A Rapper's Doing: Aristotle's Art in "Nicomachean Ethics" and Reality Television

Finding something in particular to relate to this week's reading was challenging... as most weeks, till, as usual, something just clicked. However I warn you, it's a stretch.

In "Nicomachean Ethics" Aristotle states, "Making and acting are different" (141) as he defines techne in Art-knowledge of how to make things. This chapter is particularly interesting in relation to how we see products rather than the production of making said products. This is related to reality television shows in their attempt to reveal "the making" of things, whether it be revealing the day to day process of winning a beauty pageant as seen in Toddlers and Tiaras or revealing the day to day life of a creative professional as seen here in T.I. and Tiny: The Family Hustle. This last mentioned show specifically relates to Aristotle's differentiation of making and doing.



Aristotle, in the previous chapter mentioned before, states, "The origin of action... is choice, and that of choice is desire and reasoning with a view to an end" (139). Making something involves a series of choices and actions, which is why it is different and more than just acting. Each action and choice is a part to the whole of making something. Aristotle further explains, "This is why choice cannot exist either without reason and intellect or without a moral state; for good action and its opposite cannot exist without a combination of intellect and character" (139).One can do something as long as they have some sort of intellect, however if they have character then their action can be good.

There are two products from the reality show T.I. and Tiny: The Family Hustle. The first is the show itself which is aired on VH1. The second is T.I.'s music, the 8th album of his career. Rap is an art. Making a rap album, as Aristotle would say, involves, "a true course of reasoning. All art is concerned with coming into being, i.e. with contriving and considering how something may come into being" 141). In most cases as the consumer we see the album, we don't see the production of the album. However, a reality television show can be art as well, if it has intellect and character behind it.T.I. and Tiny: The Family Hustle gives us a view of the production behind the album, not just the music itself but also the artist.

Even for Aristotle, art itself is involved with the reasons and choices for why the artist makes something. In an interview with the Daily Best, T.I. on His New VH1 Reality Show, T.I. explains why he decided to do this show. He states,

"I did a reality show to give people an idea of who I really am,” said the Grammy-winning rapper. “I wanted my fans to see what my life and my family’s life was actually like apart from all the rumors they see on the blogs and in the news. You can’t believe any of that stuff you read, and I wanted my fans to understand my reality and my world."

T.I.'s actions and the choices he makes are simply the doing to the whole making of the products that are T.I.'s albums and the reality show of his family on VH1. It is evident that T.I. chose to do the reality television show because he wanted people to see the production to the product, and not just the product itself. He wants to clear his name from the media and self identify himself.

More specifically this is related to Aristotle's point on art in that T.I.'s reasons and intentions are virtuous, which is why T.I. and Tiny: The Family Hustle is true art. As Aristotle claims, "Art, then, as has been said, is a state concerned with making, involving a true course of reasoning, and lack of art on the contrary is a state concerned with making, involving a false course of reasoning" (142). Because T.I.'s intentions for doing the reality television show are with reason and good reason, intellect and character, it is art.

Phronesis, Rhetoric, and Jake Sully

                After reading the articles and sections for today, I knew what I wanted to discuss but it took me awhile to find an object to relate it to. Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics and Barbara Warnick’s “Judgment, Probability, and Aristotle’s Rhetoric,” discuss Aristotle’s five intellectual virtues. Both Aristotle and Warnick focus part of their discussion on phronesis, or practical wisdom. Aristotle explains that phronesis produces a virtuous life or a well-ordered state. He states that in order to possess phronesis, a man must have wisdom that “is concerned not only with universals but with particulars, which become familiar from experience.” (Aristotle, Ethics, 148) As well as this, he must also “be of firm and unchangeable moral character.” (Warnick, 306) The action that is produced from phronesis is virtuous because it comes from someone that is virtuous.

                I believe Jake Sully, from Avatar, is one that possesses phronesis. Though Jake might not be as old as Aristotle would have wanted, I think, by the end of the movie, he is someone with good moral character and experience. Since he is of military background, he knows what the Sky People are capable of and what they will do. He becomes one of the Na’vi and adopts their morals which are presented as the right ones in the movie. When the Sky People come to tear down the home tree, he knows exactly what they plan to do. He realizes that many of the Na’vi will die and he wants to save them. He however fails to convince them to flee. They call him a traitor and tie him up outside.

(Image shows Jake Sully tied up as the Na'vi watch the Sky People about to destroy home tree. Couldn't find videos - sorry!)

 

                Why does he fail? I believe it is because he did not employ his techne – rhetoric. Warnick states that “phronesis is realized most assuredly in human affairs when reasons are given and considered about how and why one is obligated to act, to choose or avoid one course of action over another. In considering the merits of alternative courses of action, rhetoric plays a significant role.” (Warnick, 306) Rhetoric becomes Jake Sully’s tool in order for him to apply his practical wisdom and achieve the right and good action. In the first example, Jake Sully fails to create an argument that produces a good ending.

                However, a few scenes later, he is able to rally the people into acting which ultimately leads to the Sky People’s defeat. What changes? Warnick describes 3 senses of probability that is used by rhetoric. Jake Sully applies 2 of them successfully. He is able to use his techne to observe “the means available and considering how best to use them to promote virtue” in this particular situation. (Warnick, 304) Before, the Na’vi did not think that their home tree could be destroyed. But when he speaks to them afterwards, they know the destructive power of the Sky People and realize that it could happen again. It becomes an actual likelihood. Jake Sully also plays on the beliefs of the Na’vi by using “what the audience…accepts or takes as true.” (Warnick, 307) There is a legend among the Na’vi, that the rider of the Toruck (the large red bird) is a man of great prestige and a leader. Jake Sully becomes the Toruck Macto (the rider) in order to gain respect and attention. Because he is now the Toruck Macto, they must listen to him and revere him. He doesn’t have to explain why this position is powerful; the people already know these premises. Jake Sully uses these premises in order to create an argument that “can be applied by phronesis to produce right action” – to fight and remove the Sky People from the planet. (Warnick, 309)    

(Image below shows Jake as Toruk Makto.)

Along Came "Physics": Aristotle's Beliefs Reflected in "Along Came Polly"

In his work, Physics, Aristotle dissects different theories about nature and how some things exist from nature, while others occur from different causes. He analyzes previous thinkers’ work on the subject and states reasons why their work does not fully explain nature correctly. Aristotle writes about examples such as the nature of a house, which came to be because of the builder and his supplies of wood and stone. The house is the product of house-building. It is the end result with which the art, or techne, of the builder is concerned. Aristotle asserts that “as things are called causes in many ways, it follows that there are several causes of the same thing” (333). In the case of the house, the work of the builder and the wood and stone are causes of the house. He points out that the wood and stone are the material causes, but they need the “cause whence the motion comes” (333) - i.e., the art of the builder - to create the house. The art itself comes from nature, which the author claims that “each of them [things existing by nature] has within itself a principle of motion and of stationariness” (329). Motion is needed for the creation of things.

After Aristotle asserts his position on the above-mentioned subject, he mentions that chance and spontaneity are included in the realm of causes. However, not everyone believes in them. Some people think that when chance is blamed to be the cause of something, another cause, the true and right one, can be found for the occurrence. According to Physics, the early physicists did not recognize chance or spontaneity among their causes of nature; they always ascribed less random causes to their reasoning. Some do not agree. Aristotle points out that “there are some who actually ascribe this heavenly sphere...and the divinest of visible things arose spontaneously, having no such cause as is assigned to animals and plants” (335). Aristotle finds this belief absurd, though, since no one is seeing anything coming about spontaneously in the heavens now. Would we not bear witness to spontaneity giving birth to other causes if that were the case? Others postulate that chance is a cause, but we mere humans cannot fully understand it or know when chance has happened.

Aristotle defines the differences between chance and spontaneity. Chance happens when action is involved. A choice must be made in order to chance to follow. Therefore, chance does not occur for things incapable of choice, like animals. Only thinking, reasoning adults have the ability to choose; therefore, they operate in the realm of chance. Spontaneity, though, encompasses anything from humans to animals to inanimate objects (337). Aristotle believes that both chance and spontaneity are causes, but they are not original causes. Physics tells its audience that nature and intelligence created the universe.

When I read about chance and spontaneity, I thought about the film Along Came Polly. Ben Stiller’s character, Reuben, is a risk analyst who falls for Jennifer Aniston’s character, Polly, a free-loving spirit. Reuben assesses the risks he is taking by dating Polly as opposed to someone else because he spends his whole life believing that rational causes change his life, not chance or spontaneity. He lives with rigid rules and a schedule that tries to eliminate chance. Through meeting Polly, however, Reuben realizes, as Aristotle has, that chance and spontaneity, while not the first causes, can cause many things to be put into motion. After all, Rueben did not plan to fall in love with Polly; it was accidental, by chance. He ends up taking risks and finds that chance is not only just a cause, but a potential cause for happiness as well. Aristotle even says that when it comes to positive chance, or good fortune, it is thought “to be the same, or nearly the same, as happiness, and happiness to be a kind of action, since it is well-doing” (337). Reuben makes the choice and takes action after a conflict with Polly (shown below) to throw away plans and give himself over to chance in order to find happiness. In the beginning Reuben is similar to the physicists of old who did not take into account chance and spontaneity. By the end, Reuben’s thinking more closely resembles Aristotle’s, and he is all the happier for it.

Aristotle. Physics. Trans. R.P. Hardie and R.K. Gaye. The Complete Works of Aristotle, Volume 1. Ed.   

         Jonathan Barnes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1984.

MovieClips. Along Came Polly (8/10) Movie CLIP: The Non-Plan Plan (2004). YouTube. 27 June 

         2011. 29 Sept. 2012.

Solving the Mystery of Rhetoric with Bones

Although not explicitly dealing with the same definition of ‘science’, Aristotle’s ‘wisdom’ in Ethics is strongly reflected in the television show Bones. Dr. Temperance Brennan has a strong foundation of science which she uses to identify human remains and solve murders with her partner, Seely Booth. Throughout the show Dr. Brennan constantly argues with Booth that solving crimes does not involve the human element of emotion, but fact derived from science; “let it be assumed that there are two parts which grasp a rational principle- one by which we contemplate the kind of things whose originative causes are invariable and one by which we contemplate variable things.” (138) According to Brennan, the bones she deals with cannot reveal anything but the truth.  Booth focuses on solving the murders through traditional investigative methods through talking with suspects and formulating opinions.  Brennan  is constantly irritated with Booth and his ‘conjecture’ when he is theorizing about the circumstances behind the deaths they are investigating.  Booth’s skills come from practical wisdom, “concerned with things human and things about which it is possible to deliberate; for we say this is above all the work of the man of practical wisdom, to deliberate well…” (146) The two vastly different personalities are similar to the virtues of rhetoric, they are seeking the truth, trying to strike a balance between science and emotional experience; “Hence it is necessary with regard to the states of the soul also, not only that this true statement should be made, but also that it should be determined what is the right rule and what is the standard that fixes it.” (137)

As viewers are entangled in the interpersonal connection of the strong characters they are drawn to conclude that both science and experience are needed to solve the murders. This is much like rhetoric, “It is clear, then, from what has been said, that it is not possible to be good in the strict sense without practical wisdom, or practically wise without moral virtue.” (158) As Aristotle explores and debates the origins and causes of things he is showing the skills rhetoricians must use to determine what is ‘good.’ As Warnick state, “Rhetoric’s aim as a techne is systematically to produce and judge arguments that can be applied by phronesis to produce right action." Much like Brennan and Booth investigating evidence to solve murders, rhetoric is investigating the many aspects of knowledge in order to solve the question of the right and the truth.

What's the deal with Pericles?

Pericles was a prominent public figure in Athens mentioned in all three of the classic readings thus far. In Gorgias, Plato’s Socrates is very critical of Pericles’ influence in political affairs going so far as to accuse him of making “the Athenians lazy, cowardly, babbling, and money lovers” (515e). However, his skill in oration is praised in Phaedrus: “Pericles may possibly have become the most perfect of all in rhetoric” (269e). How can he be both bad and good? I think the ideas on rhetoric expressed in Aristotle’s On Rhetoric help shed light on the contrasting opinion of Pericles. Reference to Pericles in Aristotle is brief and made in passing, mainly as an example for something he is explaining (see 1.7.34). Rather than look at what Aristotle has to say in regards to Pericles, I intend to apply Aristotle’s conception of epideictic and deliberative rhetoric to the funeral oration attributed to Pericles found in Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War. (As a side note... from what I remember in undergrad, Pericles never wrote his speeches, so Thucydides kind of uses Pericles in his History as Plato uses Socrates in his dialogues.)

At the end of the first year of the Peloponnesian War, Pericles delivered a speech at a public funeral held in Athens in honor of the dead. One assumes his speech would be in praise of those who had fought courageously, fallen in battle, and died for Athens. However, Thucydides’ Pericles begins by explicitly stating otherwise, “These men have shown themselves valiant in action, and it would be enough, I think, for their glories to be proclaimed in action, as you have just seen it done at this funeral” (2.35). He then proceeds to speak about the city of Athens herself, past and present, in epideictic fashion. Aristotle describes epideictic rhetoric as a means of praise and blame. For the purpose of this response, I am concerned with praise, “speech that makes clear the great virtue [of the subject praised]” (Aristotle 1.9.33). Praise uses amplification to “take up actions that are agreed upon, so that what remains is to clothe the actions with greatness and beauty” (1.9.40). In other words, epideictic praise is speech focused on making a widely acknowledged good subject much better than it is already perceived. For example, in Pericles’ Funeral Oration, Athens is described as the greatest and most badass of all its contemporary cities in a long sequence of comparing, contrasting, inducting, etc. that build up to this epic proclamation:

Athens, alone of the states we know, comes to her testing time in a greatness that surpasses what was imagined of her. In her case, and in her case alone, no invading enemy is ashamed at being defeated, and no subject can complain of being governed by people unfit for their responsibilities. Mighty indeed are the marks and monuments of our empire which we have left. Future ages will wonder at us, as the present age wonders at us now. (Thucydides 2.41)

Only after Thucydides’ Pericles establishes the unsurpassable greatness of Athens does he return to briefly speak of those who died, a mere paragraph-and-a-half compared to Athens’ better half of the speech’s entirety. Why all this talk of Athens instead of the dead at a funeral? In Thucydides’ Pericles’ words: “I wanted to make it clear that for us there is more at stake than there is for others who lack our advantages; also, I wanted my words of praise for the dead to be set in the bright light of evidence” (2.42). In other words, in a time of war where national defense is of utmost importance (war and defense being two topics of deliberative rhetoric by the way), Athens, the greatest of nations, faces the greatest loss if it falls; and those who die in defense of Athens have the greatest death.

In praising the greatness of Athens and its fallen defenders, Thucydides’ Pericles seeks to persuade Athenians to emulate “men with a spirit of adventure, men who knew their duty, men who were ashamed to fall below a certain standard . . . It is for you to be like them” (2.43). He concludes with a turn to the audience in a direct address of their roles as the war continues based on the Greek views of those in their prime, the old, and the young. By this point in the Funeral Oration, if one hasn’t realized Pericles has something more in mind than praise, it is pretty obvious. Emulation is “a kind of distress at the apparent presence among others like him by nature of things honored and possible for a person to acquire, [with the distress arising] not from the fact that another has them but that the emulator does not” (Aristotle 2.11.1). To continue the war against the Peloponnesian League and be successful, Thucydides’ Pericles implies something is lacking amongst the Athenians attending the funeral that was evident in the fallen. Underneath all of the praise, he is truly concerned with the future state of Athens, exhorting what would be most advantageous for the city’s survival.

Why does Plato’s Socrates view Pericles as a good and bad rhetor? My answer is far from adequate, but I think it is because Pericles was capable of manipulating rhetorical techniques to meet his ends, however he uses them in a way not directed towards Truth. In conclusion, Pericles’ Funeral Oration in Thucydides’ History is a deliberative speech in the guise of epideictic praise. My analysis of this speech in relation to Aristotle barely skims the surface, though. There is much to pick apart from Pericles’ speech, Thucydides and his History, and Aristotle’s On Rhetoric to look at the (what I think) neglected epideictic rhetoric’s role in public discourse.

Aristotle. On Rhetoric. Trans. George A. Kennedy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Print.

Plato. Gorgias. Trans. James H. Nichols Jr. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998. Print.

Plato. Phaedrus. Trans. James H. Nichols Jr. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998. Print.

Thucydides. History of the Peloponnesian War. Trans. Rex Warner. New York: Penguin, 1972. Print.

Aristotle vs. Spider-Man

Like any other writer, Aristotle was stuck in his own time period. His lifestyle, culture and ideas were grounded in those created by ancient Greece. Much has changed since he wrote On Rhetoric in the fourth century B.C.E. Reading this work from the perspective of historical criticism reveals much about the text; however, we can make comparisons between some of his ideas and those of our current society.

Some of Aristotle’s beliefs angered me as a contemporary reader, even though these beliefs were commonly held during his time. For example, in chapter 9 of Book One, Aristotle states, “And the virtues and actions who are superior by nature are more honorable, for example, those of a man more than those of a woman” (78). In ancient Greece, women were presumed to be weaker in mind, body and spirit compared to men. They truly felt that a female was a lesser human being than a male. This concept is absurd to me as a woman living in the 21st century. However, I do sometimes wonder if some of the old men in Congress still hold Aristotle’s view when they believe they can tell me what to do with my body through law.

Other concepts seem to clash with modern society’s views. Aristotle felt that it was a good thing to seek vengeance upon an enemy. Aristotle tells his audience, “And to be revenged is pleasurable” (89). His society was extremely competitive, and no one wanted to be embarrassed or shamed in Athens. Looking at the 2012 film, The Amazing Spider-Man, shows us that this view is looked down upon now. In the film, Peter Parker plays a prank on his high school bully after gaining superhuman powers. He has fun, and indeed getting revenge is pleasurable. However, he gets in trouble with his Uncle Ben, who is not impressed with Peter’s actions. Uncle Ben tells Peter that it is not honorable to do harm to others, no matter what they have done to us in the past. Peter had saved face and showed his school that he is tougher and better than Flash, but in the end, he feels guilty for acting so rashly.

In Book Two, Aristotle asserts that one does not fear becoming unjust (128). Peter Parker does fear this occurrence, though. He has gained new power, and he realizes that he might abuse it. Even though Aristotle goes on to say in Chapter 17 that power is a good thing because it makes men manlier, as well as more ambitious, dignified and earnest (155), Peter must be wary of his power. In today’s society, many of us are suspicious of those in power. We have seen many who abuse it, turning something potentially positive into a negative thing after taking advantage of people. In the comic books, Uncle Ben tells Peter, “With great power comes great responsibility.” I do not feel Aristotle touched much on that subject. He saw power as a good thing, but Peter understands that it can turn him into something unjust and detrimental to his society.

We must take these differences in times and societies into consideration in order to focus on what is truly important in Aristotle’s work. Yes, he was limited by ancient Greece’s views, but once we identify the areas in which we no longer believe, we can make peace with them and learn from his style of speaking and writing to help our own.

Aristotle. On Rhetoric. Ed. and translated by Kennedy, George A. Oxford University Press, NY: 2007.

The Amazing Spider-Man #1 Trailer. YouTube. 2012. Web.

Time to Save the World

I hate "that person" who says this, but the copy of On Rhetoric that I'm using is Kennedy's first edition.  Before this week, I was certain that all of my books had come in, but have since been sadly disappointed.  The Hendrix center book store and the library were out of the 2nd edition.  The Pickens and Anderson county libraries didn't seem to even have Kennedy's On Rhetoric, so I had to settle with the Clemson library's copy of the first edition.

Having said that....

Aristotle says in Chapter 6 of book 1 just above 1363a that "...there is no reason why the same thing may not sometimes be an advantage to both sides.  As a result, it is said that evils bring men together when the same thing is harmful to both groups"(65).

This made me think initially of one of the Pokemon movies (though I can't remember exactly which one at the moment).  Almost in every Pokemon movie there is a threat to the world's safety because some "legendary pokemon" has been awakened.  In at least one (though I suspect it has actually happened in a few of the movies) Team Rocket, in their pursuit to get Ash's Pikachu, stick their nose where it doesn't belong and lands them either in the same or greater trouble than Ash and his friends are in with regard to the world threat.  Then, at some point in the movie, either Team Rocket points out or is coerced to aid Ash in his attempt to save the situation and the world.  

I really hated drawing the connection between what Aristotle was saying and what my unfavorite (I don't know if they would qualify as my least favorite, but they'd be close) characters enacted in a cartoon that feels too childish to be connecting to, so I'm going to draw on something that I have less knowledge about, but shares a similar connection to this excerpt of Aristotle: The Avengers. 

The very basic premise of the Avengers is that the world comes under attack, six (unless I'm forgetting someone) "heroes" are thrown together with the objective to save the world but their different personalities make them enemies amongst themselves (as shown in the top trailer), causing them to agree on one thing "If we can't protect the Earth you can be damn sure we'll avenge it" (end of bottom trailer).  This line as Robert Downy Jr./Tony Stark says so well is the "common ground" of these heroes.  Were saving the world be as easy as writing a rhetorical, persuasive speech, this--as I think Aristotle would agree--would be the place to start.

"A thing is good when not in excess," says Aristotle (1363a pg 65).  This is another problem in the Avengers.  These "heroes" have an excess of power and a lack of control.  That's why this alternate opening scene came about. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5HVgumJAGo 

I'm not sure that the avengers would agree to Aristotle when he continues, 'And what has cost much labor and expense [is good]; for it is an apparent good already, and such a thing is regarded as an "end" and an end of many [efforts]; and the "end" is a good' (Kennedy's brackets, pg 65).  Even the bad guy can expend much for evil deeds and that would not be good.  However, in order for someone to do good, it will cost labor and/or expense.  The completion or thwarting of either the good or bad thing is an end--this, I think, can be agreed on--for any story has to have an ending, and, like its other movies (as well as other movies not made by Marvel), it is usually with the completion/thwarting that the movies end.

Works Cited

Aristotle. On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse. Trans. George A. Kennedy. 1st ed. New York: Oxford UP, 1991. Print.

Marvel. "Marvel's The Avengers- Trailer (OFFICIAL)." YouTube. YouTube, 11 Oct. 2011. Web. 24 Sept. 2012. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOrNdBpGMv8>.

In the Name of the (God)Father

In "Rhetoric", Aristotle extensively discusses the use of maxims. As maxims can be construed as the conclusion of an enthymeme, it makes sense Aristotle would choose to devote an entire chapter (Book II, Chapter 21) to these types of statements.


A maxim can be defined as:

 Generally any simple and memorable rule or guide for living, for example 'neither a borrower nor a lender be'. Tenneson speaks of 'a little hoard of maxims preaching down a daughter's heart (Locksley Hall), and maxims have generally been associated with a 'folksy' or 'copy-book' approach tomorality.
 -Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy

Of the simple and memorable rules for living, one maxim has the distinction of appearing twice:

Foolish he who after killing the father leaves the sons.

This maxim appears both in 1.15-14, and in 2.21-11. While Aristotle claims maxims to be the result of lack of education and the hallmark of "country folk who strike them and show them off", (2.21-9) one must admit there is at least a modicum of truth in such a saying.

Mythloogy, literature, film, and other forms of popular culture, such as comic books, contain myriad examples of avenging the death of a father. As art imitates life, one can assume that this avenging of death is at least, partially true. An example of this can be found in "The Godfather: Part II", possibly the best sequel film ever made. In Part II,in which certain scenes are a prequel to "The Godfather", a young Vito Corleone (deftly portrayed by Robert Dinero) travels back to the Sicilian village of his birth (Corleone) to avenge the death of both his mother and his father (his mother was killed for hiding young Vito when Don Ciccio wanted to murder him to keep him form avenging his father's death). Vito, who was known by the surname Andolini, immigrated to the United States where customs mistakenly gave him the name of the village of his birth. Vito made a name for himself by working hard and eventually killing the mafioso, Don Fannucci, who extorted money from he and his neighbors under the guise of "protection". After he became a "made man", the next logical step would be to travel to Corleone, kill the man who killed his father, take over his olive trade, and become the head of his own crime syndicate.

The killing of Ciccio served a two-fold purpose: To avenge the death of Vito's father, and to allow him to import olives and olive oil without having to pay inflated fees for the goods.

Another example of this occurs in "The Godfather" when Michael Corleone (portrayed by Al Pacino) murders Sollozzo, a mid-level heroin dealer, and the chief of police, who was being bribed by Sollozzo, for the attempted murder of Vito Corleone (Michael's father).

In one of the most emotionally charged scenes from any film, Sollozzo explains to Michael (in Italian) the attempted murder of his father was business, as Vito did not want drugs being sold in the neighborhoods controlled by him. The visual cue that Michael does not care about the circumstances is evident in that there are no subtitles during this dialogue. Michael only wants to avenge the attempt of his father's life, which he does in spades.

While these are works of fiction, there seems to be some expectation that the son will avenge the death of the father. Perhaps this is why the U.S. military killed Uday and Qusay Hussein prior to the capture and execution of Saddam. 

The enthymeme this maxim concludes is most likely in reference to the Greek practice of sparing the sons of men of conquered lands. While noble in its execution, it probably is not a wise decision. Maybe those country folk knew what they were talking about, after all.

When I was reading the section in Book 2, Chapters 15-17 focused on wealth and riches and what having these does to a person, I randomly thought, What would Aristotle think of Batman?

Now, I admit I didn’t read the comic books and I haven’t seen the latest movie, so if there’s something in Batman lore that I get wrong, please forgive me. I think the reason my brain brought this to my attention was because Aristotle had such a huge issue with people who had wealth and were of good birth because they didn’t care about other people and were “insolent and arrogant” (154). In this case, Bruce Wayne definitely fits the description that Aristotle describes. Wayne is arrogant, pig-headed, and a playboy. The one thing that Wayne has going for him is he is not brand new money since his parents left behind their manor and empire when they were killed.

Wayne is “ostentatious and pretentious” like Aristotle describes those with wealth. Aristotle goes on to elaborate that they are “ostentatious because of luxury and the display of their prosperity, pretentious and vulgar because all are used to spending their time with whatever they love and admire because they think everybody else has the same values they do” (154). This is true; Bruce always has girls on his arm and uses his sarcasm and charm to get his way.

But now we turn to Batman, whom I’m unsure what Aristotle would say about. Batman, Wayne’s secret identity, is the champion of the weak. He spends his time seeking out villains and destroying evil so that Gotham is a safer place to live. According to Aristotle, though, all rich people are horrible people. Even though Bruce Wayne puts on the airs that Aristotle describes, it’s all just an act...a rhetorical act, one might say. Wayne wants to persuade everyone that he is this image of a spoiled little rich boy so no one suspects his secret of being Batman. It seems that he is the antithesis to Aristotle’s rule. Batman seems to fit into Aristotle’s opinion on power: “those holding power...are more earnest, because of being in a position of responsibility, forced to keep an eye on everything that relates to their power” (155). Batman is out keeping an eye on Gotham, which relates to his, or Wayne’s, power. But he is also protecting others the way he couldn’t protect his parents, so his power is elevated to another level.

So, in essence, Bruce way is wealth, while Batman is power. Within Wayne there is a struggle, which can be explained by Aristotle, and somehow makes Batman more awesome.

Boy Meets World and the Art of Rhetoric

What can I say about Aristotle? First of all, I need to try and make sense of a couple of the different rhetorical techniques he brings up in On Rhetoric. I apologize in advance for having to get this out of the way, but Aristotle’s repetition and use of double negatives kept me a bit confused.  

An enthymeme is a form of a syllogism.

(Example syllogism from 11^th grade courtesy of my best friend):

Blondes have more fun. Catherine is a blonde. Catherine has more fun.

An enthymeme is formed by stating a conclusion and then providing reasons to support that conclusion. Also, we get an enthymeme from a probability, which according to Aristotle, is “what happens for the most part” (1.2.15). With a paradigm, the universal link is not expressed but assumed by the audience. As Kennedy says, a paradigm is like an induction in that it moves from a certain statement to “parallels” (note 51). The two kinds of paradigm are historical and fictional. Aristotle tells us it is best to employ a paradigm in a deliberative speech “for we judge future things by predicting them from past ones.” A speaker should use an enthymeme in a judicial speech “for what has happened in some unclear way is best given a cause and demonstration” (1.9.40).

No matter what form of logic Aristotle describes, he always comes back to the idea that a speaker must know his audience. And more than that, “a speaker should have a virtuous moral intent and an understanding of the good” (1.9.27). There are many emotions that a speaker must be aware of if he is going to persuade effectively. (I wonder if Aristotle’s students got overwhelmed with all the guidelines for the three kinds of speeches. I know I did.)  

Aristotle knew it was important to point out the ease and difficulty of persuading an audience. He states the following in Book 2:

“For [in rhetoric] the conclusion should not be drawn from far back, nor is it necessary to include everything…This is the reason why the uneducated are more persuasive than the educated before a crowd, just as the poets say the uneducated are more ‘inspired by the Muses’ in a crowd” (2.22.3).

The argument must be clear, because a general audience needs to be able to clearly follow what the speaker is saying.  Further in this passage, Aristotle notes that the uneducated base their decisions on “what [particulars] they know and instances near their experience.” An uneducated audience will agree with details with which they can relate.

An example I’d like to use are two clips from a Boy Meets World episode in which Cory runs for 8^th grade student president. The classic scene shows Cory being accused of “flip flopping” because of Shawn’s 3^rd grade incident of saying all girls are “icky.” The accuser (fellow classmate and voice of the crowd) announces proof of the incident and uses emotion to impassion the uneducated crowd.  He employs Aristotle’s topic 27, the tactic of accusing by pointing out a mistake that will diminish Cory’s credibility. A form of analogy is even used, because if Shawn is a flip flopper, Cory must be one as well. The result finds Shawn out of his job as campaign manager, because Cory wants to please the crowd. As long as “Shawn is out,” then Cory is still in the race.

The next clip shows Cory on Election Day admitting to the crowd that he isn’t qualified to run and is a terrible friend. Shawn boosts his friend’s credibility by admitting that Cory is in fact “honest, loyal and decent” (everything a good rhetor should be as Aristotle points out). The clip ends with Topanga stepping up and further appealing to the emotions of the crowd and engaging them in chanting her name. She makes specific promises: better cafeteria food, new books, and even a water slide. She appeals to the “particulars” that the students can relate to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TX6ItBKEttQ&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3sshYeZEBw&feature=relmfu

Is this the kind of rhetoric Aristotle had in mind? Perhaps not exactly, but I think it’s safe to say the general practices he puts forth in On Rhetoric are more common in everyday speech than we might think.