“Mastery of rhetoric should be considered a "virtue" because it entails intimate knowledge of the good" (Quintilian, 295).
Considering that in Quintilian’s definition of rhetoric, he claims that rhetoric is only mastered when the knowledge is "good", how do you think Quintilian would have argued against influencers such as Hitler who had clearly mastered rhetoric and had effectively used it with what we consider to be bad, yet he thought he was doing good?
Quintilian would have explained how using rhetoric in a manipulative way, such as the Sophists, isn't right. Morals should always be considered when using the skill of language. While there is persuasion in any form of dialogue there should never be any hidden motives and good intentions should be stressed no matter the subject.
ReplyDeleteHis response would likely be that the oratory used by irredeemably disgusting people like Hitler is not actually rhetoric, but mastery of oratory instead, as he believes that "anything that does not move its hearers towards good is not "rhetoric"." While I may personally disagree, I believe that Quintilian would make the distinction between rhetoric and oratory based on the intent behind the speech. He may also consider that someone who is that horrible and delusional may genuinely believe that what they're doing is good, despite any rational person knowing otherwise, which may affect the way in which they use speech.
ReplyDelete