Stasis, It's Okay

ACRS Ch. 3, RT Plato

The quote, “Oral dialogue between congenial souls is far superior to writing because it can lead to the truth,” from The Rhetorical Tradition struck me to be very true and also very important. I could feel strongly about something and write out every reason why, every approach that could be taken, all the possible outcomes in an effort to prepare to be able to defend my idea, just as it is suggested that rhetoricians do in chapter three of Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students and present that document to someone. But, unless I engage in some sort of meaningful conversation with someone else about it, someone who may not agree with me fully, I will also never really fully understand all aspects of the situation. It’s somewhat like when people say unless you can explain how to do something in a way that someone else can truly understand how to do it also, you really don’t have a full understanding yourself. I think the same idea applies to the act of persuasion. Not only do you have to understand all aspects of an idea or situation, we have to be open to hearing other sides of the story, even if only to reaffirm that our idea is valid or even better.

“If ever there was a man who debated with another from a desire of knowing the truth of the subject discussed” (Socrates).  I think that this idea adds onto what was introduced in the previous reading about how debates these days are not so much a discussion but an avenue for two sides to hurl “facts”, statistics, and insults at each other with neither side really listening to one another. It’s obviously easier said than done, I know when I debate I sometimes forget that it’s not just about being right it’s also about taking in what the other side has to say. Even if I don’t agree with someone I can undoubtedly learn something from them. Debates would be far more beneficial, especially in the political arena, if people went in with open minds. It’s almost as if politicians are less concerned with the well being of the people and more concerned about being “right”. Like it says in this weeks reading, it’s not necessarily about convincing someone that you are right and they are wrong, but persuading them to believe in some part of what you have to say.  Change doesn’t happen over night, there is always the chance that continued discussion can result in a change of opinion and if not, at least all participants of the discussion are well informed on both sides. It is okay to reach a point of stasis, if all aspects of an idea or viewpoint have been expressed, sometimes people feel strongly in their convictions and there is nothing wrong with that. This is something that is especially important for me to keep in mind, not only when intentionally employing rhetoric but in every day life as well.