Well, it seems as if Quintilian is the perfect set up before we get into Medieval Rhetoric. His idea of the perfect orator needing to be a perfect man is something that I just have to push against. The main problems I had with his argument was, his ambiguity with truth
I'm gonna try and tackle the subject of truth as he presents it. With Quintilian we see a very subjective notion of truth. If oratory is defined as the art of speaking well, the conversation is no longer a matter of who is right or wrong, or what is true or false, but who presents the best argument. If we present the best argument, we are fulfilling our truest identity of a rhetor, no matter the outcome of the argument. In addition, if we were to tell a lie or conceal the truth from the judge, we could still be performing this function and art accordingly.
On page 393, he says, "That oratory sometimes advances what is false instead of what is true, I will admit, but I shall not for that reason acknowledge that the speaker acquiesces in false conclusions, for it is one thing for a matter to appear in a certain light to a person himself, and another for the person to make it appear in that light to others." He goes on to cite examples of people that have used this deception for a greater purpose. The truth is no longer a universal truth at this point but rather one that is subject only to our scrutiny and bending to the will of the rhetor.
The problem that I have with this argument is something that Plato might take fault with. Mainly is the fact that truth is generally considered a sign of divinity and godliness. If we are then seeking to become more divine (something that Quintilian seems to say in different words), but at the same time we shirk off this truth for our self-interest, what are we really doing?
Self-interest becomes the main motive in his arguments, rather than goodness or truth. If he stopped with the notion of rhetoric being the art of speaking well I would have no problem but when he goes on to say that our end goal is the enlightenment of our mind and goodness then I question how far we can push this goodness without truth. We are only satisfying our own needs and wants by constructing the "perfect" argument and shucking off the universality of connection.
If we accept Quintilian's notion of rhetoric as "the art of speaking well," then we have to accept his notion of a subjective rhetoric, one that is based off of self-interest. Yes, I admit, that by taking away who wins or loses, there are less dirty tricks employed to sway the judges, doing something that maybe Cicero would do, discreetly of course.. However, if we take this notion, we have to accept that what he states as the greatest art, one that is expressly given to us as humans, is one based solely in self-interest. I just don't see how this leads to divinity and oneness, God, divinity, whatever...
No comments:
Post a Comment