#2). The Greeks believed that to be an orator, an individual
had to be morally good. Comment on whether you agree or disagree.
What, if any, is the connection between goodness, truth, and public
communication?
Throughout historical Greek society, orators were expected, almost
required, to be of good moral character because those allowed to speak publicly
greatly influenced the shaping of their society. As
time has progressed, orators have come from all walks of life, and been of both
good moral character (think Martin Luther King, Jr.), and grave evil hearts (think
Hitler).
The consistent thread regarding orators, transcending history and
culture, is that an orator remains influential and able to greatly impact its
audiences and/or society, especially a well crafted and gifted orator. Ideally, I agree our world is best served
when goodness, truth, and public communication are synonymous, a collaborative
effort to empower society for the greater good.
Unfortunately, it is well known that this is not always the case. Therefore, I believe it is incumbent upon audience members to be educated in dissecting
rhetorical argument, researching truth as they personally interpret it to be,
and staying attuned to the goodness they possess internally, opting to nurture and apply it to external input, and thus, quell evil.
To be an orator is of high honor, and comes with great responsibility. To influence another is an extremely powerful tool. As well, to influence and govern
oneself, orator or receiver, is imperative! I think Shakespeare summed it up nicely in Hamlet when he writes, “This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night
the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man.”
Through ethos, to be a continually successful orator, you do need to be morally good. I do believe that one does not have to be good in order to be an orator, but a consistent one definitely needs it. Politicians, for example, can be seen as orators in a way, and are, for the most part, seen in a bad light because of their predecessors. They may be able to make good speeches, but being unable to follow through or give examples as to how what you say can be regarded as truth, these words might begin to fall on deaf ears.
ReplyDeleteMany politicians have some level of credibility to have been voted into office. However, I don't believe ethos is the common denominator, despite how their viewed, positive or negative, as an authority on any given subject. If that were the case, those politicians found to be without good character or reputation, would not continue to have influence in our world. How often has society come to discover deceptive and immoral behavior in the lives of our public figures, yet continued to buy into their rhetoric? Which is why I stated that I believe, "it is incumbent upon audience members to be educated in dissecting rhetorical argument, researching truth as they personally interpret it to be, and staying attuned to the goodness they possess internally, opting to nurture and apply it to external input, and thus, quell evil."
ReplyDelete