Erasmus was a satirist, and perhaps the most interesting of the rhetors we have studied so far. I also agreed with his line of thinking: possibility rather than certainty, exploration and argumentation rather than judgment, and though his works were satirical, he did not tell others what to think, he merely gave them an opportunity to liberate themselves from ignorance.
Ramus, on the other hand, seems to take the opposite tact. He believes that there are certainties, there is Truth. Yet the methods of finding this Truth seem to assume a lot of things. In my experience, topics that are immune to argument are either irrational or they conform to alleged Truth, and not necessarily because it is actual Truth, but because it has been engineered to be irrefutable, through circular logic and the like. I much prefer Erasmus's take on argumentation: the world is fundamentally unknowable, and "only probabilities are by and large accessible to anyone" (126).
Over the last few weeks we have been arguing a great deal about the idea of true eloquence and the ideal orator as a good man. Erasmus, like Quintillion, favored the idea of "eloquent persons of character" (120), and I think that Erasmus was lucky enough to find exactly the sort of man to fulfill Quintillion's prophesy (despite all of our accusations of extraordinary naivete). Thomas More was a good speaker, a good advisor and a very good man. He was also good humored, and did not seem to take himself too seriously. Though history is (supposedly) full of good men, I would think it difficult to find a man as good as More was. It is, however, interesting (and very sad) that More found his neck on the same block as people of half his worth.
This, perhaps, is a very tragic example of what happens to good men. It also might explain why so many others in that time period were publishing for wealth and fame. It was probably safer.
I'm not certain it is only the good who find themselves on that "block" - Rasmus, himself, came to a bad end, after all.
ReplyDeleteWhat I have decided is that in each age we find ourselves dealing with the same political and philosophical questions, again and again...
and there are only so many possible solutions, so we keep coming back to the argument between those who feel rhetoric is high art and those who see it as just a tool to be used pragmatically.
In times of extreme "evil," we look for good; when that doesn't work (generations later), we call "good" weak and search for something else.
The uncertainty of life will continue to lead us around the same circles until we run out of time or until we become wiser as a species.
I disagree with your position on Erasmus. I don't like his style of argumenting. To me his realm of possibilities is taking the easy way out. He kind of has an argument, but he can see both sides. Well where is the fun in that. By taking an definate view point of a debate you can give expamples why you support that position. It's not pushing others to see things the way you do it is fighing for what you believe in, it is being passionate about a topic. I think he needed to use his extraordinary skills to tell us why free will is plausible... or isn't.
ReplyDeleteLinda Daly
ReplyDeletei like both ways of looking at discourse. The approaches lead to different results, thoughtful discussion or an impassioned disagreement. Is either fun? Which leads to power? Does it perhaps lead to war. Which leads to consensus?
Looking at both sides of an argument allows us to have empathy for the other.
While Hobbes viewed rhetoric as "a kind of coercion that cannot but lead to strife and political instability"(166), Descartes' position was more pragmatic in approaching thoughful discussion. One of his rules was to "reduce all problems to their simplest components" (171). This may be the most effective way of looking at both sides of an argument. At least, there may be hope for finding common ground in any discussion.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your position on Eramus. Possibility rather than forcing people into belief by only giving them one option seems to be a better method for allowing thought to evolve. It's too easy for someone to beleive what is said to them outright. If they formulate their own opinons and think on them, new ideas will pop up and progression will continue. Where would we be if everyone agreed instead of thinking for themselves?
ReplyDelete