Week VI
A Political Thriller
Thursday 02/16
11:10am–12:30pm
We talked about good students and bad students. I think as students we have good weeks and bad weeks, at least for me it is. I mentioned last week that I will try harder to do better in the quizzes, I feel confident this week. Dr. Sandridge’s discussion continued from last Tuesday about Alexander the Great and why he had his portrait modeled only by Lysippos.
The reason being that he was able to portray the distinctive features of Alexander, which many leaders following Alexander tried to achieve. Which is how he created a tradition of self preservation. In his portraits we see Alexander’s ambition to dominate the world. Before, most portraits and statues were dedication to the gods and celebration of victories. Maintenance of empire were hinged on a divine figure in order to comprehend the massiveness of the empire.
Symbols on portraits often were: Apotropaic — to ward evil away.
Arete, Areté or Areté may refer to: Arete (moral virtue) (Greek: Ἀρετή) is a term meaning “virtue” or “excellence”.
We talked about Donald Trump’s twitter account, and his profile picture. I have an Instagram and a Facebook account that is barely used. I am the typical foodie that posts pictures of food, and places I travel to but I hardly post anything regarding current events. At least not anymore. I was honestly surprised at the things he posts on his personal twitter. I can’t imagine how people are not completely outraged by how he represents America. Anyhow, we pointed out some characteristics we noticed about the picture:
- His expression, furrowed brow and pursed lips that was meant to look serious.
- Slightly darker hair than usual.
- An up close crop of the photo that only shows his face.
Which we then compared to former president Barack Obama, who was always seen smiling.
We ended on how we envision our portraits as a leader. Many envisioned themselves in suits one classmate even had a throne. I read about an former president Jose Mujica of Uruguay not long ago, he was the poorest president to exist. Ninety percent of his income goes to charity, he has no secret service and travels everywhere with his only wealth: a 1987 VW Beetle.
I admired him, I don’t know much about how he leads his country but I think that’s a good start. How he represents himself as a leader without greed or need of materialistic possessions.
I think as a leader, my ideal portrait would most likely be me in a dress suit, no accessories. But my posture would be a wonder woman stance. I would want to be photographed in the exact same angle as well. Except instead of the glassy eye it would be a straight face, without any expressions.
Pretty much just like this, except a dress suit. That would be interesting.
Monday 02/20
10:00am — 04:00pm
My week usually ends on Thursday, I start laundry on Friday a chore that takes the entire day. I hangout and relax on Saturday then study on Sunday. By then I am already dreading the week. So this week I had a five day weekend to which I am happy for. An extra day off here and there is always a good thing. I really think weekends should be three days. Anyway, today is President’s day.
I was satisfied with how my quiz results turned out, I put more effort into it last week and it showed. I just need to keep working on it and it will get easier. Or so I hope.
In the sixth module of the semester, Political Thriller. It starts the discussion of the role of rhetorical leadership in plotting and putting down a conspiracy.
Catilinarian Conspiracy — Was a plot to overthrow the Roman Republic, lead by Lucius Sergius Catalina (Cataline):
Lucius Sergius Catalina:
- Born into noble patrician family but does not have the wealth.
- Complicated reputation- political invective against him.
- Supported dictator Sulla — He carried out Sulla’s prescriptions (legal murders used to make money)
- Lived a botched and scandalous lifestyle.
- Elected to be Praetor in 68 BC (Praetor: Roman magistrate, ranking below consul)
- Served as controversial governor of Africa in 66 BC — where he was tried for maladministration upon his return to Rome. Once acquitted, he ran for consulship.
- Ran for position of Roman Consul (the highest elected political position)
- He tried to take power illegitimately with the help of some aristocrats and disaffected veterans to overthrow the Roman Republic.
— His main goal was to topple the reigning upper class.
The Consul election of 64:
- Competition between: Catiline, Antonius Hybrida and Cicero
- Cataline a patrician with strong and attractive personality and was supported by the popular party. yet with powerful friends among the optimates.
- Cicero offered to form a coito > electoral alliance
In 63 BCE, the was exposed by Marcus Tullius Cicero. When Cicero found out about the conspiracy -delivered to him by Fulvia, the lover of Quintus Curius who was in attendance of the secret meeting. Fulvia went to Cicero in exchange for wealth.
First oration, Cicero is updating Roman senate on his knowledge of the conspiracy and that Catiline has fled the city, but Catiline shows up as a surprise. Cicero then must adapt his speech to this new circumstance on the fly because Catiline and his co-conspirators were present in the Senate and heard the speech.
Shame on the age and on its principles! The senate is aware of these things; the consul sees them; and yet this man lives. Lives! aye, he comes even into the senate. He takes a part in the public deliberations; he is watching and marking down and checking off for slaughter every individual among us. And we, gallant men that we are, think that we are doing our duty to the republic if we keep out of the way of his frenzied attacks.-Cicero’s First Catilinarian Oration
November 9th, Cicero gave the second Catilinarian to the people of Rome. He explained how important it was that Catiline had left Rome, and assured them that everything was safe and under control. Cicero also made sure to emphasis that he was on the people’s side, not Catiline.
The Allobroges, along with letters written by Lentulus about the plans of the conspiracy, made their way to rebel camp but were ambushed at the Mulvian bridge by Cicero’s forces. They seized the letters and valuable information thanks to the betrayal of the Allobroges. The letters contained the names of the “big five” conspirators that remained in Rome: Lentulus, Cethegus, Statilius, Gabinius, and Caeparius. In the form of an inquisition, these five were brought into the Temple of Concord. They were found guilty, and Cicero delivered his third Catilinarian to the masses. Cicero gave the fourth Catilinarian followed by a speech by Cato that gave the Senate the courage to do what it needed to do. They were fully persuaded. The conspirators were executed.
Tuesday 02/21
11:10am-12:30pm
I struggle to find the balance between not writing notes in class and just listening then write out what I understood at the end of class. I think it’s far more easier to get distracted just listening to the professor. It’s a learning process. I got a lot of notes from this class though, I think it helped me with understanding my reading.
Trump’s pick for his National Security Advisor: it was interesting because I read that his first pick backed away questioning how much autonomy he would have. Regardless, Trump still claims that his administration is functioning smoothly, like a fine-tuned machine. I guess I have a different view of what smooth is.
Our topic of the day is Rhetoric, the Art of Persuasion. Persuading people, putting people in a certain mental state. There are two components: Linguistic component and Artistic component. Dr. Sandridge said that the greatest orator: Demosthenes used to talk with pebbles in his mouth and recited verses while running and rehearsed his speeches to the seashore until he became the greatest orator.
Demosthenes moved the Athenians to resist expansion, as an orator he warned against Philip when the Macedonian king and father of Alexander the Great was beginning his conquest of Greece. Demosthenes’ orations against Philip were known as the Philippics, they were so bitter that today a severe speech denouncing someone is called a Philippic. Cicero was also known to have delivered one to Marc Antony referring to him as Rome’s Helen of Troy. I remember watching it sometime ago, it was quite interesting to have heard it in class. Plenty of historic shows I’ve seen many years ago are making appearances in the modules we’re reading.
Aristotle was one of the greatest Rhetoric students, he stated that the art of persuasion is about character. Charismatic appeal helps convince people. Public Speaking was ideally more common for men. Women in ancient times do not speak in public. I remember taking a course in Public Speaking, where the professor always said the basics of public speaking as Aristotle stated was to tell them(the audience or my classmates in this case) what you will tell them, tell them, and tell them again. I was never really good at it, I always get nervous and start shaking. Although, I got better at it. The amount of presentations I’ve had to do pretty much helped me gain some confidence in public speaking.
Aristotle also said that Public Speaking takes courage. In assemblies where men gather for intellectual conversation. They win their glory by delivering a speech. Essentially, gatherings are a way for men to gain masculinity. Masculinity in ancient Rome is an important aspect, the act of courage itself is considered a man’s trait. Dr. Sandridge broke down the meaning of ‘courage’ in class which I found fascinating. The ancient Greek word for courage:Heart(french) is Andreia which literally meant manliness. A man who had courage was considered manly.
There are many ways men can lose their manhood:
- Losing a job: with men being considered bread winners, losing their job means not being able to provide.
- Manhood is also constructed as standing up in a fight. In class, we talked about how fathers would rather their children won a fight than get beat up in a fight.
It is also maintaining a public reputation as a fighter, defender and a provider. We discussed how womanhood is not as fragile constructed as manhood, I think it is true but it is also not really a good thing. Hence we use a lot of insults like “you throw like a girl” as to mean that women are weak. Or the term “man up” to tell somebody to be strong. Womanhood is attached with a negative notion. So what does it really do to a woman’s ego when she is told that she is such a girl. Nothing.
There are 3 types of Oratory:
- Forensic Rhetoric (Used in court): To determine if one is guilty or innocent
- Epideictic Rhetoric (Used to praise or blame): To determine if someone is good or bad. Eulogy- To talk about how of a good character a person was/Invective- to talk negatively about a person.
- Deliberative Rhetoric (Used to decide): What should be done/ What should not be done.
We discussed the previous modules, and how the leaders used various forms of rhetoric:
- You Can Go Your Own Way: Agamemnon and Achilles
Uses epideictic rhetoric/deliberative rhetoric: by asserting dominance, deliberate setting to decide if Agamemnon deserves compensation. Whoever wins the deliberation becomes more dominant.
Nester uses Deliberative rhetoric, as a mediator he praises both Agamemnon and Achilles and asks if they should or should not reconcile.
- I Know What Boys Like: Antony, Octavian
Uses epideictic rhetoric/ deliberative rhetoric. Antony’s eulogy for Julius Caesar was used as an assembly to deliberate who to side with. The speech defines who Antony is to Caesar, how he would carry on Caesar’s legacy and letting the people know that he is ready to be the next Caesar.
- Socrates’ Last Stand
Uses Forensic rhetoric/epideictic rhetoric/deliberate rhetoric. By asking the question if Socrates is indeed guilty or not guilty. Most of his argument is based on probability, he is a good person therefore he couldn’t have done such things. There was also a question that arose to the people about the kind of society they would want to belong to, if they want to continue sleeping and unaware of their life.
Socrates does not appeal to the people’s pathos, he is not pointing out that he should not be prosecuted because his family would be sad or that it is wrong. He delivers the truth that he should not be prosecuted because he did not do anything wrong. He failed to exhibit emotional intelligence.
During the last portion of class, Dr. Sandridge explores the question: “Do we want to live in the world of Madison Avenue and Politicians who keep us ignorant?”
A world where teachers, the most important people in our society are not being paid enough. technology is the answer or where we find guidance. He talked about tyrannical dispositions. How we tend to surround ourselves with likeminded people, therefore dumbing down our intellectual activity. and lastly how social media connects us but also disconnects us. It worried me, because this is the world we live in now. I’ve heard people say that they’ve deleted friends on Facebook because of difference on political or social opinion. therefore the only stories that they hear or know about is ones the agree to.
It is a scary reality what the world is coming to.