Trevor
Greenan
Rhetoric
103A
26
November 2016
Figurative Reading: Gorgias, Encomium of
Helen
In absolving Helen from
responsibility for the events of the Trojan War in the Encomium of Helen,
Gorgias lays out four potential causes of her leaving for Alexander, the third
of which is persuasive discourse. To justify Helen’s innocence in the case or her
persuasion, he relies on an analogy between discourse and a pharmacopoeia.
Before discussing the implications of
discourse as pharmacopoeia, Gorgias first criticizes the objective
interpretation of memory and discourse, arguing that memory is inherently
imperfect and incomplete, and that as a result, “Those who have persuaded and
do persuade anyone about anything are shapers of lying discourse” (par. 11).
This serves to establish knowledge as incomplete, creating room for Helen to
have been convinced by this persuasive discourse without even being made aware
of the implications of her actions, potentially absolving her of any explicit
wrongdoing. This conception of memory and knowledge is furthered by the
metaphor of opinion as an advisor to the soul. As Gorgias states, “…most people
on most subjects furnish themselves with opinion as advisor to the soul. But
opinion, being slippery and unsteady, surrounds those who rely on it with slippery
and unsteady successes” (par. 11). This
metaphor imagines people’s decision-making processes not as the result of some
objective consideration of the information before them, but rather as mobilized
by a subjective understanding of the world that is inherently flexible and
fluid.
The implications of this understanding of
opinion as an advisor are further developed in Gorgias’ examples of how
discourse can shape the soul, particularly for the first and third examples.
The first describes how the discourses of astronomers “setting aside one
opinion and building up another in its stead make incredible and obscure things
apparent to the eyes of opinion” (par. 13). This exemplifies Gorgias’ notion
that opinion is an ever-shifting form of understanding the world, showing that
entire systems of viewing reality can be replaced by specific discourses. The
third example discusses competing arguments of philosophers and how their
discourse “renders changeable the credibility of an opinion” (par.13),
highlighting the fluidity within particular opinions and the extent to which
they fall short of being objective.
These conceptions of opinion lay the
groundwork for the discussion of the power of discourse, by laying out examples
of its influence and by weakening the understanding of knowledge and
decision-making as resulting from objective calculations. The comparison of
discourse to pharmacopoeia serves to cement this understanding by providing the
framework with which the viewer is to understand the mechanisms by which
discourse acts. Gorgias states: “For just as different drugs draw off different
humors from the body, and some put an end to disease and others to life, so too
of discourses: some give pain, others delight, others terrify, others rouse the
hearers to courage, and yet others by a certain vile persuasion drug and trick
the soul” (par. 14). This description, first of all, provides a clearer
illustration of discourse in action, describing it in more clearly
understandable terms that can be visualized in relation to a visual body. He
also posits the soul as comparable to the body, imagining a passive entity that
can be altered by particular external factors. This separates Helen’s action
from any particular will or inherent badness that might be attributed to her;
instead, she is portrayed as helpless and succumbing to the same kind of
persuasion that any individual would also face. In the same way that medicine
would have equivalent effects on most people, discourse is presented as a tool
to be wielded to create particular alterations in the soul.
1 comment:
I like the connection between the soul as a passive entity and how that separates Helen from her will.
Post a Comment