COM 332: Discussion Questions

Discussion Questions

1/10 M Sophists Reading Response A

Gorgias is defending Helen for her role in triggering the Trojan war. Imagine you are charged with a similar defense of the Bernie Madoff. Gorgias wasn't simply trying to get Helen acquitted in criminal court, he was trying to get people to see her as not entirely responsible. A PR consultant for Madoff (or whatever other social pariah you wish to defend) would face an uphill battle, to say the least. How would Gorgias defend Madoff in the court of public opinion? What would he need to be able to do-in our modern, televisual culture-to get the American public to forgive Madoff?
Alcidamas claims that it is easier to be a writer than a speaker. Why and how is he making this argument? How did this argument fit within its historical context? How, if at all, does his argument hold up today?
Both Gorgias and Alcidamas were releasing and distributing these speeches as advertisements. Basically, both speeches were arguments for why potential clients should hire them. How are both Gorgias and Alcidamas pitching themselves? That is, how are they creating and cultivating their brand? Are they successful? Where are there inconsistencies, if any?

1/12 W Isocrates Reading Response B

1) According to Isocrates in Against the Sophists, for one to become a great orator he must posses natural talent, be taught by a great teacher, and be able to practice and apply these teachings to hone his talents. To what extent do you attribute great speaking abilities to innate skill and to what extent do you attribute great speaking to proper teaching? Are there any examples of these two aspects of oration at work in certain individuals throughout history? Do you agree or disagree with his viewpoint on how a great orator is made?

2) Isocrates discusses the value of a teacher based on the success of his students, as well as the moral standing of his students. Is this an accurate measure of the effectiveness of a teacher? Is this concept used as a benchmark to measure leaders or today?

3) The University of Washington requires students to measure the effectiveness of a teacher based on criteria that revolve around the class itself and not the overall success of the students outside of the classroom. While Isocrates' argument would disagree with this form of evaluation, which method do you think is most accurate in measuring the success of teachers and why?

4) In Antidosis, Isocrates suggests that a proper study of rhetoric can shape the speaker into a more moral person [275] and thus be of great service to the state [296]. Obviously, we exist in a very different culture today, but reflect on why Isocrates might argue this. How would it be possible for someone to become a more moral person simply through pursuing rhetorical excellence? How might this apply today?

1/19 W Isocrates Reading Response C

1. Should academics attempt to take up the role of critical servants? If so, how would it deviate from what Clark has laid out here? If not, why and how is Clark’s model a poor one?

2. I can think of lots of popular media figures that aspire to this notion of the critical servant (to greater or lesser degrees). One that popped into mind was the recent Rally to Restore Sanity. How does Jon Stewart’s roll at that rally tell us about Clark’s model here? That is, what changes, alterations, or eliminations should be made to Clark’s work based on your reading of the Rally? Similarly, what does Clark’s work tell us about Stewart’s role (his strengths, weaknesses, etc.)?

1/24 M Plato Reading Response A

1. How does the concept of The Matrix mirror Plato’s view of Truth as portrayed in Gorgias?

2. What are the advantages of remaining uninformed about the “Truth”? What are the advantages of knowing the Truth? Do you believe there is Truth (episteme; absolute and universal truth), or is there only truth (doxa; relative truth)?

Take a look at this section from the Department of Communciation's website:

Concentration: Rhetoric and Critical/Cultural Studies: Rhetoric and Critical/Cultural Studies focuses on the analysis of texts, public discourse, and culture, and it studies processes of social influence in many media, including books, essays, speeches, mass-mediated and online public discourse. Courses consider how the forms of representation and persuasion used to produce messages have an influence on how messages are perceived and understood, and also how community perceptions influence message production and meaning.

3. Does this particular track in the Department of Communication have more of an emphasis on the Platonic or Isocratic concept of rhetoric?

4. What would Plato disagree with about this philosophy and how students are being taught today? What parts might he agree with? What would Gorgias have to say?

5. Is the method the Communication Department currently uses effective? Is the best way to teach? Do you think the method produces ethical and valuable citizens? By whose standards?

1/26 W Plato Reading Response C

1. Socrates explains that "the proudest of politicians have the strongest desire to write speeches and bequeath compositions." How would this statement be looked at today when practically every politician running for a office has a speech writer or even sometimes a speech coach to prepare them for their public addresses/appearances? If Socrates lived in today's society, would he change his statement?

2. Which idea do you think is more applicable to politicians today? That they "are reluctant to write speeches and bequeath to posterity compositions of their own, for fear of the verdict of later ages, which might pronounce them sophists (or some negatively associated title)" or, that they welcome the chance to write speeches because "when an orator, or king, succeeds in acquiring the power of Lycurgus, a Solon or a Darius [he wins] immortality among his people as a speech writer [and deems] himself a peer of the gods while still living." Why?

3. Phaedrus claims in order to be a good speechwriter, a person does not need to know the truth of what they are speaking on, but they actually must know how to persuade the people who are listening to them. Socrates later refutes this statement by explaining that in order to be a proper rhetorician a person must know the truth he or she is speaking about. How would you determine today if someone is good or bad at speeches? What characterizes a good speaker or speech?

4. In the dialogue, Socrates says that a person should only come to him to learn persuasion after he is in possession of the truth, because only once that has happened will he be able to convince others of it. Who do you think Socrates would want as a student today? What would those students try to persuade us to accept?

5. According to Plato, “Since the function of oratory is in fact to influence men's souls, the intending orator must know what types of soul there are (88)”. This idea of being able to read one's audience plays a prominent role in what Plato suggests is one of the most important aspects of speech and persuasion. Plato also indirectly speaks of “techne” and the necessity of knowledge behind the words that are being spoken. In terms of today's political climate, which of these two aspects of persuasion (reading the audience or knowing the “truth”) should play a more important role?

1/31 M Plato Reading Response B

Marsh sets out to show that an Isocratean approach to rhetoric mirrors his preferred symmetrical approach to public relations ethics, yet he doesn’t point out any hard examples. Analyze a public relations firm or campaign through these lenses. How do successful campaigns help us understand and contribute to Marsh’s theory about Isocratean symmetrical rhetoric?
Take a look at the Public Relations Society of America’s statement on ethics (http://www.prsa.org/AboutPRSA/Ethics/). How might we classify some of these various statements and imperatives according to Marsh’s categories? What would need to change about the PRSA’s statements here to bring them better in line with Marsh’s sense of an Isocratean symmetrical approach? What does that tell us about PRSA and Marsh’s theory here?

2/7 M Aristotle Reading Response C

1. Aristotle talks about three distinctive kinds of rhetorical speeches, deliberative, forensic, and epideictic. Deliberative is “hortatory or dissuasive”. “For both those who give advice in private and those who speak in the assembly invariably either exert or dissuade.” Forensic is “accusatory or defensive”. “Litigants less necessarily either accuses or defend.” Epideictic is “praise or blame”. “Those who praise or blame do not consider whether a man has done what is expedient or harmful, but frequently make it a matter for praise that, disregarding his own interest he performs some deed of honor.” What kind of rhetorical speech is most effective when trying to make an argument?

2. Aristotle discusses how rhetoric is useful in logical arguments, and the orator should be able to prove opposites. When it comes to logical arguments, we ourselves must be able to counteract false arguments. “Dialectic alone of all the arts prove opposites, for both are equally concerned with them.” A current controversial topic is Tiger Woods, specifically his sponsor of Gatorade dropping him after news of his repeated promiscuous behavior. How might Aristotle develop a case defending Gatorade for their decision?

3. Aristotle begins by equating dialectic with rhetoric. Clearly, this stands in stark contrast to Plato’s privileging of dialectic over rhetoric. Certainly, Plato saw episteme (with dialectic being a key method) as an essential prerequisite to rhetorical training; yet, Aristotle does not. What specific effects does this move have in Aristotle’s approach to rhetoric? That is, what are the key implications that flow from this decision to place dialectic and rhetoric on the same footing and why do they emerge?

4. Aristotle notably defines ethos (see footnote 3) as pertaining to the speech itself and not to any preconceived notion of the speaker as credible. Why might this be? This is a very different notion of credibility from Isocrates who thinks about the reputation of the speaker before, during, and after the attempted act of persuasion. What might lead Aristotle to this point? How is the speaker’s credibility being figured in different ways in Aristotle and Isocrates? How does this decision relate to the rest of Aristotle’s theory here?

2/9 W Aristotle Reading Response B

1) Aristotle says that there are seven causes which can account for all human actions: chance, nature, compulsion, habit, reason, anger, and desire." Do you agree with this? Is there anything else that might compel a person to act?

2) Aristotle argues for the application of ethos to a single speech event, involving a single audience. Is this similar to Kairos? If so, compare Aristotle's thoughts on ethos to Isocrates and Alcidamas' view of Kairos.

3) Do you think Aristotle's systematic view of rhetoric is complete and airtight? Can you think of any weaknesses in his rigid classification of types of rhetoric and proofs. Do you think Aristotle's more mechanistic view of speech works when it comes to rhetoric and speech giving today?

2/14 M Aristotle Reading Response A

1. Can blogs perhaps serve as a deliberative public sphere like the ones described by Troup and Hauser? I live over in Ballard and frequent MyBallard.com, a generally good source for neighborhood news. Recently, there has been a debate about some of the rain gardens installed by the city. An article can be found here, with comments on the article here. The comments section represents a space where average people deliberate. So, how does this blog represent the public spheres called for by Troup and Hauser? Are there episodes of managerial rhetoric here? Perhaps the city would be the one to attempt a managerial rhetoric response, but what might that look like?

2. Troup aligns modern political polling techniques with managerial rhetoric. In such a model, polling identifies privately held opinions and then calls it “public opinion.” Troup and Hauser might argue that such opinions are not truly public since they have not undergone deliberation and debate. But, as Troup indicates, deliberation and debate is the conduit by which opinions move from private to public. What is it about discussion and debate that Troup sees as validating public opinion? Do you agree with this? What of Troup’s (and Aristotle’s) larger point that people are capable of deliberation on public matters?

2/23 W Cicero Reading Response B

Much of De Oratore involves a dialogue between Crassus and Scaevola. Briefly explain Crassus’s main argument in favor of oratory, Scaevola’s challenge to that argument, and how Crassus responds to his challenge. Is Scaevola’s argument justified? Who does Scaevola remind you of from past dialogues that we’ve read?

Crassus outlines three branches of philosophy. What are they, and which does he believe is most important for one to become a great orator? Why?

In his dialogue with Scaevola, Crassus likens the orator to which type of artist? How are they similar and how are they different? Which of today’s professions would most require mastery of each of the five canons?

Antonius talks about disertus and eloquens. What’s the difference between them, and do you think one can operate properly without the other? Why or why not?

2/28 M Cicero Reading Response A

1. How does Crassus' view of the necessity for knowledge relate to the views represented in Plato's Phaedrus and Gorgias? Do you agree with Crassus' proposition? What about Antonius'?

2. Alcidamas claims that it is easier to be a writer than a speaker and his argument is grounded in the notion that writing is inferior to speech; this is again repeated by Plato. However, Cicero states “Writing is said to be the best and most excellent modeler and teacher of oratory” (pg. 42). How does Cicero defend his statement? How did this argument fit within its historical context? How would his argument hold up today? After analyzing these three views of the relationship between writing and speaking (Alcidamas, Plato, and Cicero), which, if any, is the most successful?

3. In section 44, Crassus talks about how if we are going to be patriotic, “[our country’s] spirit, customs and discipline ought to be our first objects of study…” (De Oratore, p. 58). Americans are known for their fierce patriotism and loyalty towards the US, but are also known for their lack of knowledge of their own country’s history. Would Crassus approve of the notion of “American Exceptionalism?”

3/2 W Cicero Reading Response C

1. Remer is certainly concerned with the theory of representation as well as how politicians view their obligations to both conscience and constitutes. Take a look at Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s recent speech on the legislative showdown in his state. A brief take on some of the WI issues is available here. How can we see/hear different aspects of the trustee-delegate relationship appearing in his speech? How does this help us better understand Remer’s theory and/or expand his theory? The examples Remer looks at are late 1700s and up to the mid-1800s, how does his analysis map onto a much more recent example?

2. Remer’s argument is largely descriptive (e.g. there is a historical precedent for a modern theory of representation) instead of prescriptive (e.g. we should adopt more Ciceronian practices into our modern theory of representation). What would be some of the principles/practices that would be supported by a more prescriptive account (be sure to support your interpretation here with references to Remer’s text)? Would these prescriptive principles improve representative democracy here in the U.S. (at the local, regional, or national level)?

3/7 M Quintilian Reading Response A & B

1. “For I do not merely assert that the ideal orator should be a good man, but I affirm that no man can be an orator unless he is a good man.”
Quintilian draws a strong correlation between one’s character and one’s oratory ability. Do you agree with this, can a bad person not be skilled and effective in oratory? Does character play less of a crucial role in today’s society? How do you feel Quintilian would react to today’s orators (public figures) and their characters? Pick and discuss a modern day example.

2. Quintilian discusses the advantages and disadvantages of listening as opposed to reading. How do the two methods vary the way the receiver interprets the message? Does Quintilian prefer one over the other? Has society today embraced one entity over as a more effective means of persuasion?

3. “It is sufficient to call attention to the fact that everything which art has brought to perfection originated in nature.”
Does Quintilian define rhetoric as an art? Why or why not? Why is when rhetoric originated important in determining whether it is an art or not?

4. The relationship of rhetoric and philosophy has been explored by many of the philosophers we have studied. Plato believed rhetoric aligned with philosophy. Aristotlepower of persuasion believed rhetoric meant finding the available means of persuasion. Isocrates believed in the and considered rhetoric a branch of philosophy. How is Quintilian’s rhetoric different from the Greeks? How is it similar? Whose approach does Quintilian most closely resemble, and in what ways?

3/9 W Augustine Reading Response C

1. Augustine says on page 120 Secton 5, "Therefore, since infants are not taught to speak except by learning the expression of speakers, why can men not be made eloquent, not by teaching then the rules of eloquence, but by having them read and hear the expressions of the eloquent..?" Discuss with a partner whether or not this idea of learning by imitation would work in today's world. Is it really better to simply learn via a trail and error basis? Or is having a teacher, coach, boss, etc necessary as well?

2. "Wisdom without eloquence is of small benefits to states; but eloquence without wisdom is often injurious and profits no one." ( Pg 121) Explain what Augustine means by this quote in regards to teaching faith and compare this with Plato's view that you must have knowledge and truth? In what ways can eloquence create issues of understanding?

3. "But we are not to suppose that it is against the rules to mingle these various styles: on the contrary, every style of variety should be introduced so far as it is consistent with good taste. For when we keep monotonously to one style , we fail to maintain the hearer's attention; but when we pass from one style to the other, the discourse goes off more gracefully." Augustine lays out the 3 styles of subdued, elegant and majestic. Although he says that each one can inter-mingle. Which do you think is more effective and can you think of modern-day examples proving this?



Home Page Course Information Schedule and Readings Discussion Questions Response and Facilitation groups Assignment descriptions and rubrics Dropbox: load your assignments here Recieve assignment feedback here	Discussion Questions 1/10 M Sophists Reading Response A Gorgias is defending Helen for her role in triggering the Trojan war. Imagine you are charged with a similar defense of the Bernie Madoff. Gorgias wasn't simply trying to get Helen acquitted in criminal court, he was trying to get people to see her as not entirely responsible. A PR consultant for Madoff (or whatever other social pariah you wish to defend) would face an uphill battle, to say the least. How would Gorgias defend Madoff in the court of public opinion? What would he need to be able to do-in our modern, televisual culture-to get the American public to forgive Madoff? Alcidamas claims that it is easier to be a writer than a speaker. Why and how is he making this argument? How did this argument fit within its historical context? How, if at all, does his argument hold up today? Both Gorgias and Alcidamas were releasing and distributing these speeches as advertisements. Basically, both speeches were arguments for why potential clients should hire them. How are both Gorgias and Alcidamas pitching themselves? That is, how are they creating and cultivating their brand? Are they successful? Where are there inconsistencies, if any? 1/12 W Isocrates Reading Response B 1) According to Isocrates in Against the Sophists, for one to become a great orator he must posses natural talent, be taught by a great teacher, and be able to practice and apply these teachings to hone his talents. To what extent do you attribute great speaking abilities to innate skill and to what extent do you attribute great speaking to proper teaching? Are there any examples of these two aspects of oration at work in certain individuals throughout history? Do you agree or disagree with his viewpoint on how a great orator is made? 2) Isocrates discusses the value of a teacher based on the success of his students, as well as the moral standing of his students. Is this an accurate measure of the effectiveness of a teacher? Is this concept used as a benchmark to measure leaders or today? 3) The University of Washington requires students to measure the effectiveness of a teacher based on criteria that revolve around the class itself and not the overall success of the students outside of the classroom. While Isocrates' argument would disagree with this form of evaluation, which method do you think is most accurate in measuring the success of teachers and why? 4) In Antidosis, Isocrates suggests that a proper study of rhetoric can shape the speaker into a more moral person [275] and thus be of great service to the state [296]. Obviously, we exist in a very different culture today, but reflect on why Isocrates might argue this. How would it be possible for someone to become a more moral person simply through pursuing rhetorical excellence? How might this apply today? 1/19 W Isocrates Reading Response C 1. Should academics attempt to take up the role of critical servants? If so, how would it deviate from what Clark has laid out here? If not, why and how is Clark’s model a poor one? 2. I can think of lots of popular media figures that aspire to this notion of the critical servant (to greater or lesser degrees). One that popped into mind was the recent Rally to Restore Sanity. How does Jon Stewart’s roll at that rally tell us about Clark’s model here? That is, what changes, alterations, or eliminations should be made to Clark’s work based on your reading of the Rally? Similarly, what does Clark’s work tell us about Stewart’s role (his strengths, weaknesses, etc.)? 1/24 M Plato Reading Response A 1. How does the concept of The Matrix mirror Plato’s view of Truth as portrayed in Gorgias? 2. What are the advantages of remaining uninformed about the “Truth”? What are the advantages of knowing the Truth? Do you believe there is Truth (episteme; absolute and universal truth), or is there only truth (doxa; relative truth)? Take a look at this section from the Department of Communciation's website: Concentration: Rhetoric and Critical/Cultural Studies: Rhetoric and Critical/Cultural Studies focuses on the analysis of texts, public discourse, and culture, and it studies processes of social influence in many media, including books, essays, speeches, mass-mediated and online public discourse. Courses consider how the forms of representation and persuasion used to produce messages have an influence on how messages are perceived and understood, and also how community perceptions influence message production and meaning. 3. Does this particular track in the Department of Communication have more of an emphasis on the Platonic or Isocratic concept of rhetoric? 4. What would Plato disagree with about this philosophy and how students are being taught today? What parts might he agree with? What would Gorgias have to say? 5. Is the method the Communication Department currently uses effective? Is the best way to teach? Do you think the method produces ethical and valuable citizens? By whose standards? 1/26 W Plato Reading Response C 1. Socrates explains that "the proudest of politicians have the strongest desire to write speeches and bequeath compositions." How would this statement be looked at today when practically every politician running for a office has a speech writer or even sometimes a speech coach to prepare them for their public addresses/appearances? If Socrates lived in today's society, would he change his statement? 2. Which idea do you think is more applicable to politicians today? That they "are reluctant to write speeches and bequeath to posterity compositions of their own, for fear of the verdict of later ages, which might pronounce them sophists (or some negatively associated title)" or, that they welcome the chance to write speeches because "when an orator, or king, succeeds in acquiring the power of Lycurgus, a Solon or a Darius [he wins] immortality among his people as a speech writer [and deems] himself a peer of the gods while still living." Why? 3. Phaedrus claims in order to be a good speechwriter, a person does not need to know the truth of what they are speaking on, but they actually must know how to persuade the people who are listening to them. Socrates later refutes this statement by explaining that in order to be a proper rhetorician a person must know the truth he or she is speaking about. How would you determine today if someone is good or bad at speeches? What characterizes a good speaker or speech? 4. In the dialogue, Socrates says that a person should only come to him to learn persuasion after he is in possession of the truth, because only once that has happened will he be able to convince others of it. Who do you think Socrates would want as a student today? What would those students try to persuade us to accept? 5. According to Plato, “Since the function of oratory is in fact to influence men's souls, the intending orator must know what types of soul there are (88)”. This idea of being able to read one's audience plays a prominent role in what Plato suggests is one of the most important aspects of speech and persuasion. Plato also indirectly speaks of “techne” and the necessity of knowledge behind the words that are being spoken. In terms of today's political climate, which of these two aspects of persuasion (reading the audience or knowing the “truth”) should play a more important role? 1/31 M Plato Reading Response B Marsh sets out to show that an Isocratean approach to rhetoric mirrors his preferred symmetrical approach to public relations ethics, yet he doesn’t point out any hard examples. Analyze a public relations firm or campaign through these lenses. How do successful campaigns help us understand and contribute to Marsh’s theory about Isocratean symmetrical rhetoric? Take a look at the Public Relations Society of America’s statement on ethics (http://www.prsa.org/AboutPRSA/Ethics/). How might we classify some of these various statements and imperatives according to Marsh’s categories? What would need to change about the PRSA’s statements here to bring them better in line with Marsh’s sense of an Isocratean symmetrical approach? What does that tell us about PRSA and Marsh’s theory here? 2/7 M Aristotle Reading Response C 1. Aristotle talks about three distinctive kinds of rhetorical speeches, deliberative, forensic, and epideictic. Deliberative is “hortatory or dissuasive”. “For both those who give advice in private and those who speak in the assembly invariably either exert or dissuade.” Forensic is “accusatory or defensive”. “Litigants less necessarily either accuses or defend.” Epideictic is “praise or blame”. “Those who praise or blame do not consider whether a man has done what is expedient or harmful, but frequently make it a matter for praise that, disregarding his own interest he performs some deed of honor.” What kind of rhetorical speech is most effective when trying to make an argument? 2. Aristotle discusses how rhetoric is useful in logical arguments, and the orator should be able to prove opposites. When it comes to logical arguments, we ourselves must be able to counteract false arguments. “Dialectic alone of all the arts prove opposites, for both are equally concerned with them.” A current controversial topic is Tiger Woods, specifically his sponsor of Gatorade dropping him after news of his repeated promiscuous behavior. How might Aristotle develop a case defending Gatorade for their decision? 3. Aristotle begins by equating dialectic with rhetoric. Clearly, this stands in stark contrast to Plato’s privileging of dialectic over rhetoric. Certainly, Plato saw episteme (with dialectic being a key method) as an essential prerequisite to rhetorical training; yet, Aristotle does not. What specific effects does this move have in Aristotle’s approach to rhetoric? That is, what are the key implications that flow from this decision to place dialectic and rhetoric on the same footing and why do they emerge? 4. Aristotle notably defines ethos (see footnote 3) as pertaining to the speech itself and not to any preconceived notion of the speaker as credible. Why might this be? This is a very different notion of credibility from Isocrates who thinks about the reputation of the speaker before, during, and after the attempted act of persuasion. What might lead Aristotle to this point? How is the speaker’s credibility being figured in different ways in Aristotle and Isocrates? How does this decision relate to the rest of Aristotle’s theory here? 2/9 W Aristotle Reading Response B 1) Aristotle says that there are seven causes which can account for all human actions: chance, nature, compulsion, habit, reason, anger, and desire." Do you agree with this? Is there anything else that might compel a person to act? 2) Aristotle argues for the application of ethos to a single speech event, involving a single audience. Is this similar to Kairos? If so, compare Aristotle's thoughts on ethos to Isocrates and Alcidamas' view of Kairos. 3) Do you think Aristotle's systematic view of rhetoric is complete and airtight? Can you think of any weaknesses in his rigid classification of types of rhetoric and proofs. Do you think Aristotle's more mechanistic view of speech works when it comes to rhetoric and speech giving today? 2/14 M Aristotle Reading Response A 1. Can blogs perhaps serve as a deliberative public sphere like the ones described by Troup and Hauser? I live over in Ballard and frequent MyBallard.com, a generally good source for neighborhood news. Recently, there has been a debate about some of the rain gardens installed by the city. An article can be found here, with comments on the article here. The comments section represents a space where average people deliberate. So, how does this blog represent the public spheres called for by Troup and Hauser? Are there episodes of managerial rhetoric here? Perhaps the city would be the one to attempt a managerial rhetoric response, but what might that look like? 2. Troup aligns modern political polling techniques with managerial rhetoric. In such a model, polling identifies privately held opinions and then calls it “public opinion.” Troup and Hauser might argue that such opinions are not truly public since they have not undergone deliberation and debate. But, as Troup indicates, deliberation and debate is the conduit by which opinions move from private to public. What is it about discussion and debate that Troup sees as validating public opinion? Do you agree with this? What of Troup’s (and Aristotle’s) larger point that people are capable of deliberation on public matters? 2/23 W Cicero Reading Response B Much of De Oratore involves a dialogue between Crassus and Scaevola. Briefly explain Crassus’s main argument in favor of oratory, Scaevola’s challenge to that argument, and how Crassus responds to his challenge. Is Scaevola’s argument justified? Who does Scaevola remind you of from past dialogues that we’ve read? Crassus outlines three branches of philosophy. What are they, and which does he believe is most important for one to become a great orator? Why? In his dialogue with Scaevola, Crassus likens the orator to which type of artist? How are they similar and how are they different? Which of today’s professions would most require mastery of each of the five canons? Antonius talks about disertus and eloquens. What’s the difference between them, and do you think one can operate properly without the other? Why or why not? 2/28 M Cicero Reading Response A 1. How does Crassus' view of the necessity for knowledge relate to the views represented in Plato's Phaedrus and Gorgias? Do you agree with Crassus' proposition? What about Antonius'? 2. Alcidamas claims that it is easier to be a writer than a speaker and his argument is grounded in the notion that writing is inferior to speech; this is again repeated by Plato. However, Cicero states “Writing is said to be the best and most excellent modeler and teacher of oratory” (pg. 42). How does Cicero defend his statement? How did this argument fit within its historical context? How would his argument hold up today? After analyzing these three views of the relationship between writing and speaking (Alcidamas, Plato, and Cicero), which, if any, is the most successful? 3. In section 44, Crassus talks about how if we are going to be patriotic, “[our country’s] spirit, customs and discipline ought to be our first objects of study…” (De Oratore, p. 58). Americans are known for their fierce patriotism and loyalty towards the US, but are also known for their lack of knowledge of their own country’s history. Would Crassus approve of the notion of “American Exceptionalism?” 3/2 W Cicero Reading Response C 1. Remer is certainly concerned with the theory of representation as well as how politicians view their obligations to both conscience and constitutes. Take a look at Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s recent speech on the legislative showdown in his state. A brief take on some of the WI issues is available here. How can we see/hear different aspects of the trustee-delegate relationship appearing in his speech? How does this help us better understand Remer’s theory and/or expand his theory? The examples Remer looks at are late 1700s and up to the mid-1800s, how does his analysis map onto a much more recent example? 2. Remer’s argument is largely descriptive (e.g. there is a historical precedent for a modern theory of representation) instead of prescriptive (e.g. we should adopt more Ciceronian practices into our modern theory of representation). What would be some of the principles/practices that would be supported by a more prescriptive account (be sure to support your interpretation here with references to Remer’s text)? Would these prescriptive principles improve representative democracy here in the U.S. (at the local, regional, or national level)? 3/7 M Quintilian Reading Response A & B 1. “For I do not merely assert that the ideal orator should be a good man, but I affirm that no man can be an orator unless he is a good man.” Quintilian draws a strong correlation between one’s character and one’s oratory ability. Do you agree with this, can a bad person not be skilled and effective in oratory? Does character play less of a crucial role in today’s society? How do you feel Quintilian would react to today’s orators (public figures) and their characters? Pick and discuss a modern day example. 2. Quintilian discusses the advantages and disadvantages of listening as opposed to reading. How do the two methods vary the way the receiver interprets the message? Does Quintilian prefer one over the other? Has society today embraced one entity over as a more effective means of persuasion? 3. “It is sufficient to call attention to the fact that everything which art has brought to perfection originated in nature.” Does Quintilian define rhetoric as an art? Why or why not? Why is when rhetoric originated important in determining whether it is an art or not? 4. The relationship of rhetoric and philosophy has been explored by many of the philosophers we have studied. Plato believed rhetoric aligned with philosophy. Aristotlepower of persuasion believed rhetoric meant finding the available means of persuasion. Isocrates believed in the and considered rhetoric a branch of philosophy. How is Quintilian’s rhetoric different from the Greeks? How is it similar? Whose approach does Quintilian most closely resemble, and in what ways? 3/9 W Augustine Reading Response C 1. Augustine says on page 120 Secton 5, "Therefore, since infants are not taught to speak except by learning the expression of speakers, why can men not be made eloquent, not by teaching then the rules of eloquence, but by having them read and hear the expressions of the eloquent..?" Discuss with a partner whether or not this idea of learning by imitation would work in today's world. Is it really better to simply learn via a trail and error basis? Or is having a teacher, coach, boss, etc necessary as well? 2. "Wisdom without eloquence is of small benefits to states; but eloquence without wisdom is often injurious and profits no one." ( Pg 121) Explain what Augustine means by this quote in regards to teaching faith and compare this with Plato's view that you must have knowledge and truth? In what ways can eloquence create issues of understanding? 3. "But we are not to suppose that it is against the rules to mingle these various styles: on the contrary, every style of variety should be introduced so far as it is consistent with good taste. For when we keep monotonously to one style , we fail to maintain the hearer's attention; but when we pass from one style to the other, the discourse goes off more gracefully." Augustine lays out the 3 styles of subdued, elegant and majestic. Although he says that each one can inter-mingle. Which do you think is more effective and can you think of modern-day examples proving this?