How do we think?
…about ourselves, about our means of persuation, about what other people say and how they say it?
We with our modern heritage think much about ‘self’, about how we come across, about “the real me”, and about whether how we communicate is an authentic reflection of “who we really are?” Our concerns are deeply [and perhaps rightfully so] centered around the integrity of our own persons, and how those persons are received by others.
The big issue during the Romantic era [late 1700s into the mid 1800s] was sort of a ‘back to nature’ approach. The less schooled I am, the more of the real me will come out. Schooling [that is training in rhetoric and speech and writing] stifles the ‘real me’ and so better to leave off some of that ‘artifice’ and just be ‘me’.
How did the ancients think?
If you remember your Plato … and that is P-L-A-T-O, and not “playdough” as my hubby is so fond of teasing me with … Plato said there was a greater reality beyond. Plato said that there were “FORMS” that we saw shadows of on this earth, which were more perfect beautiful and good in the world beyond. For example, a triangle here on earth drawn on a piece of paper would be but a coarse representation of the perfect triangle to be found in the realm beyond. Likewise, any goodness one would see here on earth, would be but a glimmer of true goodness found beyond.
SO ALSO–with the ancients–in the realm of writing. There were “forms” to observe. A certain way to write a letter of friendship, a certain way of writing a eulogy, a certain way of writing a speech of rebuke, a speech for political action, a speech for condemning a criminal.
AHA! Those of you who have followed this blog in the past know where I am going. Those forms are recorded for posterity in the form of Cicero’s De Oratore, of Quintilian’s Institutes, of Aristotle’s Rhetoric, of Aphthonius’ Progymnasmata. Those are names of a few famous people from Antiquity who wrote on the subject of speechwriting and rhetoric. — FORMS is what we have, not just in Plato’s philosophy but also in education and in particular in education in the “use of words” to persuade others.
AS SUCH, the typical “man on the street” in Antiquity who wrote a letter or gave a speech to the Athenian assembly was not trying to project the “real him” in his speech so much as he was trying to persuade the recipient of his letter or the Athenian assembly of his point of view. And to do that he used the accepted FORMS of the day, the forms he had learned in education for how to write persuasively. It is less ‘himself’ that shines through than it is a mixture of the accepted way to write persuasively mingled with his view on the issue itself.
Self was not front and center — the message was. And the message was best communicated via the accepted forms of the day, forms of writing, which most effectively persuaded others of one’s point of view. His goal was PERSUASION.
Why do I write this?
It may be more difficult for us to understand writings of the past if we do not understand rhetoric… that is if we do not understand what persons of Antiquity found persuasive and what they valued as important.
When a person like St Paul in a letter rants and calls people “stupid/foolish” and then later in the same letter fondly greets some dear friends or commends others for great service, it is not because he is schizophrenic or because the REAL Paul is coming out. It is rather because he uses the accepted rhetorical forms of the day “how to write a letter of friendship”, “how to write a letter of rebuke” and so forth… and the folks who received his letters understood this, where we, perhaps, may be more inclined to do a little psycho-analysis on Paul and try to figure out how he really felt.
Ancients, and in particular Greeks [Read Homer], were not so interested in the ‘real me’ as they were in functioning within the role that they were ‘born’ into. [no, I am not advocating going back to that, just showing what they thought]. So a woman like Penelope was commended as the ideal wife and mother because she stayed within her role and waited faithfully. The ideal was not ‘self actualization’ but operating properly within what one was given, within one’s purpose in life.
Again, even in life, there was a ‘form’ to follow, so when one was born a girl, there was a ‘form’ for growing up into a virtuous wife, etc. If one was born a male and free, there was another form to follow.
The modern mind breaks free of forms, does what it wants, realizes itself. That is who we are, that is how most of us think. But we cannot project that mindset unto the ancient texts and expect to find truth that way.