An Introduction to Social Science and the History of Argument
HDCS 1300 Human Ecosystems and Technological Change
Greece 800 to 500 BC
City-states adopted democracy required average citizens to become persuasive
A Need for EDUCATION
Citizenry new that education led
• To personal power • Prosperity • The public good They realized that • The educated could persuade others to their point of view
Result:
• Explosion in public education • Demand for trained teachers
This growing demand for education in the 5th Century BCE called into existence a class of teachers known as
The Sophists
• Professional class • Not a school • Scattered all over Greece • Prone to the exhibition of professional rivalries
What Was the Point of This Educational Demand?
• Partly Genuine Knowledge • Mostly Political Success
Sophists
• • • • • Wandered from place to place Gave lectures Took pupils Entered into disputations Exacted large fees for “teaching wisdom”
Contrary to
To the past!
Wise men of Greece had never accepted payment!
The Sophists (technically speaking)
Were NOT philosophers Instead: They taught any subject that was in popular demand!
Including: • Rhetoric • Politics • Grammar • Etymology • History • Physics • Mathematics
More on the Sophists
• Protagoras of Abdera, (445 BCE) is named as the first Sophist; after him
Gorgias of Leontini Prodicus of Ceos Hippias of Elis.
Received with enthusiasm; many sought their company (not always to soak up their “wisdom”).
Most popular career: Politics Sophists taught: Rhetoric Young politicians were trained to persuade; Truth was not top priority Sophists attempted to provide arguments on any subject to prove any position. Often Boasted of Their Ability
• Some asserted it was not necessary to have knowledge of a subject to give satisfactory replies.
answered any question on any subject instantly and/without consideration. used strange or flowery metaphors, unusual figures of speech, epigrams and paradoxes clever and smart, instead of earnest and truthful.
• Hence "sophistry": the use of fallacious arguments knowing them to be such.
Getting A Bad Reputation
• Early on Sophists were seen to be of merit as people of superior skill or wisdom, as we find in Pindar and Herodotus. • We learn from Plato, though, that even in the 5th century there was a prejudice against the name "sophist". • By Aristotle's time, the name had a negative connotation.
– "Sophist" had come to mean one who reasons falsely for the sake of gain.
• These teachers gradually perfected the art of education and developed, as a consequence, formal studies of logic, and forensics.
Logic
• “Logic is concerned with arguments, good and bad. With the docile and the reasonable, arguments are sometimes useful in settling disputes. It is the logician’s business to serve the reasonable. Therefore, in the realm of arguments, it is the logician who distinguishes good and bad.” Kalish, Montegue and Mar; Logic: Techniques of Formal Reasoning; second edition. • Logic is just one of the tools of rhetoric
What is Rhetoric
• The use of ethos, pathos and logos to create an argument that is persuasive irrelevant of it being valid. • The art of composition; especially, elegant composition in prose • Oratory; the art of speaking with propriety, elegance, and force. • (n.) Hence, artificial eloquence; fine language or declamation without conviction or earnest feeling. • (n.) Fig. : The power of persuasion or attraction; that which allures or charms.
• Rhetoric is the counterpart of Dialectic. Both alike are concerned with such things as come, more or less, within the general ken of all men and belong to no definite science. Aristotle, On Rhetoric
• The literal meaning of the word in English is the art of speaking or writing effectively. • “Rhetoric” comes from the Greek word for “speech” or “spoken.”
Plato v. Aristotle on Rhetoric
• It has not always been considered a respectable academic discipline. • Plato was critical of the idea that rhetoric should be called an art, while Aristotle argued in On Rhetoric that it was indeed an art.
• Plato’s perspective on rhetoric has not been uncommon throughout the ages: rhetoric is no art at all but merely practiced flattery. The “fantastical banquet” of words is “mere cookery in words”; words that are plain and to the point are all that are needed. • Plato puts forth this position in his dialogue Gorgias, where rhetoric is called “the art of persuasion.” Through the character of Socrates, he tears this definition apart by showing that bare persuasion cannot be an art in the proper sense of the word.
Plato’s Argument (through Socrates)
Compares rhetoric to things traditionally considered art
– Medicine – Politics – Warfare
Shows that rhetoric has
– no specific subject/basic data – The subject of medicine is healing, which is accomplished by knowledge of illnesses and medicines. – The subject of warfare is victory, which is accomplished by knowledge of troops and tactics.
But with rhetoric, it is difficult to discover a subject ability to persuade can be considered a knack, not a skill based on knowledge rhetoric (as the art of persuasion) cannot meet the definition of an art (a discipline with a specific subject and basic data) Socrates concludes it is no art.
Aristotle’s Answer to P’s Criticism
Aristotle in On Rhetoric defines rhetoric so that he can explain its place as a counterpart to dialectic (logic): Rhetoric is like dialectic in that its subject is all things. While the subject of dialectic is logical thought and the subject of rhetoric is effective communication, they differ since the subjects of health and victory(as with medicine and warfare) are comparatively narrow… Proposes rhetoric be “the art of finding the possible means of persuasion in reference to any given situation.”
And how does this apply to me?
Either way, we will be studying the rhetoric of a number of individuals on varying issues pertaining to human ecosystems and technological change. Rhetoric is still the key to convincing people. some has a little more truth some has a little more persuasion (to be discussed in further detail in a future lecture)Using the Human Systems and Technological Change Model
Introducing the Human Systems and Technological Change Model
Expresses dynamic and synergistic nature of interactions between Individuals and their multiple environmental contexts:
– – – – Family Educational Workplace Global
Now with a cool new green cover!
Our Goal
• Look at issues within these parameters • Determine how issues are being argued taking these and other criteria into our critical analysis • Use what we learn to create thoughtful, provocative, and well-written arguments.
• Psychology • Political Science • Economics • Anthropology Yielding: Multidisciplinary understanding of the individual and his interactions within the larger context of technological change
In turn, these actions can be viewed from the social science perspectives