Weekly Update 6 -
First hour: Class: Thursday (2/16/17) 9:40–11:00
- Portraiture
2. Social Media → comparative to portraiture (selfies and things on instagram and facebook) that are sort of made to present the best version of yourself to the world.
Social media is wayyyyy to narcissistic for me for this reason. The fact that people rarely share photos of them in their real elements, or on their “off days” really disturbs me and is the reason I try to stay off of it.
B. Alexander the Great → This man was known as a charismatic leader and this is the why he was ushered into portraiture.
→ He was 18 when he assumed the kingdom of Macedonia and 32 when he died.
→ He had intended and fought hard to pay back Persia for the battle of Thermopolae.
→ The conquests bequeathed Greek culture to the first of the known world.
II. Mosaic of Alexander — This mosaic was described as having “leonine locks.” This mosaic portrayed his passion and charisma. The fact that he has no helmet on shows his vulnerability and his bravery. The image shown on his breast plate is that of a gorgon, which is any of the three snake-haired sisters in Greek mythology.
Terms: Apotropaic:
→ symbol to warding off evil. i.e, “the eyes” in Greek culture were said to be an example.
Arete:: greek word for excellence
C. The Royal Portrait -
→ This portrait is known for the “melting gaze,” and the posture of his neck.
Discussion: How are portraits usually set up? The family and the setting are the central focuses. The “leader” will often be depicted younger than he actually is because they dont want to face the reality of their selves. Alexander’s gaze seems to be saying that he is King of the world as Zeus blesses him.
What is the best version of yourself?
Personally, I would want to be portrayed as a modest woman of integrity. I wouldn’t wear makeup because I would want to reveal my true self as I would in real life. I would want it to be candid as well, but also me smiling to show my personality. My hair would be naturally b/c natural is what I prefer. Natural is authentically me and the way that God created me.
Hours 2–5: Monday (2/20/17) 2:40–5:40
A Political Thriller
Cicero was known as a Novus Homo, or a New Man because he had no ancestors that served in the Roman Senate. He had risen to his position of power through talent. In 64 BCE he ran for office of consul. His primary platform campaign relied on the idea of “social harmony.”
On the other hand, Catiline’s platform prospered from his usage of radical ideas. He made false promises to redistribute land and cancel debts. Cicero beat him, but Catiline was not content in his loss. He planned to overthrow Cicero.
The economic crisis of Rome happened in the year 63 BCE. Cicero and Catiline were at the center of the drama. Based on the links given from the modules. It seems that Cicero had more followers who were scholars and businessmen, while Catiline had the street cred. Where dissatisfied citizens and revolutionaries supported his cause. Catiline seemed to be most known for his role as a praetor, while Cicero was known for his oratory skills.
The whole conspiracy of Catiline made me think of just a crazy presidential scandal. I wonder if anyone (maybe Hillary?) is plotting the demise of Trump the same way that Catiline was plotting on Cicero?
Catiline’s platform reminded me a lot of Donald Trump’s because he used lies and a lot of fear-mongering to get the trust of the people and to attempt to gain allies. However, it worked in Trump’s favor, but not so much for Cateline.
I read somewhere as I was working on this module that Obama is often compared to Cicero, I’m assuming because of the way he won the hearts of people through his oratory skills. I find it interesting that Obama’s following seems to supercede Trump. I think this is truly a reflection of our humanity and shows that generally people prefer to follow personable leaders than those who thrive off of making people feel afraid and uncomfortable.
Class — (2/21/17) Tuesday: 9:40–11:00
Hours 5–6
Rhetoric is the art of persuasion and involves public speaking skills and being a great orator. Cicero used rhetoric to his advantage.
How has rhetoric played a role thus far in leadership and the art of persuasion? The first type we learned about was forensic rhetoric. This is what occurs in the courts when trying to prove guilt/innocence. The second type we learned about is epideictic rhetoric, which is rhetoric of praise or blame. This type of speech is delivered when someone dies (eulogies). The last type of rhetoric is deliberative, which is used to convince an audience to complete or not complete an action.
In the first module, Agamemnon, Achilles and Nestor are the main speakers. These speakers engage in epideictic rhetoric because Nestor is trying to resolve the quarrel between Achilles and Agamemnon. There’s a combination of deliberative and epideictic. Nestor wants the two to reconcile and the best way to do so in Nestor’s eyes is to praise the two men.
When Achilles makes his speech towards Agamemnon, I would say was it epideictic because he was sort of blaming him for being a bad leader, for leeching off of his followers and not knowing the consequences of his actions.
In the second module, we see Cleopatra, a woman, taking her stance in persuasion. Cicero gives a letter to a messenger which completely emasculates Mark Antony, where he calls him Helen of Troy.
When reading about Socrates in the third module, we explored forensic rhetoric trying to decide if he’s guilty of impiety or not. While arguing this, we use arguments from probability. You don’t necessarily have hard evidence, but you say “X is the kind of person who would have done something like this.” Trying to defame Socrates’ character brings in the element of epideictic rhetoric because his accusers did the same thing. Socrates acknowledges his shortcomings as a speaker because he refuses to play into people’s emotions. He also states he has no facility in public speaking whatsoever, so he only speaks the truth.
In the 4th module, One thing remains, there were many deliberate speeches made to encourage going to war or to shy away from battle. Leonidas is a good example of this. Interestingly, spartan laws are epideictic and deliberative in that the end goal is not to punish people so much as it is to persuade them into making decisions for the greater good and the betterment of themselves. Spartan women deliver these epideictic encouragement to show men what is honorable and what is not.
Andreia — (androgynous) courage — manliness. If you had male sex organs and you didn’t stand up for yourself in ancient times, you were not considered man.
The battle field or any field where public speaking would happen is where opportunities to win glory would take place.
Shame in the ancient world is one of the most common emotions used to persuade others.
Wednesday (2/22/17) 4:00-5:00
7th Hour
I find the video “A history of the argument” to be quite interesting. I never realized how such negative connotations could be applied to the term rhetoric. When I reflect on my own leadership I believe that my own rhetorical appeal naturally relies on pathos because I am such an emotional person. Are my arguments doomed to be flawed because I lack the ability to detach my personal emotions to the things I say? Is this even a flaw at all?
I truly struggle with fighting my logical self with my emotional self. I know it’s possible to apply logical, but if I’m not truly experiencing and believing the logic that I am talking about, how can I truly apply it? I’ll use my spirituality as an example. Spirituality is the core of my being and I believe it is what sets me apart from so many people. Being such a spiritual being comes with a lot of conflict when I’m surrounded by people who thrive off of logic and cold hard facts. I feel burdened at times when they try and discuss the nature of religion with me because I acknowledge that spirituality is not a logical thing. I’m left wondering if my lack of evidence takes away from my credibility as a leader, or does this simply mean that I am more right than left brained?
8th Hour-9th Hour
Wednesday (2/22/17) 6:30–8:30
Stoicism was the greek philosophical school that Cicero thrived from. It places great emphasis on virtue, duty, and living the life of a good man. Stoics believe in the order of nature, humanity, and brotherhood throughout the universe. What stands out to me about this theory is the emphasis of the interconnectedness of humanity! Why aren’t there more stoics in the world? I support this ideology especially in leadership because we are all children of God therefore we are all brothers and sisters!
Epicurious ideology, a physical account of the world, holds a conflicting belief, and was considered dangerous by Cicero. Epicurus was a greek philosopher born in Samos, Greece. He is the creator of the theory of epicureanism, which stems from a theory of atomism, which is the belief that everything is made up of tiny indivisible particles. Therefore when you die, nothing would happen to your soul because you never had one in the first place. This reminds me a lot of the rationale behind the philosophers I learned about in my Philosophy of Mind course last semester (which is the exact reason I withdrew from the course, LOL).
My experience in the class was pretty bad. In this course we spoke a lot about philosophers who sought to discredit Descartes of his discoveries regarding dualism. I really had a hard time in this class because I didn’t understand the purpose of all the hypothetical debating we did! I was so put off by the fact that dualism was no longer considered valid. My teacher was obviously was in favor of functionalism too. I don’t know if it was the consent or the way that my teacher tried to lead the class into supporting functionalism but my romanticized ideas of philosophy had almost completely gone out the window.
I appreciate this theory spoken by the narrator in the Law and Justice video, stating that epicurean political philosophy could be compared to that of sophist policy in that society was created to be conventional, structured towards maximum pleasure and agreements made by the people to live in that pleasure. I think this is just profound. I believe this is the reason that Trump’s unconventional ways are so frowned upon because he completely goes against the grain of society.
The narrator states that epicurean philosophy fosters this idea of detachment for this reason. While I don’t believe we are purely made up of atoms, I can agree that a certain level of detachment to the things of this world are indeed necessary for one’s own sanity.
→ The greek word, Hedone, means pleasure.
10th Hour:
Wednesday (2/22/17) 8:30–9:30
The five canons: Invention, Style, Memory, Delivery, and Arrangement
Original practices of rhetoric were not as structured as they are in modern society. Cicero created the five canons to make understanding rhetoric easier, not so they would be more difficult to follow. I find the idea of improptu speaking so fascinating! I think it would beneficial for students to learn how to improvise when making speeches rather than stressing themselves into making such organized speeches. I think it could teach us a lot about ourselves in a natural setting and could potentially bring more interest and excitement to the idea of speaking.
I think Cicero used the five canons use these 5 individual parts to speak to the republic to prove that he was more personable than a sophist. Unlike sophists who merely shared their wisdom as discourse for money, these 5 canons made Cicero more intentional in his speaking and this set him apart for a reason. Obviously his end goal was to have a large following, and so by breaking down his speeches in a sense that was easy to follow he would be able to reach his audience in a way that sophists couldn’t. This connected him more to his audience on a personal level, because unlike sophists, he wasn’t just talking at them, but actually getting through to them. De Inventione, or invention, was termed by Cicero and is one of the most useful canons.
Invention in rhetoric is defined as the search for arguments. When thinking of invention, leaders may want to develop a stopping point to show that they are unbiased. They have considered the argument and the counter-argument and thus are displaying their knowledgeability of the two sides, but also their ability to be neutral in the argument. This would be important for a political leader so that they may increase audience engagement and to bring awareness to different types of issues.
