You must submit to supreme suffering in order to discover the completion of joy. – John Calvin. The aforementioned quotation postulates the familiar concept that in order to appreciate euphoria one must experience some degree of dysphoria. While experiencing this end of the polarization yields an optimistic result, in contrast, to indulge in other extreme (pleasure) has a negative connotation. This idea is emphasized through the pedagogy of some of the world’s most influential religious figures such as Jesus Christ, Gautama Buddha and Mohammed.
In the Phaedrus, Socrates makes an argument that seems to coincide with those teachings. “When opinion leads through reason to what is best and dominates the other, the name given to this dominance is self-control; but when desire irrationally drags us toward pleasures and gains the mastery within us, this mastery is called wantonness” (17). Socrates then explains how those who fall victim to their desires are dishonorable. However, the description of these actions as wantonness or hubris (Greek) lends itself to interpretation.
Definitions of wantonness can be extremely negative from “without regard for what is right, just, humane”[1] to simply, “lewdness”[2]. Another translation of Phaedrus uses the term excess rather than wantonness to describe actions. Excess is rooted in need. For example, humans drink to quench thirst or eat to stifle hunger. Our inhibition to engage in a behavior may be completely necessary. With that in mind, using wantonness under the foremost definition seems completely inappropriate. The latter interpretation would further strengthen Socrates’ argument that excepting favors from a lover are superior over a non-lover if the pursuit of intimacy is recognized as need (by means of the term excess). This subtle, yet important, distinction between wantonness and excess lessens the negative connotation associated with over-indulgence (as perpetuated by our previously cited religious leaders).
Identifying the needs of an audience and using them as a means to motivate an audience is a fundamental concept in persuasion scholarship. While dialectic was used to discover the Truth, Socrates’ intentions may not have been entirely pure. Kinz (1997) explained that Socrates probably made this argument to persuade Phaedrus to become his ally in political debates[3]. Centuries ago, philosophers and rhetoricians alike were capitalizing on their audience’s needs. Such an attempts are still being perfected today.
1 comment:
So are we seeking to use reason or just getting people to give in to their desires when it comes to persuasion? I realize that we all want to say that we are using logic but it strikes me that persuasion seems to be about getting people to indulge in their excesses. Our job would be to create the illusion that they need whatever we wish to persuade them about.
Post a Comment