The Power of Ancient Rhetorics

— -

Imagine this: You are a bad parent in Carthago 200 BC. Food is scarce. You have a newborn. She will not make it through. Or maybe you don’t want responsibility. What do you do? Exactly, you sacrifice your child to Moloch. Since the child sacrifice is now ritualized, you are not a bad parent, but a hero of the city who helps avoid catastrophe by paying the highest price. That is, before the Romans came and wiped Carthago off the map and salted the earth.

— -

Rituals create a FRAME. In a public execution, the executioner is not a MURDERER, but a SERVANT OF THE LAW — same function, different frame. FRAME is interpreting the MEANING of facts.

— —

When I learned about this, I stopped my hand combat training and started sharpening my words. Somehow I feel safer with the ability to reframe a robber as a friend who seeks my help, than with JuJutsu and such.

— -

Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra?

This is the most legendary intro of all speeches. Catalina was plotting against the state. He came into the Senate, thinking of nothing evil, and then Cicero starts to speak and drops the bar:

Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra?

How long at last will you keep disgracing, Catalina, our patience?

When Cicero had finished his speech Catalina and all his people got hunted out of the city by an angry mob trying to kill them.

When Caesar got captured by Pirates, he framed himself as a “high value man”, not a victim, by doubling the ransom. Next, he held speeches to the pirate crew. He announced death to them. Finally, he would amass troops and crucify the pirates.

The cameraman of a German TV show got attacked by a robber with a gun. That is: The attacker wants to set a certain frame: “I am robbing you, you are my victim”.

Now, if he had TAKEN that frame bait, he would have already lost. That is, next, you would have argued as the victim and acknowledge them as robbers.

Instead he REFRAMED the situation and framed himself as a friend, a partner in crime. Finally, they conspired to meet again.

—

Caesar and Cicero had both studied under Apolonius Molon — and received a rigorous oratory education — split into convincing content and, I quote, “delivery delivery delivery”, because speeches are oratory performances given to a live audience, whereas other media act to people alone.

The training at Molon’s school of Rhetorics was highly practical They practiced drawing crowds and keeping their attention, arguing against them and moving them. They practiced techniques to memorize hours of speeches and then their delivery.

And they learned the details about Ethos, Pathos, Logos and Delivery.

The Ethos of a speaker is assessed by the audience in three parts: First, practical wisdom (Phrónēsis), which is the capacity to apply universal moral principles and abstract knowledge to the to the messy, variable reality of human life. Second, virtue (Aretē), meaning the speaker’s moral goodness, integrity, and honest character, which assures the listeners that the source of the argument is trustworthy and not motivated by malice or deceit. Third, goodwill (Eunoia), which is the demonstration of a benevolent attitude toward the audience, making them believe that the speaker genuinely has their best interests at heart and is offering beneficial counsel.

“I am proud to come to this city as the guest of your distinguished Mayor, who has symbolized throughout the world the fighting spirit of West Berlin.” — Kennedy

“Sons of Gondor! Of Rohan! My brothers. I see in your eyes the same fear that would take the heart of me.” — Aragorn

— —

Pathos is the art of evoking emotion through speech — and it is the second part of conviction. So How can we make people angry or friendly?

“Take, for instance, the emotion of anger: here we must discover (1) what the state of mind of angry people is, (2) who the people are with whom they usually get angry, and (3) on what grounds they get angry with them. It is not enough to know one or even two of these points; unless we know all three, we shall be unable to arouse anger in any one”

Logos — the third part of conviction — isn’t the argument used instead of emotion; logos is the argument you that is used to build the mental conditions that make emotion possible. This is how Apollonius Molon could sway opinions in court: Does the audience now feel anger or pity towards the defendant? The outcome of that question might decide their lives.

Logos comes in two forms: Enthymeme and Example. Examples are used to create an inductive argument; One abstract principles is shown by enumerating special cases. Enthymeme are used to create deductive arguments; But the premise that is used to draw the final conclusion is implicit.

Example: “The defendant was caught trying to flee the country with a large amount of cash”. The unstated premise is “People who are caught trying to flee the country with large amounts of cash are usually guilty of a crime.”. Now this statement is not absolutely true, but for an Enthymeme it suffices to use widely accepted truths as implicit premises. This is efficient and makes your listeners partners in reasoning. These are the initial Rhetorical Teachings that Alexander the Great received.

In other words: First you create a Logos Argument using Enthymeme or example to put the audience in a state of deserving the greated possible goods and the imagination of having them. To then turn the cognitive slate into emotion, execute, but highlighting the unmerited prosperity of the target of the Indignation Pathos attack.

— -

Pity can only evoked in a listener who feels vulnerable or similar to the sufferer.

— -

“Die Folgen dieser wirtschaftlichen Verelendung hat kein Volk mehr gespürt als das deutsche. Die allgemeine wirtschaftliche Desorganisation führte gerade bei uns zu einer Erwerbslosigkeit, an der unser deutsches Volk zugrunde zu gehen schien. “

— -

To be able to evoke anger, the listener must be a start state of feeling dignity, status or violated desire.

[1382a] Anger is always concerned with individuals — whereas hatred is directed also against classes. Anger can be cured by time; but hatred cannot. The angry man wants his victims to feel; the hater does not mind whether they feel or not. The angry man feels pain, but the hater does not. Much may happen to make the angry man pity those who offend him, but the hater under no circumstances wishes to pity a man whom he has once hated: the angry man would have the offenders suffer for what they have done; the hater would have them cease to exist.

In short: To evoke hate, they must already have a profound sense that the target’s character is fundamentally corrupt.

—

“in diesen 15 Jahren hat sich kein Engländer der Religion erinnert; kein Engländer sich der christlichen Barmherzigkeit oder der Nächstenliebe erinnert. Da sind die Herren nicht mit der Bibel spazierengegangen, sondern da war ihre Bibel der Vertrag von Versailles!”

“Wenn Herr Chamberlain heute mit der Bibel einhergeht und seine Kriegsziele predigt, dann kommt mir das vor, als wenn sich der Teufel mit dem Gebetbuch einer armen Seele nähert.”

—

It can happen to anyone of us that we set a frame subconsciously instead of consciously. There is an infamous case study of Drachenlord, a German metaller community, who framed parts of his viewers as “haters” — even when they visited him. They accepted the frame. Through repeated harassments he has lost his house, was hunted through the streets, lost his streaming career. If you don’t watch your mouth, you could frame someone as hater tomorrow.

—

To make people feel indignation, first you create a Logos Argument using Enthytheme or example to put the audience in a state of deserving the greated possible goods and the imagination of having them. To then turn the cognitive slate into emotion, execute, but highlighting the unmerited prosperity of the target of the Indignation Pathos attack.

—

“Es waren immer materielle Ziele, allerdings immer naturgemäß edel und ideal verbrämt. Auch der letzte Krieg, er wurde geführt nur für ideale Ziele. Daß man nebenbei dann doch noch die deutschen Kolonien einsteckte, das hat Gott wieder so gewollt. Daß man unsere Flotte wegnahm, daß man die deutschen Auslandsguthaben kassierte, das sind so Nebenerscheinungen in diesem edlen Streit für die heilige Religion.”

— -

Evoking friendship requires a state of genuine concern and selflessness in the listener. It is then evoked towards those who you share common enemies with. You show that the person in question shares your values.

Fear is created in the vulnerable and weak, confidence in a mind in the state of power, strength or preparedness. Shame requires that actions are visible to respected witnesses.

— — Calmness can be evoked in a listener who feels successful or superior, or are receiving an apology.

“There are bitter weeds in England.” There are certainly a great many more of them since the British Expeditionary Force returned.

The whole question of home defense against invasion is, of course, powerfully affected by the fact that we have for the time being in this Island incomparably more powerful military forces than we have ever had at any moment in this war or the last.” — Winston Churchill, we shall fight on the Beaches

Molon teaches to use Anaphora and parallelism to create a greath rhythm for your speech. For Anaphora, all sentences start with the same words and for parallelism, all sentences are built in a similar structure. The voice should be active. Cut flamboyance. Avoid jargon at all cost.

we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender

Finally: Use the Hendiadys. Why do Goethe and Shakespeare use it almost excessively? First, it forces you to express yourself in a way that paints imagery in the mind of the reader. Second, it allows you to express very complex ideas with just three words. How it works? You express one abstract concept through exactly two noun examples that are connected by “and”. Important: The may not be examples of a more general case, but their juxtaposition must create a “new” meaning. In a Hendiyadiyoin the sum is larger than the sum of its parts. Law and Order. Nice and Warm. Quick and Dirty. Slow and steady. Safe and Sound. Back and forth. Wear and Tear. Heart and soul. Give and take. Rise and fall. Wind and weather. Wild and free.

“until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old”

“I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice”

A speaker must first and foremost be UNDERSTOOD.

Finally, speak in images

— —

Apolonius Molon

But teachers like Apolonius Molon treated even more powerful concepts, that are in use to this day — to tremendous effect — to guide the thoughts and beliefs of the masses.

Refutatio

“and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.”

Aragorn: “A day may come when the courage of Men fails, when we forsake our friends, and break all bonds of fellowship, but it is not this day. An hour of wolves and shattered shields when the Age of Men comes crashing down, but it is not this day! This day we fight!”

“Natürlich, der englische Rundfunk weiß ja alles besser. Wenn wir nach dem englischen Rundfunk gehen, dann müßte eigentlich in England heute keine Sonne mehr scheinen können. Die Flugzeuggeschwader müßten die Atmosphäre verdüstern, die Welt müßte ein einziges Waffenlager sein, von England ausgerüstet, für England arbeitend und damit die britischen Massenheere versorgend. Deutschland umgekehrt steht vor dem totalen Zusammenbruch. U-Boote — ich habe es heute gerade gehört — haben wir noch drei Stück. Das ist sehr schlimm, nämlich nicht für uns, sondern für die englische Propaganda. Denn wenn die drei Stück versenkt sind, und das tritt ja heute nacht oder morgen sicher ein, was wird man dann noch versenken? Was wird man dann noch vernichten? Den Engländern bleibt nichts anderes übrig, als dann vorweg die U-Boote zu versenken, die wir in der Zukunft bauen werden. Und sie werden dann zu einer U-Boot-Auferstehungstheorie kommen müssen. Nachdem ja doch die englischen Schiffe sicherlich weiter versenkt werden, wir aber keine U-Boote mehr besitzen, kann es sich also nur um Boote handeln, die schon einmal von den Engländern vernichtet worden sind.”

—

You know how exactly Alexander and Caesar convinced their opponents to surrender?

They convinced their opponents that their loss was inevitable (logos), convinced them by being trustworthy and REFRAMED giving up from being humiliating to being the honly honorful thing to do, to save the ones you love (Pathos) etc. and convinced them of being trustworthy ETHOS.

Imagine Caesar or Alexander the Great stand at your gate, first convinces you that he can be reasoned and negotiated with and will stick to his commitments (Ethos), second, destroys your morale by logically laying out that your loss is inevitable (Logos), third, conjures up images of your loved ones (Pathos) to emotional anchor the inevitability of your loss, fourth, offers you to surrender and reframes it as the honorable thing to do to save your loved ones, fifth, lists examples of peoples he has killed that refused to give up to prove will, sixth, tell, that the destruction is imminent, should you not give up until the time has passed.

They were not like Hitler or Obama or Martin Luther King in terms of pure oratory skills — they were likely miles ahead — to a degree that is unimaginable today — they were forged in a society where oratory skills were everything — ambitious to reach everything — had grown up doing public speeches — and then had studied nothing but how to transfer conviction to mass audiences optimally — in theory and practice — using oratory skills — for years — under the most legendary Rhetorics Teacher of all time.

„neque vero mihi quicquam praestabilius videtur, quam posse dicendo tenere hominum coetus mentis, adlicere voluntates, impellere quo velit, unde autem velit deducere.“ gottwein.de+2ia803107.us.archive.org+2

Nothing seems better to me than, by speaking, to be able to keep the spirits of people together, gain control of the directions of their will and move it hence and forth, wherever one wants.

But, as we have seen, it’s a difference whether you speak to masses of soldiers, drunken with fear, in subliminal state, whether you celebrate the ritual of blood and victory or whether you speak to a fully conscious room of rhetorically highly educated senators who know at least half the tricks in your book.

Caesar framed ‘Dictator for life’ as generosity? Brutus didn’t bite. He plotted Caesars demise and just a little later, the Tyrant had fallen.

—

Modern bureaucracy is the opposite of convincing. Is it logical ? No, it makes no sense and is full of inefficiencies. Is it emotionally satisfying? Hell no. Are the relationships involved in it meaningful and personal? No. Is it a mythological act? Well, yeah, kinda. It operates on ritual archetypes. That is the only thing keeping it alive.

But, what happens, when Ethos, Pathos, Logos — and Mythos — act together?

What happens when people gather mythologically, fight for their interests logically, are moved emotionally by a source they trust?

Does it bring freedom?