According to the text what is a communication symbol? How does it contribute to the miracle of language?? Have you ever thought about communication in this same way? 2.?Both Gorgias and Pr

As unkind as legend may be to the memory of Corax, Aristotle takes him seriously enough to criticize his approach to probability in some detail. The topic of probability, grounded as it was in a quite pragmatic situation, nevertheless suggested to later sophists that objective truth may always be difficult if not impossible to find. What we take to be the truth, the meaning we find in things, is often the product of our own symbolizing. Reality is often the projection of our own interpretations, expectations, and fantasies. This idea continues to resonate in contemporary philosophical disputes about the relationship between discourse and reality and the limitations of scientific investigation.

A second major contribution of Corax was that he developed a four-part pattern for the arrangement of forensic speeches:

1. Introduction, in which speakers conciliate listeners and establish identification with them;

2. Narration, in which speakers tell their stories of disputed events clearly and vividly in order to convey an impression of reality:

3. Argument, in which speakers interpret the meaning of these events, imputing good and bad motives as appropriate, and presenting proofs to support their interpretations;

4. Conclusion or peroration, in which speakers summarize the main points of the cases, paint the consequences of favor- able or unfavorable decisions by the juries, and plead for favorable verdicts.

Corax seems to have been an astute, practical observer. He left ideas of lasting value behind him, especially this notion that speeches should have a strategic pattern of development. You will find much in your text about the importance of effective form and how to achieve it in various speech situations. 

Gorgias

Gorgias, an orator who could hold crowds spellbound with his eloquence, brought the new art of public discourse from Sicily to Athens, where both he and it quickly became the rage. Gorgias remains interesting to us for two reasons: first, his skepticism about truth and knowledge, and second, his emphasis on verbal artistry.

As a skeptic, Gorgias followed in the tradition of Corax, who found truth to be elusive and who taught orators to create instead the appearance of truth. For Gorgias, the uncertain nature of truth in land disputes was a metaphor for the status of truth in general; truth was at best, he thought, a shadow, an appearance, an illusion. Gorgias argued (1 ) that truth, if it exists, is divine and infinite, outside place and time. But (2), if truth does exist in this way, then it is impossible for humans to know it, for we exist within space and time. So (3), if we cannot know truth, then we cannot possibly communicate about it.

It is interesting to observe the parallels between Gorgias and modern philosophers such as the Existentialists, who emphasize the meaninglessness of our lives unless and until we create the meaning. But unlike the despair in which such thinking appears to end, Gorgias saw positive, even heroic implications. He felt that through words, people can create a community of values, ideals, and purposes. Against a background of nothingness, Gorgias insists on the human power to build reality through the resources of language. Words become the torches we hold up against the darkness that surrounds our lives. Gorgias went on to examine the power of words, and founded that branch of rhetorical study known as style, presented in more detail in Chapter 10 of your text.

Gorgias's approach to word power raises serious questions. If there is no objective reality against which we can test the accuracy and honesty of many words, then language may be used to deceive us. Contemporary scholars have identified certain forms of linguistic power to which we may be especially vulnerable. Such words may command us by their connection with our values, as in "Progress demands that we go forward with this plan”. Other powerful words seem licensed by our political faith to give fateful orders; for example, "We must be willing to die to defend freedom and the American way." Still others associate with natural experiences that move all humans, such as, "This plan will carry us out of the darkness of today into the light of tomorrow." Words undeniably have the heroic potential Gorgias portrayed, but they also can betray us. As students of public communication, we must learn how to identify the one form of usage and guard against the other. And for this recognition we owe a considerable debt to Gorgias.

Protagoras

Protagoras follows in the skeptical tradition of Corax and Gorgias. If truth is unknowable and meaning is but a construction of our own symbols, then, concluded Protagoras, "Man is the Measure of all Things." This memorable statement summarizes the sophistic point of view while it celebrates our capacity to create a world of values and judgments. Therefore, it also heralds the philosophical and ethical tradition of humanism, which places humanity at the moral center of the universe. Humanists concentrate on how to improve peoples' lives and how to enhance and enlarge their moral and spiritual natures.

Protagoras had to confront a serious problem: If truth is humanmade through communication, then truth must also be an uncertain, precarious product. It must change with time and circumstance and be subject to errors of prejudice and logic. If this is so, how can we have any confidence that the truth we are accepting at the moment is justified? To answer this troubling question, Protagoras suggested the discipline of debate, which tests all claims to truth against competing claims in open encounters before audiences qualified to decide which is superior and inferior. Since debate reveals errors of information, logic, and argument, then debate can help improve our thinking. Truth claims that can survive such rigorous challenge are most worthy of our trust. Thus skepticism had found its method, its means of dealing with the problem of redefining truth as a human invention. For Protagoras, no truth claim was sacred, above the possible indignity of refutation. 

Protagoras had his critics, both in public and in intellectual life. Many suggested that he was a heretic, since he encouraged, or at least tolerated, debates about the divinity of the gods. Socrates charged that Protagoras emphasized winning debates over any truth-values they might have. But the sophists answered that the prevailing point of view in disputes was the truth, and that debate disciplined the process by which truth was discovered.

Despite such criticisms, the students of Protagoras enjoyed many benefits from his instruction. He made education exciting, filled with conflict and color. On a deeper level, he taught students the virtues of caution and tolerance. If truth was human- made and fallible, then one must be very careful before committing to a side in conflict. If people often differ in their perceptions of issues, and "right" and "wrong" are products of a point of view, then one should be more broad-minded in understanding the commitments of others. Those educated in the tradition of Protagoras recognize that truth is elusive–you cannot capture it like fireflies in a bottle. Right and wrong, good and evil, truth and falsehood, rarely line up on opposing sides, and choices are often not simple and easy. Rather, contending sides usually have their own versions of truth and morality. The difficulty of choosing between them is that we must reject and lose the values and virtues of the one even as we endorse the values and virtues of the other.

One problem with the skeptical attitude toward truth is that it can discourage us from making any deep commitment to a point of view. We can develop the disease of indecision. Another problem is that debate can lead us to see only two sides of an issue, those that are most clearly in conflict. This two-valued orientation can cause us to ignore or overlook other actions that might bridge the opposing sides and gain the advantages of both. For example, in the debates between industrialists and environmentalists, what may be needed is an option that would emphasize protecting the environment as an industry, devising technology to counteract the ravages of humankind. If we are too emersed in the debate perspective, we might miss that kind of creative option.

Despite such problems, the ideas of Protagoras have enriched our culture. The discipline of debate is built into our democratic political systems and into all intellectual systems that value inquiry and discourage blind conformity to ideas. Protagoras taught us to discipline verbal conflict so that it might become productive and helped us manage the responsibilities of freedom.

Thrasymachus

Different sophists reacted in different ways to the central insight that truth outside any human agency is essentially unknowable. In contrast to Protagoras, who sought to perfect the human way of constructing truth, Thrasymachus framed an ethical response.

If humans cannot enjoy divine truth, they should emphasize personal power. Powerful people, thought Thrasymachus, enjoy lives of influence and fulfillment.

In pursuit of power, Thrasymachus offered his students practical instruction. Rather than focus on the content of speeches, he emphasized the impression speakers make in their presentation. He especially stressed the importance of a pleasing rhythm in vocal patterns, suggesting also that those who sound confident and knowledgeable, whose voices are commanding, and whose gestures are dramatic, usually succeed before audiences. He also emphasized stirring and engaging the emotions of listeners, an important key to rhetorical power. While such techniques are often criticized, ethically sound, well-conceived messages often seek to move listeners, in addition to courting their rational consent. Speakers must often overcome a certain inertia in listeners: even when audience members are convinced, they may not wish to act. At that moment, lessons drawn from the tradition of Thrasymachus may be quite useful.

Thrasymachus also contributed to the growing interest in style. He may have explored the concept of what we now call the trope, that is, a powerful figure of speech that can give distinction and originality to the spoken word. Tropes like the metaphor ("Her words flamed with feeling") or the synecdoche ("'The tongue is more powerful than the arm") can make ideas more memorable and influential. Modern literary and rhetorical scholars have extended and deepened the concept of the trope. For example, Kenneth Burke has identified certain "master tropes" as major ways of presenting subjects." The metaphor "flamed" in the above example gives us a unique perspective on how the speaker spoke by using new and surprising language instead of an expected word. By using parts to represent the whole, the synecdoche "tongue" and "arm" illustrate a complex idea, the comparative strength of eloquence and of physical force in most situations. More than devices of decoration and impressiveness, Burke noted, such tropes are the mold of our creativity. Thrasymachus had discovered a very rich concept for exploration as he sought to enhance the power of speakers.

Isocrates

While Thrasymachus sought personal' power in place of truth, Isocrates found a loftier alternative. Isocrates wished to build an ideal society among the Greek peoples he loved. He wanted his students to think not so much of personal gain as of the

contribution they might make to civilization through the wisdom and selflessness of their words. His attitude toward the civic power of speech is indicated eloquently in the following quotation:

Because there has been implanted in us the power to persuade each other and to make clear to each other whatever we desire, not only have we escaped the life of the wild beasts, but we have come together and founded cities and made laws and invented arts; and, generally speaking, there is no institution devised by man which the power of speech has not helped us to establish ."

It followed that those who spoke well would be the natural leaders of society.

In pursuit of his civic vision, Isocrates built the most influential school of his day, one that became the prototype for many practices in the modern university. For example, he screened his students carefully with respect to natural ability. Because speaking before the Athenian courts and assemblies was so stressful, Isocrates also required that his students demonstrate courage and vocal strength. He expected them to stay with him for three or four years of intense training. They would get a liberal arts education, which included acknowledge of Greek culture as well as theories of writing and speaking. He required students to write themes applying the principles they had learned, and he criticized them closely, from the ideas they developed to the wording they used. He also worked with them on presentational skills, drilling them until the idea of addressing the difficult Greek audiences would hold no terror for them. Finally, he would take them into the marketplace to present "recital" speeches before live audiences. No doubt some stumbled over this last barrier, but others would sleep into leadership positions in the state. Then Isocrates could watch with pride as his prize students helped enact his vision of a greater Greece. Old Man Eloquent, he was called. He knew that the Greece of his day was a miracle, and that it was worth spending one's life to make a contribution to its quality. That was his answer to the tragic condition described by the sophists. 

The Sophists in Overview

The five sophists we have considered can all be viewed in response to the central idea that humans make their own truth.

Corax recognized that probability, not absolute truth, must be the goal of the speaker in an uncertain world and showed how forensic speeches should be artfully arranged. Gorgias emphasized our creative, even heroic, capacity to create a world of meaningful values and goals. He emphasized the importance of words as tools to build a universe of shared meaning. Protagoras confronted a problem central to the sophistic position: in a world of relativistic

truth, how can we know whom to trust, or whose version of truth to accept? His answer was the discipline of debate, deliberately confronting contending claims to see how well they stood up

under the ordeal of verbal conflict.

Thrasymachus believed that if all truth was transitory and changing, then humans could enjoy only the power of their own abilities with words and the success they might achieve. He emphasized presentational skills and impressive language that could arouse the emotions of listeners. Isocrates emphasized communal over individual values, teaching the power of speech so that his students might become leaders of the Greek world. Of the five considered, he was the greatest educator, leaving a heritage of excellence to challenge all teachers who would follow. His influence can be seen in the idea of the modern university, especially in its emphasis on liberal arts education as the foundation of all knowledge.

Through the work of these and other sophists, a body of knowledge on public communication began to accumulate. It was in need, however, of some master intellect who would organize it, fill in its empty places, and shape its overall meaning. That master

intellect was Aristotle, and his treatise is called On Rhetoric.

Aristotle's Ideas on Public Communication

Aristotle wrote the Rhetoric around the middle of the fourth century B.C. near the end of the Golden Age. Thus he had the advantage of all the theoretical work that had been done during

the century before and was in an ideal position to complete, integrate, refine, and place in perspective those ideas about human communication.

It would be a mistake, however, to think of the Rhetoric merely as an advanced expression of the work of the sophists. Aristotle began, with a premise fundamentally different from that of

sophistic rhetoric. He was not especially concerned with the existence or nonexistence of ideal truth, nor was he interested in public communication's work in constructing the meaning of life.

Rather, Aristotle had the mind of a scientist, asking questions such as "What can we learn by observing life around us?" It is this spirit of inquiry and curiosity that breathes through the

Rhetoric. And by the quality of his perceptions and interpretations, Aristotle lifted the study of communication until it became the serious subject for learning and research that it remains today.

Definition of Rhetoric

Rather than focusing on