“The Greeks believed that to be an orator, an individual had to be
morally good.” Well if I agree or
disagree depends on the type of oration.
If we are speaking of dialectics, dialogue or conversation, then yes I
believe the orators should be morally good since dialectics is the art of
coming to the truth through conversation.
The keyword here is should,
but in reality this is not always the case.
The same goes for rhetoric, the art of using language to persuade,
influence or change. An orator should be morally good, but this is not
always the case. What comes to mind here
is a salesman; it would be wonderful to know that what they are telling you
about the product they are trying to influence you to buy is the truth, but can
you really trust them, are they being morally good. Unfortunately this is pretty doubtful. Lastly is sophistry. Sophistry is all about “trickery” and the use
of misleading and deceptive reasoning.
So all in all there should be
a connection between goodness, truth, and public communication, but
unfortunately should doesn’t mean is.
Yes, an individual may be a good orator, but not necessarily morally
good.
The Fur-Kid
I really admired that you stressed the word "should" in your writings. I think we are often bereft of the understanding that people can strive for excellence but still fall short. I think that the Greeks believed in a more black and white moral basis, and honestly it's not neccessarily that way. It's very observant to recognize that people's intentions and abilities are not always complementary. We are often bereft of the means or understanding to display our honesty in a way that fully exhales the truth without those little white lies or extra details which intertwine into our "mostly" truthful responses. Your writing really develops some thoughtful concepts which really ascribe to the innerworking of the human mind and its connection to communication through those who are morally sound and those who lack honesty and integrity.
ReplyDelete