Reading Aristotle, there are many instances where I will think, “Yes! Aristotle, you are dead on!” I found his characterization of young men—for instance—while not universally true, to be a fairly accurate portrait. It’s fascinating how, even though he was writing over 2000 years ago and within a different culture, so many of his observations about people still hold a lot of truth. Whether this speaks to the universality of human nature or to the similarities between Greek and Western culture—I’m not one to say. It’s probably a mix of both.
However, there are instances when reading Aristotle that I have thought, “Hmm that doesn’t ring as true.” I thought this when reading his characterization of the powerful man. He writes about the effect that power can have on men: “It does indeed make men more supercilious and more reckless; but there is one excellent quality that goes with it—piety and respect for the divine power, in which they believe because of events that are really the result of chance.” I don’t think this is the case today. I would guess that the powerful in America (politicians, CEOs, etc.) have more faith in their abilities and will power than divine providence. This is probably a result of a difference in culture. Greek mythology portrays the gods as capricious and unpredictable, tampering with humanity based on whims. It wasn’t necessarily a given that, if you displayed good character and leadership, the gods would reward you accordingly. Therefore, it is easy to understand how if a Greek man were to achieve a position of power, he would believe the result of divine favor and display more piety than the average joe in order to maintain that divine favor.
Aristotle provides these classifications to instruct rhetors on how to speak to their audience. Sometimes I think they are more of an exercise in psychology than rhetoric. His descriptions provide glimpses into certain people’s character. But certainly these observations would only be so helpful when speaking to an audience that may have included many of these classifications. Today, audiences require far more nuanced classifications. Even if you were to say, “Okay, my audience is young,” there are a host of other factors you will need to consider before you can speak to them effectively. What socioeconomic class are they? What race? Religious belief?
I definitely agree with you on your last paragraph how this book is more like a list of rules for breaking down the psychology of man. I think it has to do with the time at which he wrote this, the times have changed and so have the way in which we need to bring out emotion in people.
ReplyDelete100% of the time he uses an emotion and then compares it to its opposite. I think it would be really interesting if he did more analyzation of people with multiple emotions or like you said: class, race, or religious belief. He probably just based it on his race, class and beliefs which gives us a one-sided view. I guess this can all tie in with how times have changed and how there are so many more branches of emotion and class's and beliefs.
I've found most of Aristotle's analyses to be rather universal in scope, and as you mentioned, more psychological than anything. However, this is not necessarily a bad thing - understanding how an audience thinks and reacts is a fundamental part of being a good rhetor. As for shifts in class, gender, socioeconomic status, etc., we've all noticed that these are rather easy to make accommodations for as rhetors despite Aristotle's original audiences. This more than anything speaks volumes about how far ahead Aristotle was in this field - he provided a template for audiences to be addressed by, that while not perfect, does not require much work to make a perfect fit.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that the quality of piety and respect for the divine power is not found in powerful men today. As you have said, the Greeks were very involved with the gods. I’m sure we’re all aware of the fact that the Greeks often consulted the Oracle of Delphi and also asked the gods for help in difficult situations. However, the Greeks really demonstrated their deep involvement with the divine power when they associated misfortunes with one or many of the gods being angry and needing to be appeased. Today, we usually blame ourselves for misfortunes or believe that something good will come from them, fitting in with God’s plan. On the other hand, when something positive happens, such as obtaining a powerful position in a company, we usually attribute our success to our own hard work. We don’t assume it’s because God favors us. Power often corrupts people today and tends to bring them further away from God.
ReplyDelete