Frequent Musings about Life and Genuine Fulfillment

Based on ideas presented by classical philosophers

[kirakiraposts]

Absolute Truths

“When is a speech well-delivered and when is it not” (Plato 259e)? Socrates poses this question during the last portion of Phaedrus after finishing his speeches on love. He then switches to discussing rhetoric with Phaedrus, and in the excerpts of Rhetoric, so does Aristotle.

Both thinkers agree that rhetoric seems to be a skill, an art far removed from a science; Socrates states that the evidence “testify that it is an art” (Plato 260e). Aristotle, too, believes that rhetoric is “concerned with…the general ken of all men and belong[s] to no definite science” (Aristotle 1354a). While Socrates claims that “there is no genuine art of speaking without a grasp of truth,” Aristotle may agree with this view but to a certain extent (Plato 260e).

Because “rhetorical study…is concerned with modes of persuasion,” it follows that some mistruths will be stated as not everything said reflects reality (Aristotle 1355b30); a skilled speaker may be able to convince me that there is a harmful toxin in a commonly eaten cereal, but that may not be the case at all. Aristotle explains that the modes of persuasion are created by three elements: the personal character of the speaker, the ability to put an audience in the right frame of mind, and “apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself” (Aristotle 1356a5). However, he stipulates that the speaker must have a good character and good intentions, and therefore, he must be searching for the absolute truth even if what he says may or may not reflect that reality.

They say the road is paved with good intentions, but is this the correct approach to rhetoric and debate? In a sense, yes, it is. Arguments must be judged upon their own merits and against the opposition’s. If the opposition failed to refute a point, then it is regarded as the truth even if the statement does not reflect reality. That is how parliamentary debate is judged.

However, as I watched my friends have a civil debate on a controversial topic out of the confines of regulations, I saw them employ some of Socrates’s ideas. They “[knew] the truth concerning everything [they were speaking]…define[d] each thing in itself; and, having defined it…divide[d] it into kinds” (Plato 277c). Back and forth, my friends went, questioning and redefining situations and terms until they understood what they spoke on. None of what they said misrepresented reality in any sense though some ideas were rooted in theory.

In situations like these, it is easy to spread misinformation since it seems to be mindless chatter, and I find that notion dangerous. Yes, arguments should be judged on the merits of their strength, but they should also reflect reality to some degree; otherwise, they misrepresent the truth.

We are all trying to find the absolute truths in life whether it be through science, philosophy, math, language, or even art. Rhetoric and debate are ways of trying to extract those absolute truths, and while persuasion does play a part in influencing the truth in formal debate, informal debates and conversations should represent certain truths as best as possible.

[kirakiraposts]

The End of a Season

With the second tournament now behind us on Saturday, the debate season has come to an end for the fall. It has truly been a journey coaching at Crocker. From having no sponsors nor a concrete team to two teachers and the formation of a possible team, Crocker is well on its way to restoring the debate team to its former glory.

It didn’t seem like that at first when I walked into Richardson and found only two out of the ten students present at Thursday practices. They, however, happened to be two of the most motivated debaters at Crocker: Matthew and Kristion. With the addition of another student from Esperanza, they formed the only team for Crocker.

Acquainted with the losing streak from the last tournament, I only hoped the team would win one debate that day, but once I watched their first debate, I knew it would not be their only win. Matthew and Kristion synergized well along with the third member of the team, but even so, they took critiques to heart and wanted to improve with every debate.

Their desire to do well and their speaking skills astonished me; a sense of pride overwhelmed me toward the end of the tournament as I witnessed these boys transform from unsure speakers during practices to more experienced debaters in the tournament. Their determination led them to win three out of the four debates and place third overall in the tournament—truly an accomplishment considering the team comprised of only two students from Crocker. The two boys also earned speaker awards, something I believe they deserved for not only their speaking skills but the maturity they displayed during the event.

It is sad to see them off after this event, knowing I won’t see them again. However, after this tournament, I believe Matthew and Kristion will play a pivotal part in the recovery of Crocker’s debate team should they continue in the spring. The sponsors—Mr. Weber and Mr. Mcghee—learned a lot from the tournament, and judging by the active roles they played in critiquing and helping the boys, they will be essential support for the debate team.

Lots of twists and turns led us to this end, and I think we all—the debaters, the sponsors, and the coaches—have learned a lot from this experience. My only hope going in was that I help the debaters in some way whether it be helping them reach their true potential or improving their rhetorical skills. I hope that the students remember me in that way as a person who supported them properly in their debate journey.

[kirakiraposts]

Crazy in Love

Last time in Phaedrus, the titular character, Phaedrus, and Socrates discussed the merits of receiving love from someone who does not reciprocate it fully. In this section of the text, Socrates aims to do the opposite. It is evident in this passage that Socrates is in his element when he crafts his speech on this topic since the speech is more cohesive than his ramblings about love beforehand.

Socrates had concluded on the madness of love in his last speech and begins with this idea again. This time, however, he claims that “the best things we have come from madness, when it is given as a gift of the god” (244a). Madness descended the gods or arising from the “possession of Muses” is considered to be divine, an act of the soul (245a).

Socrates then launches into a discussion of souls and their immortality. Because a soul is immortal, it seems to be a characteristic descended from the gods, and it would be considered divine to succumb to its whims. The last kind of madness relates to this as it is “that which someone shows when he sees the beauty we have down here and is reminded of true beauty” (249d). These feelings stir up the soul so much so that a lover would “even sacrifice to his boy as if he were the image of a god” (251b).

Socrates’s argument which flows from madness to the soul and love in general make love out be something divine—a gift given by the gods—by connecting all of these points. While Socrates concedes that “in its madness the lover’s soul cannot sleep at night or stay put by day” and that a lover will “forget mothers, brothers, and friends entirely” when in love, he rationalizes these feelings with the senses of comfort and relief a lover feels (251e, 252a). Lovers are “the only doctors for all that terrible pain” one experiences in life and will care for another person unconditionally (252b).

He concludes by saying that “there is no greater good that is that either human self-control or divine madness can offer a man,” so in the end, the love from someone who doesn’t reciprocate is not as divine since self-control dictates it. (256b).  

As beautiful as Socrates makes love out to be, his words are just as mesmerizing. His speech is coherent and poignant throughout as he compares the soul to winged chariots and love to uncontrollable but reasonable madness. There have been many times throughout history and our daily lives when love has driven people to commit—what seems to be unreasonable—actions. This may be the reason that some people would advocate platonic love in favor of a deeper sort of love, but with self-control comes distance; you can never truly know and accept someone for everything that he is without bridging that distance.

While love can bring pain, it is also a thing of beauty, one that has driven people to achieve remarkable things and become better versions of themselves. In short, love can be considered a virtue as crazy and uncontrollable as it can be.

[kirakiraposts]

Revisiting Friendship

This week, we return to Aristotle and Nicomachean Ethics, focusing on Book Eight specifically. While the first few volumes centered around virtue and happiness, this one discusses friendship and how it relates to virtue.

Friendship is defined to be a “sort of virtue, or at least implies virtue” as it is “most necessary to our life” (1155a). Because it is something people desire for its own sake and is “a habit or trained faculty,” friendship can be viewed as a virtue just as happiness was described in the first book (1157b). People create bonds as social creatures, but the bonds that mean the most are those between other people and not inanimate objects.

Friendship, therefore, must be mutual and reciprocated, Aristotle concluded. He also went on to state that friendships cannot exist if there are inequalities between the two people creating the bond unless they give and receive love proportionally.

People form friendships for different reasons, and Aristotle acknowledges that; there are friendships based on utility, pleasure, and respect. Of those, he considers friendships based on utility and pleasure to be accidental as those are quickly broken when one runs out of use or pleasure for the other. In Aristotle’s eyes, friendships based on mutual respect and care for the sake of the other person are the ones we wish to strive toward creating: “Those who wish well to their friends for the friends’ sake are friends in the truest sense” (1156b).

However, true friendship can be hard to obtain as it requires a lot of time to get acquainted with someone on a deeper level. I recall this thought along with the ideas Aristotle presented in this book making me evaluate my life and the people around me when I first read it. Could I call the people I associated with friends or are they mere acquaintances, ready to exit my life once their use was gone?

Even if I hadn’t physically changed in the last year, I feel I have emotionally grown from that question. Sure, there were plenty of “friends” who left after the last term ended and cut off all contact, but there were others who stayed this year despite distance and spotty communication. I realized that those who remained were my friends in the truest sense. I doubted my self-worth when others left, thinking of myself as a convenience to them, but when I am reminded of those people who stayed and returned to my side, I no longer worried about those sorts of friendships; those who saw me as a convenience would leave no matter what I did, and I’m glad I know where I stand in their life sooner rather than later.

All these definitions and constraints make friendship seem like an insurmountable task, and while it is difficult to maintain the right kind of bonds, friendship is not as complicated as I first made it out to be. Friendship is a necessity of life and civilization after all which means everyone has the capacity to form it with others, and the less I worried about what friendship entailed and how people saw me, the happier and more accepting I became of others.

[kirakiraposts]

Belated Halloween at Crocker

As of today, all the topics have been introduced to the students. About seven students appeared at this practice session, and at the promise of candy for their performances, they worked harder than usual for the most part. The candy enticed most of them, but some students refused to put in the effort in spite of the reward.

Nevertheless, the debaters did well during the mock debate on one of the topics. Three speakers stunned me with their performances as I judged the debate, and they happened to be some of the older students. They were well-spoken and eager to discuss the topics though they veered from it at times. Some of the other students, however, were not as enthused to be reading the notes or debate. One girl in particular refused to speak during the mock debate despite taking good notes during research.

Despite the challenges and difficulties so far, there seems to be potential for some of the students, but for others, they need to realize they need to improve in order to form coherent arguments and win debates.

[kirakiraposts]

What is Love?

I’m sure we’ve all thought about this question at some point in our lives, and love is one of the central themes in this excerpt of Phaedrus. Socrates minds his business, strolling around town, until he stumbles into his friend, Phaedrus. With his friend in high spirits, Socrates asks Phaedrus why he’s so happy to which Phaedrus replies he had heard a speech about love. The orator convinces listeners that love from a non-lover would be best contrary to popular belief.

This is because “a man in love will wish he had not done you any favors once his desire dies down” since “a love keeps his eye on the balance sheet” (231b). A non-lover, on the other hand, does favors voluntarily, not out of obligation. Lovers are not rational as opposed to non-lovers whose lack of attachment means that they can see things in a more objective light. Lovers “generally start to desire your body before they know your character or have any experience of your other traits” and will not show their true character in order to win someone over while non-lovers will be more straightforward and bring out the best in their love interest (232e).

This intrigues Socrates, and he launches into a speech about that sort of love at Phaedrus’s behest. The beginning of the speech is chaotic and not clearly structured much like the madness he associates with lovers. Even Phaedrus remarks that “this is certainly an unusual flow of words for you” (238d). Socrates presses on, addressing the faults of lovers. Wrapped up in the feeling, lovers will want to monopolize their loves’ lives and may keep them away from the world in order to do so. In fact, a lover “would be happy to see the boy deprived of them” (239e). Socrates ends his first speech on this note: this type of love is “like food, its purpose to sate hunger” (241d).

While reading through this part, I felt a sense of sadness, and a wave of emptiness overcame me. Is this what love truly is? Should I really trust it? I started to evaluate all the relationships I had in my life and wondered if they were as tenuous and shallow as described in Phaedrus. Is love most powerful when I devoted my attention to the person who didn’t feel strongly about me?

No, it isn’t. While platonic relationships play important parts of my life, they in no way eclipse the bonds between the people who care the most about me. Yes, love doesn’t make sense most of the time, and it can drive people to madness. But love also encourages people to be the best versions of themselves and work towards the future. Love is an important part of humanity, and to downplay its importance when platonic relationships are readily available is short-sighted.

People get hurt when diving into love; I understand that, but in order to entrust someone with your thoughts, feelings, and essence, you must be willing to be vulnerable and put yourself out there. Only then will something beautiful be created.

[kirakiraposts]

Preparation for the Next Tournament

Since the three topics have been given, my partner and I started focusing on one of the topics this week at Crocker. About nine to ten students showed up to practice—a few more than in the last session. The students were chatty and rambunctious as most children at that age are, but things quieted down a bit when we split them into two groups. Many of them had good points to make for each side before we delved into the evidence collected.

However, it becomes apparent to me that some of them will just take a point or two and try to build their arguments using only those points. While they are eager to talk, they do not refute their opponents’ arguments well because they fail to take notes. These are areas I wish to focus on in the future: note-taking and arguments. Note-taking is key to flowing the debate and refutations, and students must realize they have to have more than two points and sufficient evidence in order to build a compelling argument.

But for a larger group at Crocker and some of the students’ speaking abilities, the mock debate at the end of practice ran smoothly for the most part, and the potential for a good team is still there.

[kirakiraposts]

Defining Courage with a Coward

We continue this week with the end of Laches and snippets from Book Three of Nicomachean Ethics. As disparate as they appear at first glance, these excerpts relate through courage. What is courage? Both texts tried to answer. According to Nicias in Laches, “courage is knowledge of the grounds of fear and hope” (Plato 196a). “This knowledge is something possessed by very few,” and those who don’t “won’t be courageous without acquiring this particular knowledge,” Socrates continued Nicias’s line of reasoning (Plato 196a).

Being courageous seems to transcend time as Socrates noted since courage and courageous actions have never changed “whether future, present, or past” (Plato 199a). Even when the three in Laches appeared to have a set definition for courage, Socrates brought up the circularity of their argument when they tried to define courage using parts of courage itself. In the end, everyone agreed that they had yet to discover courage.

Aristotle, on the other hand, had a more concrete definition for courage, calling it “moderation or observance of the mean with respect to feelings of fear and confidence” (Aristotle 1115a). This resembles Nicias’s definition of courage, but instead of stopping there, Aristotle continued with this. While being too timid or reserved made one cowardly, Aristotle recognized that rashness was not courage; people should fear some things that are considered dishonorable like disgrace.

Death, however, should not be feared, and in fact, the most courageous people were the ones who faced danger and death honorably. According to Aristotle’s and Nicias’s definitions of courage, select few politicians, soldiers, and war heroes would be the courageous ones that walk among us.

I’m not entirely sure I agree with this view; there is no doubt that soldiers are courageous, willing to die for their countries and causes, but this definition seems too narrow in its scope. Now, I’ve never been a courageous person, but from what I’ve seen and experienced so far in my life, courage exists in different forms. There is the courage to stand up to someone who has oppressed you for so long; there is the courage to admit that you are wrong and must change your actions or perspective; there is the courage to defend someone wrongly accused even when you are a mere onlooker.  

Nevertheless, courage will be something that eludes me even when it is clearly defined, but perhaps, it is not as clear as I once thought it was. Socrates left the discussion on this point, and I believe this encapsulates what courage—and by extension, virtue—is best: “What I don’t advise is that we remain as we are” (Plato 201b). It appears that this is one commonality linking virtue and courage: they are both traits people foster in order to improve themselves.  

[kirakiraposts]

Back to Basics

Several students showed up to practice this following Thursday. Since this was a rebuilding year for Crocker, I thought it best to return to the fundamentals especially since I was expecting new arrivals. Three new students appeared, and two of them, Dayla and Matthew, showed incredible potential as we worked through the structures of ARE, refutation, and debates in general. They were both well-spoken and delivered their points eloquently. Returning members demonstrated their mastery over the debate format and assisted the coaches in teaching the basics of debate.

Having faculty members as sponsors helped the budding team, and I feel their presence in the room helped the students stay focused on the task. The teachers also spoke about recruiting more members to the team which excited me. The road ahead may be long and arduous, but with the promise I saw today, I would be more than happy to help these fledgling debaters along the way.

[kirakiraposts]

What Should be Taught?

From the last post, Socrates and Meno concluded that virtue cannot be taught since it was not knowledge. This topic, however, is revisited near the end of this excerpt when Socrates discussed what should be taught to young boys with Laches, Lysimachus, and Nicias in Plato’s Laches.

Together, they tried to answer this question: what kinds of subjects should be taught to young men in order for them to develop into fully functional human beings? Lysimachus suggested that it would “be a fine thing for a young man to learn fighting in a war” (179e). Nicias seemed to agree with this idea, stating that it would be wise for boys to “improve their bodies” rather than pursue interests they usually do in their leisure time.

Socrates disagreed with this viewpoint and shared what he thought was best for students to learn; he recommended “a man to me as music teacher for [people’s sons]…not only in music but in all other pursuits in which you would think it worthwhile for boys of his age to spend their time” (180d). If this is the case, then “it seems a good idea to learn everything,” so what makes one subject take precedent over another (182e)?

Near the end of this article, Socrates mentioned virtue yet again: “Aren’t these two asking our advice as to the manner in which virtue might be added to the souls of their sons to make them better?” (190b) He connected this to learning by way of improvement; teaching seeks to improve the youth, so it follows that the best way to do so would be to learn how to be virtuous, a characteristic that creates the best version of the self. He then went on to walk the others through one of the virtues, courage.

But wait, didn’t Socrates himself say that virtue was not a knowledge and therefore, was not teachable? Hopefully, he will not contradict himself in the rest of Laches, and I look forward to how he addresses this issue. But so far, he has offered no concrete answers as to what should be taught or what virtue is.

[kirakiraposts]

First Day at Crocker

Several students showed up to the second practice at Crocker this week. While some were willing to learn the topics and details behind them, some weren’t, and that showed in their responses. I feel that this is a common problem I face wherever I am: trying to engage students in difficult topics without losing them to boredom. Many of them idled while we gave them the research notes and asked them to read them and form arguments from them.

Nevertheless, the six in the room gave their best effort and were engaged when clashing with each other for the most part. One girl in particular seemed to know the basics of debate and gave cogent points and refutations when prompted. While not the most disciplined group, they show the potential and willingness to debate. There is much to improve upon and discuss, but rhetorical skills take time to develop.

[kirakiraposts]

Day One as an Assistant Coach

For the first time this semester, I received the opportunity to coach albeit at another school. It was a small group that entered the classroom when the time came, and it became even smaller as the three coaches separated them into two groups.

The students were eager to give their opinions at the beginning of the session when everyone was together for the most part, but in the group I led with another coach, these five students became more reserved. Many of them fiddled with their laptops, scrambling to take down notes, but I felt that this took away from their comprehension; when asked to reiterate the points and evidence we read as a group, the debaters gave shallow replies and appeared they did not retain the information.

This is something I will have to keep in mind when I begin coaching at my assigned school, and going forward, I will remember the mistakes made and remedy them.

[kirakiraposts]

Coming to Terms with Mortality

Seneca’s essay, “On the Shortness of Life,” seems far removed from the theories Aristotle, Quintilian, and Plato posed in their works; however, they establish one common theme that ties them together: they try to instruct readers on how they should lead their lives. While Quintilian, Aristotle, and Plato explored virtue constructively and how that shaped one’s life, Seneca focused on the individual’s actions and their effects.

“We are not given a short life but we make it short, and we are not ill-supplied but wasteful of it,” claimed Seneca (2). Throughout the article, he spent much of it criticizing how others lived, disparaging those preoccupied by unnecessary goals and the idle, decadent lifestyle some people lead: “But among the worst offenders I count those who spend all their time in drinking and lust, for these are the worst preoccupation of all” (9).

In a sense, there is truth to his assumptions. Ambitious people who have accomplished their career goals can become unhappy with their lives despite their economic stability, and others who constantly indulge may feel as though their lives are empty. I, for one, have been guilty of being preoccupied about my future, planning my coursework and worrying about applying to medical schools, and felt the impact of that on my life; I truly did feel that my “time of actual enjoyment [was] short and swift, and made much shorter through [my] own fault” (26).

However, as I grew comfortable in my own skin and came to terms with my limitations as an individual, those goals I set for myself seemed much more attainable, and I stopped worrying about them to the extent that I had. I think that this is my biggest takeaway from Seneca—this idea of moderation: “But the man who spends all his time on his own needs, who organizes every day as though it were his last, neither longs for nor fears the next day” (11).

Aristotle, too, brought up this idea of moderation in his discussion of virtue and how that related to happiness, and I am more inclined to accept his definition of life’s meaning over Seneca’s. While Seneca raised fair points against those who idle their lives away, I do not agree that the meaning of life revolves around pontificating and waxing philosophy as he stated that “of all people only those are at leisure who make time for philosophy, only those are really alive” (23).

Sure, it is important for people to think about their actions and consider whether those actions will fulfill their needs not only physically but also mentally and emotionally. One should not be required to study philosophy, however, to be considered a good, moral, or functional human being if he is unsatisfied with the subject.

There is a lot to take from Seneca, but I don’t think everything should be taken literally. If it was, we would all be living an idle life of contemplation, constantly reflecting on the world without the will to change it into what we want it to be.

[kirakiraposts]

Is Rhetoric a Virtue?

One prominent writer discussed in class comes to mind when this question is posed: Quintilian. He addressed this issue in the second book of Institutio Oratoria, and he dedicated one chapter—the twentieth—to this question. According to Quintilian, “the rhetoric which [he is] trying to establish…will be a virtue” (Quintilian 403). He reasoned that virtue emerges from the most excellent part of humanity which is reason in this case and in our ability to reason and form arguments, comes virtue. If virtue does come from logic and rhetoric as Quintilian stated, then it follows that virtue can be taught.

Socrates, on the other hand, would beg to differ. In Plato’s Dialogues and in Meno specifically, Socrates and Meno tasked themselves to define virtue and determine if it could be taught. While virtue was not defined as clearly as expected as explored through the last posts on Meno, both men make their second point with clarity: virtue cannot be taught. They arrived at this conclusion by analyzing the nature of education.

In order for someone to be educated, there must be some kind of knowledge to be gained and an educator to impart that knowledge. It follows then that in order for virtue to be taught, it must be considered knowledge, and there must be teachers of virtue. Socrates and Meno discovered, however, that “neither the sophists nor the worthy people themselves are teachers of this subject,” and if “there seem to be no teachers of virtue anywhere…then virtue cannot be taught” (Plato 894). Virtue cannot be considered knowledge because there are no teachers of virtue. Virtue, therefore, cannot be taught due to these constraints; it is not knowledge, and it does not have teachers able to pass it on.

By the end of Meno, Socrates defined virtue as “neither an inborn quality nor taught but comes to those who possess it as a gift from the gods which is not accompanied by understanding” (Plato 897). This suggests that rhetoric is not a virtue since it is a knowledge that can be passed on by rhetors.

However, it is important to note that both Quintilian and Socrates seem to agree that virtue arises through natural means; virtue is innate to humans. That gives us a certainty about virtue. Whether virtue can be taught or not remains contentious, but I am inclined to believe it can be taught along with Quintilian. Even if virtue is a natural part of humanity, it is not a guarantee that virtue will develop without practice. So yes, I consider virtue a continuous action, something to be practiced, and in the same vein, rhetoric should be considered a virtue.

[kirakiraposts]

What is Virtue?

Aristotle attempted to answer this question in his book, Nicomachean Ethics, and as discussed in class before, he believed virtue to be divided into two: intellectual and moral. To develop a sense of virtue, one must perform virtuous actions and continually perform them. But wait, what are virtuous acts, and how does lead to virtue? What exactly is virtue?

Members of the class pointed out Aristotle’s circular thought process when analyzing the second book of Nicomachean Ethics, and they did it with good reason; Aristotle did not clearly define virtue. Meno, a character speaking to Socrates in Plato’s Dialogues, employed the same logic in regard to virtue.

When defining virtue to Socrates, Meno stated that “there is a virtue for every action and every age, for every task of ours and every one of us” (Plato 72). Meno went on to describe the different actions contributing to virtue (managing the house for women, maintaining the state of public affairs for men). This resembles Aristotle’s assertion that virtue arises through action and practice rather than theory and the idea of means; people can only be virtuous by striving for the mean of two extremes, and the mean varies depending on the person. Meno spoke about the differences in virtue by age and gender as illustrated in this section.

By the end of this section, Meno claimed that virtue was “the power of securing good things” through virtuous means (Plato 78c). Again, what does it mean to perform virtuous actions when virtue was defined as relative to each person?

Socrates served as the voice of reason when discussing virtue with Meno, and it showed from the beginning of Meno when he was asked about virtue. He said that he was “so far from knowing whether virtue can be taught or not that I do not even have any knowledge of what virtue itself is” (Plato 71). Throughout Meno, Socrates broke down Meno’s definition of virtue using his preferred method of entrapment by questioning. For example, he challenged Meno’s claim that virtue was human desire for beautiful things and the power to acquire them by asking him if people could still desire bad things (Plato 77c).

Socrates also pointed out Meno’s—and by extension, Aristotle’s—circular thinking at the end of the section as he forced Meno to state that the acquisition of wealth and material goods must be done justly or virtuously in order to develop virtue. This uses vague terms such as “justly” and “virtuously” to define an already difficult subject. As Socrates put it, they “say that every action is virtue if it is performed with a part of virtue” (Plato 79c). This leads us no closer to virtue than we first started, and I think Socrates knew that which was why he was hesitant on giving a definition for virtue.

Even now, I don’t think I’ve developed a good grasp on virtue, but I’m content with that. Others like Aristotle, Meno, and other classmates like 5ydn3 before me may want to define virtue using their own knowledge and experiences, but I feel I’m not yet qualified to do just that. Perhaps, in time with enough experiences, I will create a satisfactory interpretation of virtue on my own, and I think that’s the most important idea to take away from this. Everyone has his own way of viewing the world, so it is up to the individual to build a strong enough argument for him to believe in it.

[kirakiraposts]

The Power of Written Word

Now that Quintilian determined that rhetoric is the science of speaking well, how can orators master rhetoric, and what must educators do to lead fledgling orators down the right path? It is a difficult question to answer even to Quintilian himself who stated in the beginning of Book Eight, “throughout the whole field of rhetoric it is more difficult to decide what to teach than to teach it once you have decided” (Quintilian 311). Even so, one of the most important aspects of oratory—and by extension, debate—is the use of words.

Rhetoric is not only a science but also an art, and it is important to keep that in mind. In most arts, there is a style in which an artist creates, and the same idea can be applied to an orator. Orators and debaters must have an arsenal of words to explain an idea, but at the same time, those words must be chosen carefully to best express an idea. Imagine lecturing a layman on a particular, complex topic. He would not be able to understand nor sympathize with your points if your speech was cluttered with jargon and buzzwords.

In a sense, oratory is not just a clash of two ideas; it is an appeal of both ideas, and the judge must decide whose appeal was stronger—content-wise and delivery-wise. “The best words are the least farfetched and resemble those simple words that spring from reality,” but even so, it is best to build on vocabulary in order to express an idea in greater depth (Quintilian 319).

Quintilian stressed the importance of building this vocabulary in Book Ten of Institutio Oratoria where he went on to explain how to expand one’s lexicon. While he stated that reading, speaking, and writing all contributed to constructing one’s vocabulary, he believed reading to be one of the strongest influences on vocabulary. Various subjects such as poetry, philosophy, and history were discussed in this section of the book and how they nurtured particular rhetorical skills; for example, philosophy provided “excellent preparation for cross-examination and debate” (Quintilian 271).

But as benozur expressed in his post, it is not enough to learn words; students must learn to use their given words to construct an effective argument, to reconcile seemingly disparate ideas in a speech. With all of this, it became apparent to me that it would be prudent of me to include many readings in the curriculum for debate. Not only would they expand students’ vocabulary, the readings would teach them to view issues from multiple angles—an idea Quintilian repeated throughout his writings.This would encourage students to “avoid the common mistake of condemning what [they] do not understand” (Quintilian 265).

I think this is one of the main ideas I want students to take away from debate: the world is not black and white, and it is up to them to take given information, internalize it, and decide which perspective aligns with their ideals while also understanding the other views the subject covers.

[kirakiraposts]

Nature Vs Nurture: Its Role in Pedagogy

One of the biggest questions in psychology revolves around the idea of nature and nurture: are certain traits innate to humans, or are they conditioned through outside influences such as the environment and our interactions with other people? Teaching seems to side with nurturing as a more knowledgeable mentor instills new ideas into his students rather than the students innately knowing everything.

Quintilian touched upon this idea in the second half of Book Two of Institutio Oratoria and would be inclined to agree that oratory techniques and rhetoric are transferred through nurturing those skills. He did, however, concede that some “are regarded as having exceptional natural gifts” when it comes to being an orator (Quintilian 333). Even so, those with natural talent tend to disregard formal rules and formats which turns their words into nothing but empty, heated phrases and passionate gesticulations.

In other words, the fragmented speeches spoken by talented speakers with no formal training become nothing more than “a boy’s notebook in which he records admired passages in other people’s declamations” (Quintilian 335). Rhetoric, as Quintilian defined it, is “the science of speaking well,” and while 5ydn3 argues that rhetoric is more an art than a science, I took this away from that definition: without the fundamentals, there is no rational method in oratory at all or any way to judge whether an argument was presented and defended effectively (Quintilian 367).

Quintilian then concluded that rhetoric must be nurtured in students learning to be orators no matter the skill level present prior to schooling though he acknowledged that some people have a more innate sense of speaking and will need less help. In a way, he qualified both nature and nurture, and I believe this line from this book expresses this idea best: “nature is the raw material of teaching” (Quintilian 400).

Everyone has the capacity to learn to communicate ideas with others effectively, and while some might have a better grasp on it initially, the right skills and habits must be developed in order to capitalize on our ability to speak. In a sense, this levels out the playing field, and I think we should keep this thought in mind at our first debate practice: it’s alright not to be good at debating just yet, and even if you think you are, you can always be better than before.