to be persuasive. If their desire to change minds is strong, their motive will be to keep their reputation spotless.
If I were able to speak with him, I would tell him that while some may desire to persuade through noble means, some don't. The stronger need to change minds is not correlated with morality. Any person for any reason, good or evil, can want to change someone's mind.
I supposed it is the cynical, nihilist in me that leads me to that conclusion. Persuasion has no moral quality to it. It simply is a mode of speaking or writing. To me, Isocrates comes off as a bright-eyed optimist. He believes in an inherent good if one leads down the path of true persuasion. He casts away the snake-oil salesman types as not knowing true persuasion.
Isocrates, Helen
Within this piece, Isocrates is critiquing others before boosting himself and then writing how he would have written about Helen and her situation.
"And to pursue the search after truth, to bring up their disciples to a knowledge of practical politics."
Isocrates' use of after truth reminds me of post-truth within this context as he wants rhetoricians and students to persuade not from a fully objective standpoint. Truth, within my interpretation from this and his previous works, is morality and conviction. This is amplified by, "bearing in mind that it is far better to have a sound opinion upon useful things than an accurate knowledge of things that are useless, and to have a slight superiority in matters of importance than to be far above others in small things that are of no practical benefit in life." Finding objective truths or abstract knowledge is denounced by Isocrates. If it has no benefit or practicality, it isn't it.
His approach to truth influences how he views Helen. Before starting on that, however, I must critique his assertion against Gorgias as he put it, "he has rather composed a defence of her acts." An encomium is meant to praise or emphasize someone's importance. Gorgias does just that as Helen was a significant figure. I argue that Gorgias' purpose was for others to see that Helen was worthy of being in an encomium instead of her being kept in a shadowy infamy. A victim should not be condemned.
Despite Isocrates criticizing Gorgias for playing defense for Helen, he wrote, "to misuse the reputation of a single man in order to enhance that of Helen." Seems a bit defensive himself, doesn't he? His writing, for the most part, seems to be an encomium of Theseus than Helen such as "For we shall never be able to produce a more trustworthy witness or a more convincing authority upon the good qualities of Helen than the judgment of Theseus."
However, he will bring good qualities to Helen indirectly through Thesus and her family as well as her directly such as her beauty. I agree with Dr. Pullman that Isocrates does double-speak in his writing.
In this instance, I would ask Isocrates why he is splitting hairs. In fact, I would implore him to write an encomium to Theseus in which he brings up his points about Helen. By wanting to rewrite Helen's encomium, he muddles the reasoning for Gorgias writing it and it isn't very praiseworthy when your merit is mostly based on another's.
Alcidamas
Alcidamas serves as a foil to Isocrates. Not only were they rivals, but they were both taught under Gorgias. He was a proponent of the power of speaking through memory.
On The Sophists
This piece (more of a hit piece) was against Isocrates. Instead of writing speeches, Alcidamas believed one should be able to know a subject so well that they could talk about it without prep time.
"(27) Written discourses, in my opinion, certainly ought not to be called real speeches, but they are as wraiths, semblances, and imitations. It would be reasonable for us to think of them as we do of bronze statues, and images of stone, and pictures of living beings; just as these last mentioned are but the semblances of corporeal bodies, giving pleasure to the eye alone, and are of no practical value."*
*While he sees it as lower than speaking, he does not completely discount its uses. This makes me wonder how he writes. Does he edit or write as if he is talking?
"(12) The truth is that speeches which have been laboriously worked out with elaborate diction (compositions more akin to poetry than prose) are deficient in spontaneity and truth."
This argument reminds me of the ongoing drama between left-leaning Youtubers (Breadtube is what it frequently is referred to as). The drama surrounds Youtubers who write video essays and those who are debaters. Video essayists often argue that debaters will simplify arguments while debaters will argue that video essayists have the luxury of writing and editing. I disagree with both the Youtubers and Alcidamas on this. I see knowledge as simply knowledge. Whether one prepares or not, I judge based on the argument itself.
If I could talk to Alcidamas, I would say that he and Isocrates have such arrogance toward what speech, rhetoric, should be or is that it is infuriating. One does not have to put down the written word to boost speech. One does not have to see one who prepared and one who can cite verbatim as lesser or greater. To see rhetoric as leading to morality is a dangerous path to walk. Not only that, if they see composition as lesser then they shouldn't have written at all.
I supposed I am really showing my nihilistic and relativist card by saying this, but it seems they conflate concepts with morality. Knowledge, speech, written word, nothing is inherent in it. It just depends on what is being argued or said and who is doing it. They seem so caught up in this manifesto of speech that they have overlooked the forest for the trees.
“You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”
? Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche*
*Is it a cliche to reference Nietzche whenever nihilism is brought up? I feel like it is, but I thought the quote was beyond good in this situation that it would be evil for me to pass up (nudge, nudge).