"the correct perception"-which would mean "the adequate expression of an object in the subject"-is a contradictory impossibility. For between two absolutely different spheres, as between subject and object, there is no causality, no correctness, and no expression
So wouldn't this refer to his own observations too, thereby nullifying them?
such an investigator considers the entire universe in connection with man: the entire universe as the infinitely fractured echo of one original sound-man; the entire universe as the infinitely multiplied copy of one original picture-man. His method is to treat man as the measure of all things,
How else are men supposed to understand the world if not in relation to themselves?
Yet this is how matters stand regarding seeking and finding "truth" within the realm of reason. If I make up the definition of a mammal, and then, after inspecting a camel, declare "look, a mammal' I have indeed brought a truth to light in this way, but it is a truth of limited value. That is to say, it is a thoroughly anthropomorphic truth which contains not a single point which would be "true in itself" or really and universally valid apart from man.
This makes sense. But I'm still waiting for the "so what."
unequal actions which we equate by omitting the aspects in which they are unequal and which we now designate as "honest"
I get what he's saying about words and their origins but applying the concept to abstract ideas is a little...off
Thus, even at this stage, what they hate is basically not deception itself, but rather the unpleasant, hated consequences of certain sorts of deception. It is in a similarly restricted sense that man now wants nothing but truth: he desires the pleasant, life-preserving consequences of truth.
Yeah okay this I agree with.
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.
And people wonder why reading Nietzsche brings me down so much.
that he feels the flying center of the universe within himself.
I would argue that one of the great things that puts humans on such a higher level is the fact that we can actually think in terms like this and animals can't.
THIS WORK NOT INTENDED AS A TREATISE ON RHETORIC.
Well, Casey Boyle seems to disagree.
APOLOGY FOR THE LENGTH OF THE WORK.
Not accepted. Asshole.
TRUTH IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN EXPRESSION.WHAT IS MEANT BY STRIFEABOUT WORDS.
Aren't we repeating ourselves here?
THE CHRISTIAN TEACHER MUST USE DIFFERENT STYLES ON DIFFERENT OCCASIONS.
Rhetoric 101: Matching your style to your situation.
THE SACRED WRITERS UNITE ELOQUENCE WITH WISDOM.
...but best to be both.
WISDOM OF MORE IMPORTANCE THAN ELOQUENCE TO THE CHRIST!AN TEACHER
By extension one could argue that it is more important to be right than it is to be persuasive.
injustice and error?
This paragraph makes more sense than any document of Socrates trying to argue the opposite.
T IS LAWFUL FOR A CHRISTIAN TEACHER TO USE THE ART OF RHETORIC
Oh excellent. More fodder for the morality of rhetoric debate.
The duty of the Arguments is to attempt demonstrative proofs. These proofs must bear directly upon the question in dispute, which must fall under one of four heads. (1) If you maintain that the act was not committed, your main task in court is to prove this. (2) If you maintain that the act did no harm, prove this. If you maintain that (3) the act was less than is alleged, or (4) justified, prove these facts, just as you would prove the act not to have been committed if you were maintaining that.
And once again Aristotle seems to be giving advice on using rhetoric regardless of the morality of its use.
As to the place of style: the right thing in speaking really is that we should fight our case with no help beyong the bare facts
It seems like Aristotle keeps changing his mind about this.
e must know some, if not all, of the facts about the subject on which we are to speak and argue.
Well, duh.
To declare a thing to be universally true when it is not is most appropriate when working up feelings of horror and indignation in our hearers; especially by way of preface,
So, here Aristotle is laying down rules for when it is appropriate to lie?
ustice is like silver, and must be assayed by the judges
So justice ISN'T inherently noble and black/white?
No; things that are true and things that are better are, by their nature, practically always easier to prove and easier to believe in.
I would go as far as to say that human nature makes this statement untrue.
for we must not make people believe what is wrong
Aristotle is pretty clearly endorsing that rhetoric only be used in defense of truth.
forbid talk about non-essentials.
Anything other than the facts is inadmissible in certain courts
Accordingly all men make use, more or less, of both; for to a certain extent all men attempt to discuss statements and to maintain them, to defend themselves and to attack others.
Everyone rhetorics.
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
Rhetoric builds civilizations
they do not believe that our minds, which are naturally superior to our bodies, can be made more serviceable through education and suitable training; again, they observe that some people possess the art of training horses and dogs and most other animals by which they make them more spirited, gentle or intelligent, as the case may be, yet they do not think that any education has been discovered for training human nature, such as can improve men in any of those respects in which we improve the beasts.
Sophist critics don't seem to believe that the mind can be trained...so rhetoricians are scam artists
master the knowledge of their particular subject, whatever it may be in each case; and, finally, they must become versed and practised in the use and application of their art; for only on these conditions can they become fully competent and pre-eminent in any line of endeavor.
Again: There is no universal formula for successful rhetoric
contrary to justice
Rhetoric interferes with the natural order of things
must learn the different kinds of discourse and practice himself in their use; and the teacher, for his part, must so expound the principles of the art with the utmost possible exactness as to leave out nothing that can be taught
Universal rhetoric isn't really something that can be taught
analogy of an art with hard and fast rules to a creative process. For, excepting these teachers, who does not know that the art of using letters remains fixed and unchanged, so that we continually and invariably use the same letters for the same purposes, while exactly the reverse is true of the art of discourse?
Rhetoric as a "creative process"
More than that, they do not attribute any of this power either to the 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, but thinking that because of the extravagance of their promises they themselves will command admiration and the teaching of discourse will be held in higher esteem--oblivious of the fact that the arts are made great, not by those who are without scruple in boasting about them, but by those who are able to discover all of the resources which each art affords.
This is the first statement in this piece I can sincerely get behind.
What good
Even back then, people were incredulous. "Oh, you're an English major? What do you want to, um....do?"
SOCRATES
Socrates is a dick. But he's very good at getting people to slip up and use their words against him.
Maybe that's one of the reasons he's such a dick.
I hate Socrates.
rhetoric
Longest time spent getting to the point EVER.
excuse his own injustice
Rhetoric interferes with the natural order of things
short as possible
Which is why we get to read fifty thousand pages.
WAY too much of this article is listing examples of what he's talking about.