Auto-Tuning: The Limits of Language

In Plato’s Gorgias, Socrates and his pupil, Chaerephon, speak with Gorgias, Polus and Callicles on the subject of rhetoric. When Socrates asks Gorgias what exactly rhetoric is, Gorgias replies that it is the art of speeches. When pressed further, he contests that it is also “being able to persuade by speeches judges in the law court, councillors in the council, assemblymen in the assembly, and in every other gathering whatsoever, when there is a political gathering” (Plato 452e). Plato does not seem to appreciate rhetoric because he finds that not all rhetoricians are just men who bring about justice through these crowds whom they wish to persuade.

While Gorgias and Socrates speak of crowds such as assemblies and courts, a modern crowd that can be persuaded today is the television viewing community. Millions of people watch television each day, and many of this audience watch the news. The news informs viewers of local and political concerns, many topics that rhetoricians spoke of in ancient Greece. Citizens need the news in order to know and understand the large events happening within their communities. Gorgias would appreciate the fact that newscasters must practice the art of speech, rhetoric, to divulge their messages to their audiences. However, Socrates would not enjoy the biases of the networks and their news, such as CBS and Fox News. While their job is to inform the people about facts, newscasters present the stories in an unbalanced way contingent upon their views and opinions.

James L. Kastely may argue that newscasters cannot help this biased reporting because of the fact that they are human, and their languages constrict them to this type of limited communication. Kastley claims in his article, "In Defense of Plato’s Gorgias," that humans are born into a world that already has misconceptions and man-made ideologies that humans accept as natural because they know the world in no other way. Languages that humans create reflect the misunderstandings that have already been created. Kastley states that it is “the nature of language to be inadequate to a complete representation of ourselves and others” (105). If language is flawed, then humans’ communications to and with one another are inevitably flawed as well. 

Andrew Gregory and his team of friends and family have created YouTube videos, “Auto-Tune the News,” which exemplify the limits of language and how one can manipulate these limits so that they become a parody. The theme song states, “Everything sounds better auto-tuned” (“Auto-Tune the News #2”). While this statement is a joke that makes fun of the current popular music industry, it is also telling of the way people communicate. Some find the news to be too boring to watch; however, Gregory plays with this limitation and makes the news fun and humorous by creating rhyming lyrics and a beat to go along with the stated information. He auto-tunes news anchors’ voices so that it is more appealing to listen. When Katie Couric tells her audience that arctic ice is melting quickly, the auto-tuned version makes it funny and more interesting. The YouTube video makes fun at Couric’s cliched pun when she seriously states that if humans do not take swift action, “we will find ourselves on very thin ice” (“Auto-Tune the News #2”), a phrase that gets repeated within the beat of the song and carried over into the next news segment, highlighting its corniness. 

These YouTube videos cater to a younger audience who may not necessarily watch the news on a regular basis. While they are meant to be funny, they also bring attention to the limits of newscasters’ rhetoric. Sometimes, in order to get the message across and to capture the audience’s attention, a little auto-tuning can go a long way.

"Auto-Tune the News #2: pirates. drugs. gay marriage." 21 April 2009. 10 Sept. 2012. Web.

Kastley, James L. "In Defense of Plato's Gorgias." PMLA 106.1 (1991): 105.

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

Figuring out a "dizzying" dialogue

After reading Plato’s Gorgias, I was left a bit dissatisfied and confused. Socrates tags rhetoric as “a craftsman of persuasion,” but an actual definition is never revealed (453a). Granted, I am not sure a concrete definition of rhetoric would ever be possible. I found myself shaking my head when certain arguments developed such as Socrates’ assertion that it is better to suffer injustice instead of doing the injustice. Reading Kastely’s article helped put the work into perspective concerning the historical context surrounding the characters.  

Kastely states:“Gorgias seeks to justify rhetoric by its communal utility, while Polus and Callicles admire it for its ability to confer power on the individual agent” (98).  The communal aspect becomes lost as Socrates argues with Polus and Callicles and leaves Gorgias behind. The arguments then become muddled within issues such as nature and convention. Callicles states it this way:

“For, Socrates, you really lead the discussion into such tiresome things, suited to a popular speaker—while claiming to pursue the truth—things that are not fine by nature, but by convention. And in most cases these things are opposed to each other, nature and convention” (482e).

Kastely points out the philosophical idea that “we can never arrive at a natural state,” because we are influenced by culture (102). This influence is known in politics, especially, and adds to the concern of rhetoric being a useful tool or just a means of gaining power. The complexities of the different arguments are identified in what Kastely calls a “philosophical rhetoric”(100). In Gorgias, Callicles compares philosophy with “something slavish” in that it is almost like a game (485b). Socrates even adds to this idea in the following exchange in lines 490a:

CAL.: How you always say the same things, Socrates!

SOC.:  Not only that, Callicles, but also about the same things.

Engaging in these kinds of discussions led me to think of a scene in The Princess Bride in which Westley challenges Vizzini in a “battle of wits” over a cup of poisonous wine. Vizzini even references Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle and makes it known that their intellect does not compare to his. Starting around 1:23, Vizzini gives a “dizzying” speech about where the poison resides and thus offers reasons why he would choose neither the cup in front of him nor Westley. He draws on contextual clues such as the poison’s country of origin and his claim that Westley must be a “clever man.” He then resorts to trickery as he switches the cups while Westley turns his head. However, Vizzini’s tactics do not work, because what he does not realize is that Westley had built up immunity to the poison and thus defeats Vizzini.  

http://youtu.be/U_eZmEiyTo0

Vizzini attempts to think critically about his situation, but it is of naught once he takes a sip of the wine. His confusing words are playfully styled after those of Socrates, but they present a significant question: Are humans afraid to “engage critically” (106)? Because we are shaped so much by ideologies, it is easy for beliefs to become rigid and unquestioned. According to Kastely, “rhetoric needs to undertake the more difficult task of making us available for dialectical refutation” (106). Callicles and Polus clearly backed away from this idea, thus causing their discussions with Socrates to become dissatisfying.  After reading both Gorgias and Kastely’s article, I am left with this thought to ponder: One must be open to criticism, and it is the power of rhetoric that allows this openness.  And in return, this openness will lead to greater truth or perhaps more confusion.

Rhetorical questions, rhetorical answers

Through its developed search for the definition of rhetoric and the questioning of art, and amidst its constant shift in discussions of power in reference to persuasion, Plato’s Gorgias closes with an unapologetic Socrates engaged in lonely argument with himself. The work features question upon question, with few concrete answers given in return.

It seems Socrates asks questions that he indeed 1) already knows the answers to but is asking anyway with the goal of questioning the knowledge of the respondent or provoking additional debate, or 2) has foreshadowed the respondent’s answer of which will in turn provide an outlet for his following practiced thought. Here are several examples of this practice:

SOC.: And for all the other arts that we were just now talking about, we shall be able to show

that they are craftsmen of persuasion, and what the persuasion is, and about what, won’t we?

POL.: Yes. (35)

SOC.: Weren’t you saying that suffering injustice is worse, but doing injustice is more shameful?

POL.: I was. (61)

SOC.: Aren’t you saying that the more intelligent man is superior? Say yes or no.

POL.: I am. (82)

SOC.: Now tell me: do you mean something such as to be hungry and, being hungry to eat?

POL.: I do. (87)

In each of these examples, Socrates begins a series of questions that egg on or frustrate Gorgias and/or his students; he is a pusher and a persuader (so some believe). This tactic does not go over well with his participants, thus he begins to lose them one-by-one. James Kastely writes of this in his In Defense of Plato’s Gorgias. Kately writes: “Early in the dialogue, Socrates addresses this point by explaining that he will continue to ask questions and pursue a dialectical form of discourse even though he has a good idea of what Gorgias’s answers might be” (98). To Socrates, I send the following video:

This clip could express those feelings of Callicles and Polus (for it certainly did mine). Kastely provides reasoning for my distaste with the following lines: “Those who object to the dialogue take their dissatisfaction with it at face value and do not consider that part of Gorgias’s rhetorical strategy might be to provoke dissatisfaction and, further, that this provocation might be essential to Plato’s understanding of the philosophical importance of rhetoric” (97).

In the end, it is Gorgias who compels Socrates to complete his argument: “I, myself, in any case, wish to hear you go through the remaining things by yourself” (104). Socrates adheres to the request and thus begins a lengthy, concluding argument with himself. Socrates is demanding with his speech even after Callicles announces that he is not persuaded by Socrates’ words.

SOC.: Can it be that, as you enter upon the city’s business, you will then take care of anything else for us but that we citizens be as good as possible? Or have we not agreed many times already that the political man must do this? Have we agreed or not? Answer! We have agreed—I shall answer for you… (114)

This idea of arguing with oneself cannot be better described than through the following video. Jeff Dunham, a well-know ventriloquist, makes a living doing essentially that which Socrates does to conclude Plato’s work. (Note: Pardon the crude comments and explicit references… it’s a Jeff Dunham trademark.)

From this video, not only do viewers see this concept of one man literally arguing with himself as he portrays other characters and their respective thoughts (similar to Socrates), but they, too, get a sense of the idea of power with the character Peanut. Peanut is forceful and demanding in his exchanges with Jose the Jalapeno (on a stick) and viewers witness the so-to-speak bickering of which Socrates and his fellow speakers also engaged.

Sources:

Dunham, Jeff. “Arguing with Myself—Peanut & Jose Jalapeno.” 12 November 2008. YouTube. Accessed on 09 September 2012.

Plato. Gorgias. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1998. Print.

“Rhetorical Answers.” 29 August 2008. YouTube. Accessed on 09 September 2012.

Gorgias and Socrates on The Grid

Maybe my mind is just .... different.  As I was reading this conversation between Socrates and Gorgias, I, for some reason, kept seeing the conversation as something similar to a light-cycle race in the movie Tron though this debate was far less hostile by comparison.  I could see Socrates steering Gorgias with his conversation, and Gorgias, who started out as cocky as Flynn, figures out that there are indeed flaws in his logic.  My connection with Tron, Tron: Legacy, and this week's readings get quite...liquid after this because, as I kept going, I had a hard time deciding out of Socrates and Gorgias, who was most like Clu and who was like Flynn (in the Tron Legacy movie).

In the Tron: Legacy movie, Flynn created Clu with a insatiable desire for perfection.  As time progressed, Clu's definition of perfection either stays stationary and is acted on to a Hitler extreme or advances to a Hitler extreme definition of perfection while Flynn realizes that perfection was "unknowable. [Perfection is] impossible, but it's also right in front of us all the time."  This to me felt like a similar argument to Socrates and Gorgias' conversation.  Which is the "perfect" art that will bring all men to just ways of acting and true ways of thinking?  Philosophy/dialogue or rhetoric?  Based on who was "winning" the conversation, Socrates probably best suits Flynn in this regard, but I would not put Gorgias in Clu's position.

I would tentatively put Gorgias in Clu's position in the way that Clu "plays" against Flynn.  When Flynn's son find him in The Grid, Flynn explains that he refuses to play because if he did play, he would have to play by Clu's rules which would only get himself killed which would let Clu win (and then Clu would enter the real world and try to Hitlerize it too.  But  that's not important for this). I tentatively put Gorgias in Clu's position because Gorgias plays by Socrates rules.  However, unlike Clu, Gorgias chooses to play by Socrates' rules by agreeing to converse instead of conducting speeches to respond to Socrates' questions. [Also, I REALLY don't want to align Gorgias with a Hitler-esque character, but I don't have a lot of choice based on the comparison]

Looking at Socrates and Gorgias' students, I think both Gorgias and Socrates fit under Flynn. AND Socrates, to a tiny extent, can fit under Clu.  Based on the number of students that Socrates has with him, Socrates can fit under Flynn.  Also, Callicles is like Flynn's son who doubts Flynn's thinking.  If I might be so bold, this section where Callicles doubts Socrates felt a little like Rinzler (Clu's number one soldier) showing signs of turning to the good side.  Also, because Chaeraphon is about as quiet and loyal to Socrates as Rinzler is to Clu, Socrates can again fit under Clu's criteria.  Quorra is fairly loyal to Flynn, and might adequately stand in for Chaeraphon, but I'd like to at least try to be an equal opportunity offender when comparing anyone to Clu.  Having said that, what makes Gorgias like Flynn is that Polus runs his mouth like Flynn's son runs off in disregard of his father's plans.  I think that in both cases, though surely in Gorgias', the action of Polus and Flynn's son causes Gorgias and Flynn to see some flaws in their thinking.

... I shouldn't leave on this hanging thought, but I need to sleep.  Below, I've whited out some lines from the movie (which do occur near the end, but I don't think they really give anything away) if anyone wants to check it out and play with how it relates to this week's reading.


Clu: I did everything... everything you ever asked! 
Kevin Flynn: I know you did. 
Clu: I executed the plan! 
Kevin Flynn: As you saw it... 
Clu: You- You promised that we would change the world, together. You broke your promise... 
Kevin Flynn: I know. I understand that now. 
Clu: I took this system to it's maximum potential. I created the perfect system! 
Kevin Flynn: The thing about perfection is that it's unknowable. It's impossible, but it's also right in front of us all the time. You wouldn't know that because I didn't when I created you. I'm sorry, Clu. I'm sorry... 

The Rhetorical Paradox of Socrates and The Wrestler

Disclaimer: If you have never seen "The Wrestler" directed by Darren Aronofsky, move away from this blog, watch the film and then read this post.

Really, nearly any of Aronofsky's films can be applied to Socrates and Plato's Gorgias. However, there is this level of purpose and intention in Socrates' actions and speech that are reminiscent of "The Wrestler." Specifically, it is how Socrates speaks of rhetoric and his death that are so closely related to the film.



This approach is going to break the rules in a way. Instead of only examining the text, this analysis plays with actual history accounts of the life of Socrates and Gorgias. It is a "just" approach because of the editor's, James H. Nichols Jr., constant use of footnotes including historical notes of the life and death of Socrates.

The best way to start is to set the analogy that wrestling to the main character in "The Wrestler" is the same as rhetoric to Socrates. This is not a perfect analogy, however in Gorgias Socrates is clearly devoted to or obsessed with the art or the "experience" of rhetoric and it is his very speech and choice of words that leads to his death. Just as in "The Wrestler," it is the wrestler's devotion to wrestling and his choice to wrestle and continue to wrestle while he is having a heart attack that leads to his death.

While there are a multitude of theories on why Socrates said what he did in his defense against being charged with corruption of young minds, it is hard to argue with Nichols' statement that, "If we held political rhetoric to be the capacity to persuade a political multitude to acquit one of a charge we should have to say that Socrates possessed that rhetorical capacity but chose not to use it" (13). One could go further to argue that Socrates not only chose not to use rhetoric to acquit himself but instead chose to use rhetoric to persuade the judges to find him guilty.

As evidenced by "Gorgias," Socrates placed a very high level of importance on justice. In his discussion with Polus, Socrates states that the unjust, "Do everything so as not to pay the just penalty or be released from the greatest evil, preparing for themselves possessions and friends and that they themselves should be as persuasive as possible in speaking" (68). Whereas the just man would confess of his evil act immediately to rid his conscience of the act, like someone that is sick must immediately see a doctor to prevent the sickness from festering and getting worse (69).

As Socrates states, "For him who isn't going to do injustice, there doesn't seem to me to be any great use for it [rhetoric]" (70). It would appear that Socrates believes that rhetoric is only necessary for the unjust to remain unpunished. Therefor Socrates may have chosen not to use rhetoric in his own defense because he believed he was a just man. However, it is also quite clear that Socrates placed a great level of value on rhetoric and its usefulness. Then it would seem that Socrates, with his strong feelings toward rightful justice, purposely used rhetoric to persuade the judges to execute him, possibly because he felt he deserved to be executed.

How does this still relate to "The Wrestler" film? The wrestler chose to wrestle knowing he was going to die. He chose to die by wrestling as Socrates chose to die by speech and rhetoric.

Jenny McCarthy and "The Mob"

In Plato’s Gorgias, Gorgias insists that a rhetor can make a “mob” believe their opinion over the opinion of a doctor, even when dealing with the topic of health. Socrates clarifies that a mob in this case refers to “those who don’t know” (41). Socrates points out that the rhetor is not teaching but persuading the mob since the doctor knows more about health than the rhetor. However, using the skills of persuasion associated with rhetoric, the rhetor can make the mob believe something, even if the doctor provides proof otherwise.

We can find examples of this phenomenon by looking at the current controversy surrounding the cause of autism. Jenny McCarthy, an actress and model, has used her time in the spotlight to put forth her belief that vaccinations caused her son, Evan, to be autistic. McCarthy also asserts that parents should avoid vaccinating their children, even though there is no scientific proof linking vaccinations to autism. In fact, the study that McCarthy cited as evidence has proven to be fraudulent (Park).

McCarthy has appeared on shows like The Ellen DeGeneres Show and Oprah, speaking to “those who don’t know” as if her beliefs are fact backed by scientific evidence. As Socrates and Gorgias discussed, McCarthy has managed to convince a large number of parents that vaccinations cause autism without any proof. As a result, parents are refusing to vaccinate their children, leading to the highest amount of measles cases in over a decade. One case out of every five required the patient to be hospitalized. And the increase in outbreaks isn’t restricted to the US: health officials say that measles cases in New York City can be linked to outbreaks in Europe and Israel (Lin).

McCarthy was “awarded” the James Randi Educational Foundation’s Pigasus Award for “The Performer Who Had Fooled the Greatest Number of People with the Least Amount of Effort” in 2008.

Sources:

Lin, Rong-Gong. "Rise in Measles Prompts Concern." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 02 May 2008. Web. 09 Sept. 2012. 

Park, Alice. "Study Linking Vaccines to Autism Is ‘Fraudulent’.” Time. Time, 6 Jan. 2011. Web.  09 Sept. 2012. 

Plato. Gorgias. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1998. Print.

St0ckman. "4/2/08 Larry King Autism W/ Jenny McCarthy. Vaccines."  YouTube. YouTube, 03 Apr. 2008. Web. 09 Sept. 2012. 

Rhetoric and Refutation

In Plato’s Gorgias, the reader experiences the dialogue between Socrates and Gorigas (and later, two students of rhetoric) unfold with much frustration on the part of rhetors. At first, it seems rather one sided and Socrates comes off as closed-minded and doggedly pursuing the argument that rhetoric is a not a true art until the dialogue ends. However, the reader could interpret this exchange as a series of misunderstandings.

Socrates employs this method of questioning and refutation that the students of rhetoric in the book fail to grasp. Kastley writes in, “In Defense of Plato’s Gorgias,” that the students are inept and fail to answer in a dialectic way that Socrates expects. Thus, the conclusion Socrates sought is never quite reached. With misunderstanding at the very beginning of the text, it is a wonder how the dialogue even proceeds. Gorgias and Socrates seek to define rhetoric, but ultimately that topic shifts to an investigation of the use of justice (or lack of use) by a rhetor.

However, one particular concern stood out in this text. If Kastyley claims that Socrates was using rhetoric during this dialogue, then, why didn’t the Gorgias or his students recognize its use? Furthermore, when someone uses a tactic employed by an opponent, is it fair to imply that rhetoric has no real purpose. Discrediting rhetoric by using rhetoric seems to create a paradox and contradiction.

We see this in a number ways. Most recently, I’ve come across a pro-choice rebuttal to common pro-life reasoning floating around the Internet.

The creator of this photo uses life jackets as a stand in birth control. In the political climate, we’ve seen many public and political figures attack the affordable health care bill for covering women’s birth control pills in full. In their minds, birth control is immediately associated with sexually promiscuity even though many women use it mediate symptoms of endometriosis and other health issues. Likewise, this photo turns their same rhetoric back on them. Life jackets only encourage people to go near the water because they don’t fear drowning (in the same way women won’t fear sex outside of marriage if they do not have to worry about unwanted pregnancy). Whether or not the pro-life camp recognizes this use of their own reasoning remains unknown just like it is ambiguous in Gorgias if the rhetors realize that Socrates has used rhetoric on them. From the text, it may not seem so. The students grow increasingly frustrated with Socrates to the point that they agree in the hopes the dialogue will end.

One could argue that if Socrates dialogue is rhetoric and he chose his arguments based on each rhetor, then Socrates’ rhetorically strategy to engage in philosophical dialogue may have back fired a little. When Polus and Socrates speak back and forth, Socrates says, “Moneymaking therefore releases one from poverty, medicine form sickness, and justice from intemperance and injustice,” (Gorgias 66, 478b). Socrates’ definition of justice doesn’t specify exactly what justice is, which is as the note claims, “a rhetorical offense against conversing of which he accused Polus.” Going back to the image above, the creator with an efficient use if kairos states in the last line a almost word for word parody of Representative Todd Akin’sjustification for his stance on rape and abortion. He claimed that women’s bodies have a way of shutting down and protecting itself from unwanted pregnancy in the case of rate. Obviously this is a ridiculous claim and the creator of the image is clearly trying to ridicule him. However, is this really working rhetorically?

Yes, you might show how one aspect of the argument is ridiculous, but have you made any strides in defining why the need for birth control and access to abortion is important? That is debatable. In the same light, Socrates uses rhetoric to try to reach out to Gorgias and come to an understanding of the definition of the word, but inevitably falls short.

Socrates: And it is in amazement at these things, Gorgias, that I have long been asking what in the world the power of rhetoric is. For it manifestly appears to me as a power demonic in greatness, when I consider this way.

Gorgias: For they imparted their skill to these men to use justly against enemies and doers of injustice, in defending themselves, not in starting something: but these en, perverting it use the might and art incorrectly.

Gorgias goes on to explain how just because one uses rhetoric unjustly, doesn’t mean that the thing itself is unjust. The human element perverted the use of rhetoric. While Socrates persisting questioning might have been aimed at coming to a very narrow definition of rhetoric that he could logically agree with, he ultimately failed to do so. So if Kastely suggests that Socrates himself was using rhetoric, I have to wonder if it was very successful. What makes rhetoric successful in terms of its widespread use among sophists to teach students from a variety of cities across ancient Greece is the ability to adapt and meet the audience on their terms. If rhetoric involved some level of persuasion, then I have to question whether or not Socrates persuaded anyone of anything. They seemed to give in to him based off pure frustration. Perhaps, Socrates didn’t fully understand audience and thus missed a key part of what we might look at today as the rhetorical situation of the dialogue.