“Now, the art of rhetoric being available for the enforcing either of truth or falsehood, who will dare to say that truth in the person of its defenders is to take its stand unarmed against falsehood? For example, that those who are trying to persuade men of what is false are to know how to introduce their subject, so as to put the hearer into a friendly, or attentive, or teachable frame of mind, while the defenders of the truth shall be ignorant of that art? That the former are to tell their falsehoods briefly, clearly, and plausibly, while the latter shall tell the truth in such a way that it is tedious to listen to, hard to understand, and, in fine, not easy to believe it? That the former are to oppose the to melt, to enliven, and to rouse them, while the latter shall in defence of the truth be sluggish, and frigid, and somnolent? Who is such a fool as to think this wisdom? Since, then, the faculty of eloquence is available for both sides, and is of very great service in the enforcing either of wrong or right, why do not good men study to engage it on the side of truth, when bad men use it to obtain the triumph of wicked and worthless causes, and to further injustice and error?” (Augustine, De Doctrina Christiana)
Course Questions (for your consideration and discussion):
1. Ought we to tell all of the truth all of the time?
2. How does one distinguish between wisdom and folly? Between rhetoric and sophistry?
3. Is wisdom sufficient, or must one also be eloquent? Are they mutually exclusive?
4. Why do people so often choose folly over wisdom? What can rhetoric do about it?
5. How does one lead the soul of another?
6. What is the difference between appeal and force?
7. How does one calibrate an argument for a given audience?
8. How can we help someone see themselves as others see them? How can we help ourselves to do the same?
Feel free to comment on this and other posts regarding Rhetoric in the NT by clicking the “comments” button below.
