Poulakos and MLK and a bit of Nietzsche

Oh dear how I wish I could go back and insert this blog into it’s proper place in time, with the other blogs from the first weeks of class. It would be more appropriate. Since that is not an option, I will just present it here, now. Better late than never, right?

Poulakos made me go back and do a bit of research on Aristotle, Plato, and the Sophist’s themselves. It helped when I could draw a clear line between the three. Plato accused the Sophists of teaching immorality and unsociability because they were more concerned with winning the argument rather than presenting truth. The Sophists may have despaired of knowledge, but Plato was lumped with the philosophers more, because even if they didn’t believe in absolute truths, they sought them regardless.

Poulakos does an excellent job of convincing me of his definition…he ties art, timing, and the possible seamlessly. By his definition (since it has been so long since posts were made on this topic, I’ll include his definition: Rhetoric is the art which seeks to capture in opportune moments that which is appropriate and attempts to suggest that which is possible), Martin Luther King fits perfectly. He appeals to the possibilities of a better future. At the beginning of the speech, he presents his ethos and simultaneously sets up just how appropriate it was for him to be doing the activities he was. His logos alone sets up the timeliness. It is true that oppressors never feel the time is right to give up their place; no one ever feels it is the right time to lose something. MLK’s logic and phrasing is beautiful. And Poulakos would say that he in not merely addressing the actual state of affairs, the realities of oppression and segregation, but he is saying that it will never be more appropriate to fight for a better future. It is not boring and appeals to men’s sense of not wanting to be where they are. MLK didn’t want their protests to cloud the issues in an upcoming election--how is that for a sense of appropriateness and knowing about the proper timing to make words/actions the most effective? Teaching the protestors to receive blows without retaliating? Not only does this appeal to one’s pathos, but also is just another example of how clearly he understood timing, art, and appropriateness.

The only problem I have with all of this is very slight and inconsequential. It is my understanding that Poulakos is not basing his definition of rhetoric on the idea that the Sophist’s did not believe in absolute maxims. However, a paradox does creep into my mind. It’s obvious--and should be well known--that MLK did believe in certain basic truths. He was arguing for them, persuading for them, and making changes for them. Perhaps I’m mistaken, but I feel the Sophist’s would have been able to make both sides seem equally true. Especially depending on which audience they were paid to address. I know this was not the point of coupling the MLK reading with Poulakos; I couldn’t help but mention it.

One other thing that jumped out at me was Poulakos’ phrase, “even though [the possible] opposes the actual, it always seeks to become actualized.” This brought to mind Nietzsche’s concept of active and reactive forces. A simplified explanation is that he believed that reactive forces seek to keep the active forces from getting where they’re going, and the active forces just GO. Artistic movements are classified as active forces and say, a religious opposition to the artistic movement (perhaps they think it is immoral) would be considered a reactive force. So, if the possible is always seeking to become actualized, they would be considered active forces.

(And here is just something I’ve been thinking of. If anyone has any ideas for how to improve this little newborn theory of mine, please help!)

As to rhetoric as a container and not a thing to be contained…it seems to me there is a division. Of course, I’m only considering this with Nietzsche’s ideas and not by themselves. An active force’s movement/rhetoric would be the container. It presents not something actual, but something that is a possibility. Reactive forces present the actuality of things--they typically oppose change and are constantly resentful of active forces (according to Nietzsche). Their movement/rhetoric presents reality. Wouldn’t their rhetoric then be considered something that is contained?

Just some thoughts.