‘Gorgias’ by Plato tries to show where to draw the line
1. Blog (Posted 2014, Jan. 21) Gorgias: A Philosophical Tragedy. Philosophy of Language. Retrieved from https://abearperspective.wordpress.com/tag/philosophy-of-language/
2. Loebs, B. (2010). Hitler’s Rhetorical theory. Relevant Rhetoric Vol. 1. Retreived from http://relevantrhetoric.com/CharismaTheKeytoHitlersRhetoric.pdf
3. Holocaust Encyclopedia (2014). Victims of the Nazi Era: Nazi Racial Ideology. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Retrieved from http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007457
4. Degrelle, L. (1992). How Hitler Consolidated Power in Germany and Launched a Social Revolutoin. Institute of Historical Review. Retrieved from http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p299_Degrelle.html
Socrates had a straightforward and often blunt approach toward contentious matters that failed to meet the high ethical standards from which he judged them. His line of reasoning is rather confrontational and persistent, which shook established notions and perceptions out of their comfort zones. As a philosopher who was concerned only with the quest of truth in whatever form, Socrates was not ready to compromise on principles to accommodate a line of thought that he felt could pollute philosophy. In the real though, such principles become hurdles for most people especially those who enjoyed positions of power in society.
The play, “Gorgias” written by Plato, the most distinguished of the disciples of Aristotle, is a tragicomedy which accounts for the death of the Socratic principles that the Athenian high society of that time considered to be dangerous and harmful for the city state. The play is essentially a discourse between Aristotle on one side and Gorgias, along with his two accomplices, Polus and Callicles. Although the theme of the play seems to be an analysis of rhetoric as an art form or vocation, certain other themes also make their way into the play.
With Socrates, widely considered to be the ‘Father of ethics,’ as the main protagonist, the good and evil question couldn’t be far away and eventually does become a part of the discourse in the play. The plot is based on the wish of Socrates to know about rhetoric from the master rhetorician of the time, Gorgias. They meet in the house of Callicles where Socrates begins probing Gorgias about his vocation, which was public speaking, and included the use of rhetoric to achieve the intended effect on the audience. After much probing, Socrates concludes that rhetoric is nothing short of flattery and persuasion and doesn’t really generate any kind of creative output or original thinking.
However, he realizes the disproportionate stranglehold of rhetoric over any idea of power which was an end in itself and was all that mattered in a world where men were ready to go to any extent to gain power and exercise it for his own ends. Socrates knew that power was exercised by ruthless men who couldn’t care less about principles especially those that tend to question their actions. In the play, the inability of Socrates to get Callicles to agree with his point of view on the rhetoric proves that the real world doesn’t approach challenges in the way Socrates does. It triggers the climax with Socrates abandoning his persistent quest for truth and breaking into a monologue, which was contrary to his nature (Blog: Philosophy of Language, 2014).
Callicles was convinced till the very end that Socrates was not a realist and couldn’t get by without antagonizing those around him with his persistent and dialectical method of inquiry. Socrates saw injustice in rhetoric because it often used untruths to mislead the masses to believe what the rhetorician wanted them to believe. This was manipulation of the weaker knowledge levels of the masses which is not what philosophy aims to teach. For people like Callicles who was engaged in statecraft, if someone like Socrates had his way, the world would become a minefield of prohibitions that would not merely stifle government functioning but even adversely affect trade and commerce as all these activities require people to make compromises.
It’s a lofty ideal that Socrates preaches which is understandable when we consider that he is acknowledged to be the leading light of ethics. But his attempts to push his ideas of ethical conduct into public space aren’t appropriate because the world at large doesn’t function under those strict guidelines. The world of politics and business operates on the plank of power which most men believe, flows from might and superiority. And in order to garner might and enjoy superiority, a few sharp men must control the vast masses of ordinary men. Callicles knows that to be the only truth and therefore he looks down on the ideas of Socrates with disdain. For the world of ethics of which, Socrates is the fountainhead, this harsh reality is tragic.
Adolf Hitler’s overuse of rhetoric saddled him atop a rocket that went out of control
The play, “Gorgias” written by Plato, the most distinguished of the disciples of Aristotle, is a tragicomedy which accounts for the death of the Socratic principles that the Athenian high society of that time considered to be dangerous and harmful for the city state. The play is essentially a discourse between Aristotle on one side and Gorgias, along with his two accomplices, Polus and Callicles. Although the theme of the play seems to be an analysis of rhetoric as an art form or vocation, certain other themes also make their way into the play.
With Socrates, widely considered to be the ‘Father of ethics,’ as the main protagonist, the good and evil question couldn’t be far away and eventually does become a part of the discourse in the play. The plot is based on the wish of Socrates to know about rhetoric from the master rhetorician of the time, Gorgias. They meet in the house of Callicles where Socrates begins probing Gorgias about his vocation, which was public speaking, and included the use of rhetoric to achieve the intended effect on the audience. After much probing, Socrates concludes that rhetoric is nothing short of flattery and persuasion and doesn’t really generate any kind of creative output or original thinking.
However, he realizes the disproportionate stranglehold of rhetoric over any idea of power which was an end in itself and was all that mattered in a world where men were ready to go to any extent to gain power and exercise it for his own ends. Socrates knew that power was exercised by ruthless men who couldn’t care less about principles especially those that tend to question their actions. In the play, the inability of Socrates to get Callicles to agree with his point of view on the rhetoric proves that the real world doesn’t approach challenges in the way Socrates does. It triggers the climax with Socrates abandoning his persistent quest for truth and breaking into a monologue, which was contrary to his nature (Blog: Philosophy of Language, 2014).
Callicles was convinced till the very end that Socrates was not a realist and couldn’t get by without antagonizing those around him with his persistent and dialectical method of inquiry. Socrates saw injustice in rhetoric because it often used untruths to mislead the masses to believe what the rhetorician wanted them to believe. This was manipulation of the weaker knowledge levels of the masses which is not what philosophy aims to teach. For people like Callicles who was engaged in statecraft, if someone like Socrates had his way, the world would become a minefield of prohibitions that would not merely stifle government functioning but even adversely affect trade and commerce as all these activities require people to make compromises.
It’s a lofty ideal that Socrates preaches which is understandable when we consider that he is acknowledged to be the leading light of ethics. But his attempts to push his ideas of ethical conduct into public space aren’t appropriate because the world at large doesn’t function under those strict guidelines. The world of politics and business operates on the plank of power which most men believe, flows from might and superiority. And in order to garner might and enjoy superiority, a few sharp men must control the vast masses of ordinary men. Callicles knows that to be the only truth and therefore he looks down on the ideas of Socrates with disdain. For the world of ethics of which, Socrates is the fountainhead, this harsh reality is tragic.
Adolf Hitler’s overuse of rhetoric saddled him atop a rocket that went out of control
One of the most dangerous of men in human history is undoubtedly, Adolf Hitler who ruled Germany with an iron fist between 1933 and 1945. He has been described variously by many observers and later day historians all of whom were intrigued by this man who, in the words of Joachim Fest as quoted by Bruce Loebs in his paper on the German dictator, “produced such incredible acceleration in the pace of history” (Loebs, 2010) that has no parallel. There have been many other marauders throughout history but none perhaps created the kind of impact on a scale that Hitler did in the space of a mere decade. It devastated much of the world and left a terrible imprint for future generations to look back and learn from.
By his own admission, Hitler rose to power and remained at the helm on the strength of his oratory which reflected the most brazen extrapolation of rhetoric applied by any leader at that time. True, he combined that with maddening zeal for hard work, discipline and daring but what essentially drove the Nazi juggernaut was Hitler’s spoken word. At his peak, he almost had the entire German population dutifully ready to go the distance with him on whatever he did. Many observers believe that he was a genius while many others believed he was a megalomaniac but there was general agreement when it came to seeing him as evil incarnate.
Hitler rose to power at a time when Germany was going through a harsh period with the economy in severe depression, external debt spiraling out of control and the entire country in utter chaos. It was also during this time that the communists were steadily gaining power as the chaotic situation suited their approach perfectly. Large sections of German working classes were coming under the sphere of communism and for a young and sulking Adolf Hitler this was unacceptable. By some quirk xenophobic logic a section of Germans considered Jews responsible for the growth of communism in Germany.
Hitler belonged to this group of Germans and was not just forthright about it but went a few steps ahead to find a Jewish connection in any and every event that he suspected to be a conspiracy against the German nation. While it is true that Karl Marx, who is usually credited with propounding the theory of communism, was Jewish, it would be irrational to assume that he came up with his theory of socialistic ideas as part of a larger plot by the global community of Jews in order to collectively take control of the world. Far from that, he was an intellectual who preached a hard economic doctrine which in his opinion would end socio-economic inequality in industrialized societies. Unfortunately, Hitler and his kind thought otherwise.
This hatred for the Jew is commonly known as anti-Semitism and for the ordinary hater of Jews it was one of those unpleasant things in his imagination that he wished was not there. In most cases it hardly ever exacerbated into anything perennially vicious. Not so for Hitler though. His vivid description of why he found the Jew detestable, in his infamous book, Mein Kampf, was nothing short of pathologic hatred of the Jew. He literally hated everything about them, from the way they appeared to the way they spoke or spelled their names among others. In the backdrop of harsh economic conditions where the Jew seemed relatively well off, it almost worked to add fuel to the fire that caused this mental conditioning.
This was fertile ground for a rabid form of rhetoric to gain ground in the mind of the man who could hardly stand up and speak for himself barely a decade ago when he was just known as Corporal Adolf Hitler. As long as he brooded over his hatred for the Jew and kept it to himself, it was fine but when he began documenting his feelings in what was to become his infamous book, Mein Kampf, it became a serious issue because these very feelings could become public policy if the author of the book managed to get into a public office. Long before he completed writing the book, his hatred of Jews and thoughts on the ‘final solution’ must have taken a concrete shape in his mind and became his conviction.
It can be argued that Hitler was not a natural rhetorician in the sense that he didn’t come across as a cunning and scheming individual who wanted to cheat others. On the contrary, all records of his past indicate that he was not just a brave soldier who fought for his country and won a medallion for gallantry but was also a caring son who wept for his ailing mother. His rustic simplicity was stark enough for his commanding officer to observe that he was a quiet soldier who kept to himself and obeyed orders. It’s quite unlikely that Hitler wanted to use rhetoric for personal gain as was the case with most politicians. His personal attributes were impeccable and his frugality was known to all.
Hitler became a rhetorician through his conviction that he was destined to guide Germany to the pinnacle of greatness that no other nation on earth has achieved. As he reviewed the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats that crisscrossed the road ahead, he realized that his biggest chance lay in the general feeling of animosity against the Jews in Germany especially in those troubled times. As he began devising his strategy he grew in confidence about his ability to harness the feeling of animosity against the Jews among a section of the Germans and turn it into a wave. He knew that for a race that prided its physical valor he would have to appeal to the physical might of the German race against what he considered Jewish squeamishness.
Hitler was equally scathing in his tirades against the communists as he was against the Jews. On their part, the communists too offered Hitler and his Nazi Party the whip on a platter. The very nature of a communist operation is anarchic and contrary to all forms of liberal democratic functioning. The prevailing depression in post World War I Germany were ideal conditions for the communists too, and they were going about their typical methods of civil disorder along with militant trade unionism that was affecting free enterprise and institutions equally. They were bringing the economy to a grinding halt just to create the right conditions for a violent revolution and take advantage of that to seize power. Hitler was sworn to prevent it.
Hitler went on to hyphenate communism with the Jews and set out to tell his countrymen about how he thought these two faces of the same enemy intended to take over Germany and enslave her people. Alongside, he played up the race theory by telling the German people that they were the torchbearers of the Aryan race and was destined to rule the world (Holocaust Encyclopedia, 2014). He organized his Nazi Party on quasi-military style symbolism complete with uniformed members moving around in parade-ground marches brandishing clubs and attacking communist gatherings and public meetings. It wasn’t long before they began to be noticed by large segments of the German population. Hitler developed the reputation of a leader who delivered what he promised.
By the time Hitler was gaining in reputation as a master public speaker and orator, he was quite clear in his mind about what he had to say. It was going to be monologue most of the time as he would generally address a large crowd of hassled and frustrated working class men who had hungry families to take care. He had methodically put together all his thoughts in his book Mein Kampf and just focused on what he preached in it. The quiet and obedient corporal of the German army that was defeated in World War I, had broken out of his shell and was fluttering his wings in anticipation of the steep flight to scary heights. Adolf Hitler’s rhetoric did not reflect the typical cunning and mendacity of the career rhetorician but was a mixture of brute and blunt xenophobia laced with extreme national pride.
By his own admission, Hitler rose to power and remained at the helm on the strength of his oratory which reflected the most brazen extrapolation of rhetoric applied by any leader at that time. True, he combined that with maddening zeal for hard work, discipline and daring but what essentially drove the Nazi juggernaut was Hitler’s spoken word. At his peak, he almost had the entire German population dutifully ready to go the distance with him on whatever he did. Many observers believe that he was a genius while many others believed he was a megalomaniac but there was general agreement when it came to seeing him as evil incarnate.
Hitler rose to power at a time when Germany was going through a harsh period with the economy in severe depression, external debt spiraling out of control and the entire country in utter chaos. It was also during this time that the communists were steadily gaining power as the chaotic situation suited their approach perfectly. Large sections of German working classes were coming under the sphere of communism and for a young and sulking Adolf Hitler this was unacceptable. By some quirk xenophobic logic a section of Germans considered Jews responsible for the growth of communism in Germany.
Hitler belonged to this group of Germans and was not just forthright about it but went a few steps ahead to find a Jewish connection in any and every event that he suspected to be a conspiracy against the German nation. While it is true that Karl Marx, who is usually credited with propounding the theory of communism, was Jewish, it would be irrational to assume that he came up with his theory of socialistic ideas as part of a larger plot by the global community of Jews in order to collectively take control of the world. Far from that, he was an intellectual who preached a hard economic doctrine which in his opinion would end socio-economic inequality in industrialized societies. Unfortunately, Hitler and his kind thought otherwise.
This hatred for the Jew is commonly known as anti-Semitism and for the ordinary hater of Jews it was one of those unpleasant things in his imagination that he wished was not there. In most cases it hardly ever exacerbated into anything perennially vicious. Not so for Hitler though. His vivid description of why he found the Jew detestable, in his infamous book, Mein Kampf, was nothing short of pathologic hatred of the Jew. He literally hated everything about them, from the way they appeared to the way they spoke or spelled their names among others. In the backdrop of harsh economic conditions where the Jew seemed relatively well off, it almost worked to add fuel to the fire that caused this mental conditioning.
This was fertile ground for a rabid form of rhetoric to gain ground in the mind of the man who could hardly stand up and speak for himself barely a decade ago when he was just known as Corporal Adolf Hitler. As long as he brooded over his hatred for the Jew and kept it to himself, it was fine but when he began documenting his feelings in what was to become his infamous book, Mein Kampf, it became a serious issue because these very feelings could become public policy if the author of the book managed to get into a public office. Long before he completed writing the book, his hatred of Jews and thoughts on the ‘final solution’ must have taken a concrete shape in his mind and became his conviction.
It can be argued that Hitler was not a natural rhetorician in the sense that he didn’t come across as a cunning and scheming individual who wanted to cheat others. On the contrary, all records of his past indicate that he was not just a brave soldier who fought for his country and won a medallion for gallantry but was also a caring son who wept for his ailing mother. His rustic simplicity was stark enough for his commanding officer to observe that he was a quiet soldier who kept to himself and obeyed orders. It’s quite unlikely that Hitler wanted to use rhetoric for personal gain as was the case with most politicians. His personal attributes were impeccable and his frugality was known to all.
Hitler became a rhetorician through his conviction that he was destined to guide Germany to the pinnacle of greatness that no other nation on earth has achieved. As he reviewed the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats that crisscrossed the road ahead, he realized that his biggest chance lay in the general feeling of animosity against the Jews in Germany especially in those troubled times. As he began devising his strategy he grew in confidence about his ability to harness the feeling of animosity against the Jews among a section of the Germans and turn it into a wave. He knew that for a race that prided its physical valor he would have to appeal to the physical might of the German race against what he considered Jewish squeamishness.
Hitler was equally scathing in his tirades against the communists as he was against the Jews. On their part, the communists too offered Hitler and his Nazi Party the whip on a platter. The very nature of a communist operation is anarchic and contrary to all forms of liberal democratic functioning. The prevailing depression in post World War I Germany were ideal conditions for the communists too, and they were going about their typical methods of civil disorder along with militant trade unionism that was affecting free enterprise and institutions equally. They were bringing the economy to a grinding halt just to create the right conditions for a violent revolution and take advantage of that to seize power. Hitler was sworn to prevent it.
Hitler went on to hyphenate communism with the Jews and set out to tell his countrymen about how he thought these two faces of the same enemy intended to take over Germany and enslave her people. Alongside, he played up the race theory by telling the German people that they were the torchbearers of the Aryan race and was destined to rule the world (Holocaust Encyclopedia, 2014). He organized his Nazi Party on quasi-military style symbolism complete with uniformed members moving around in parade-ground marches brandishing clubs and attacking communist gatherings and public meetings. It wasn’t long before they began to be noticed by large segments of the German population. Hitler developed the reputation of a leader who delivered what he promised.
By the time Hitler was gaining in reputation as a master public speaker and orator, he was quite clear in his mind about what he had to say. It was going to be monologue most of the time as he would generally address a large crowd of hassled and frustrated working class men who had hungry families to take care. He had methodically put together all his thoughts in his book Mein Kampf and just focused on what he preached in it. The quiet and obedient corporal of the German army that was defeated in World War I, had broken out of his shell and was fluttering his wings in anticipation of the steep flight to scary heights. Adolf Hitler’s rhetoric did not reflect the typical cunning and mendacity of the career rhetorician but was a mixture of brute and blunt xenophobia laced with extreme national pride.
At the height of his power, almost nine out of every ten Germans supported Hitler. This speaks volumes about the kind of influence he had over the German people and it was unusual for a political leader to have that kind of following even when the craftiest rhetoric is applied. It proves that Hitler didn’t merely rely on rhetoric to win over his countrymen to his side; he delivered what he promised. In just a few years after gaining power, Germany was out of depression and there were jobs for everybody. All the debts were paid up and there was all round prosperity. The German people had good reason to support Hitler and his policies after seeing him at work. Most of them probably didn’t expect him to deliver on what he said about the Jews.
Germans generally thought here was a leader who didn’t just used rhetoric and hyperbole but also delivered what he promised. Delivery by a political leader mostly amounts to economic development and legislating good laws. For Germans of that generation, the disgrace of not just losing World War I but also accepting what Hitler called unacceptable demands of the victorious allies amounted to treachery by the post World War I political leaders of Germany. They just didn’t have an answer to the mounting problems of a great nation that was humbled in war (Degrelle, 1992). Hitler showed the way by regaining for Germany the power and prestige in Europe and elsewhere that she enjoyed before World War I.
As far as Adolf Hitler was concerned, it wasn’t just rhetoric that won over nine out of ten Germans to his side. Mere rhetoric can’t achieve that much. He had restored Germany her rightful place in the comity of nations and he did it through sheer effort and hard work. He instilled confidence in every German that they had it in them to overcome the desperate condition in which they found themselves. Unfortunately, for Germany, their leader was bent on delivering every promise he made including the one about wiping out communism and the Jewish race from the face of the earth.
Germans generally thought here was a leader who didn’t just used rhetoric and hyperbole but also delivered what he promised. Delivery by a political leader mostly amounts to economic development and legislating good laws. For Germans of that generation, the disgrace of not just losing World War I but also accepting what Hitler called unacceptable demands of the victorious allies amounted to treachery by the post World War I political leaders of Germany. They just didn’t have an answer to the mounting problems of a great nation that was humbled in war (Degrelle, 1992). Hitler showed the way by regaining for Germany the power and prestige in Europe and elsewhere that she enjoyed before World War I.
As far as Adolf Hitler was concerned, it wasn’t just rhetoric that won over nine out of ten Germans to his side. Mere rhetoric can’t achieve that much. He had restored Germany her rightful place in the comity of nations and he did it through sheer effort and hard work. He instilled confidence in every German that they had it in them to overcome the desperate condition in which they found themselves. Unfortunately, for Germany, their leader was bent on delivering every promise he made including the one about wiping out communism and the Jewish race from the face of the earth.
Resources
1. Blog (Posted 2014, Jan. 21) Gorgias: A Philosophical Tragedy. Philosophy of Language. Retrieved from https://abearperspective.wordpress.com/tag/philosophy-of-language/
2. Loebs, B. (2010). Hitler’s Rhetorical theory. Relevant Rhetoric Vol. 1. Retreived from http://relevantrhetoric.com/CharismaTheKeytoHitlersRhetoric.pdf
3. Holocaust Encyclopedia (2014). Victims of the Nazi Era: Nazi Racial Ideology. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Retrieved from http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007457
4. Degrelle, L. (1992). How Hitler Consolidated Power in Germany and Launched a Social Revolutoin. Institute of Historical Review. Retrieved from http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p299_Degrelle.html
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments using using abusive language would be deleted