A 'snowflake' sort of ideal applied to other words... but a valid point. Our language is imperfect, inaccurate, and vague- every time I read through Nietzche I come around to his thought process a little more.

It's fascinating to consider how if our language had been constructed differently... based on, somehow, a logical reasoning of stimuli... mankind would think entirely differently.

It would be hard to imagine human language without a humanocentric bent, but a completely fair point nonetheless.

This might be one of my favorite lines in this entire work. A great Nietzchan assertion of hyperbole.

Perhaps my greatest criticism of Nietzche is not his style, which I adore, or his subject matter, but his apparent attempt to write a philosophical bit as if he were nearly speaking from a pseudoscientific standpoint.

The ultimate rhetoric question?

Man doesn't hate the liar- he hates the liar whose lies have outwardly hurt them! What I find more interesting is Nietzche essentially stating how society all too eagerly puts up with lies, and liars, in the first place.

"Dissimulation" as a sort of weapon is interesting. Deceit makes for a valuable tool.

How does Nietzche define his version of "pride"?

Nietzche has a tendency for elegant prose as much as he does unwarranted cynicism, and this sentence is an excellent example of it.

Takes the moral component ascribed so often by his peers out of the equation, and I can definitely appreciate that.

I've already found his style to be exceedingly winding, overly wordy, and frivolous. But perhaps I am simply being overly critical

A wee bit of alliteration to start things off.

I can't wait, Ramus, you condescending old bastard.

Syntax and style seem to be his main criticisms over substance, but that might just be my opinion.

An elegant insult, if I ever saw one.

An appeal to the possible reader's ego, sly.

This is one of the most condescending assertions I've ever heard. He really puts himself on a pedestal.

I find this quote to fascinating. Isocrates isn't necessarily a cynic, but he certainly is not the happiest of philosophers.

A solid defense- that the supposed victims of Isocrates, according to him, are on his side of this trial.

An appeal to the emotions of the judges, then? A passionate display of pathos to enrage Isocrates' jury?

The two-faced nature of Athenian justice?

Law teachers without discourse?

Isocrates is of an opinion, I feel, that much of the skill with discourse comes naturally.

At least he provides a solid criticism and then a counterargument, rather than just ranting about his problems with his friends. Did Isocrates have friends?

The "science of art" is a popular concept even today, but I understand his reasons to romanticize rhetoric

So rhetoric and philosophy are nothing special, and those who say it is should stop.

Isocrates has a real problem with braggarts and liars in his line of work, apparently

Was Isocrates a popular guy in his time? One possible perception of this piece is with him as the envious scholar ill-distinguished amongst scholars with greater swarms of students, rather than the critical paragon.

What I really get from this piece is the use of rhetorical manipulation to condemn the use of rhetorical manipulation.

There's a certain sort of hubris with the Sophists, and rhetoricians in general which I find so fascinating- evidenced in our earlier readings, and this one as well.

Essentially defining political discourse.

An interesting distinction in the scope of rhetoric, and something that would be up to debate by some nowadays.

Pushing him towards the point by keeping him on the same train of though, I suppose- Socrates is good at that.

The best in an ambiguous art, apparently