Happiness depends upon ourselves Essays

Happiness depends upon ourselves Essays Happiness depends upon ourselves Paper Happiness depends upon ourselves Paper Happiness depends upon ourselves according to Aristotle but Epictetus believes that When we remember that our aim is spiritual progress, we return to striving to be our best selves. This is how happiness is won. Throughout Rhetorical History it is evident that rhetoric has served as a functional interaction between people and their environment. In order for there to be a functional interaction there must always be an exigency and a remedy as standard elements of the total environment, as well as a rhetorical interaction to support them both. In this paper I intend to examine the rhetorical situations that moved the rhetoricians Aristotle and Epictetus to construct their rhetorical theories. Epictetus, like most rhetoricians has a theory that is marked by imperfections, called exigencies. These imperfections are problems that Epictetus found while creating his theorys ideals. The main exigency for Epictetus and other Stoics was to show their students that philosophy has a practical purpose of guiding people towards leading better lives. According to Epictetus everyone is not perfectly happy for much, or even all of the time. He wanted to show his students that there is a reason for this being the case and most importantly that there are solutions that can remedy this situation. Another aim of Epictetus teaching was to live well to secure for oneself true happiness. Epictetus theory had to fall on the ears of a receptive audience and he found that in the school he formed for upper-class Romans. With students such as Flavius Arrian, and Herodes Atticus, Epictetus was considered the greatest of Stoics. : Epictetus was said to relate his school to the workings of a hospital where students would come to seek treatments for their ills. In stark reality that was true, people flocked to Epictetus schools because it gave them a solvent to the trials of human life and living in society. Every day they were set up with frustrations and obstacles and Epictetus goal was to teach people to see the happiness through those situations. The students who learned from Epictetus were easily able to turn the things they were hearing everyday into something they could use everyday. We have to deal with hostile and offensive people, and we have to cope with the difficulties and anxieties occasioned by the setbacks and illnesses visited upon our friends and relations. Even people with good fortune had to face the fact of their own death, but that was no reason to not search for true happiness. As with any theory there are constraints marked as a way to remove the seen problem in Epictetus theory. Two types of constraints can be identified in any rhetorical theory, artistic and inartistic proofs. Artistic proofs are defined as those things that are in the speakers control. In Epictetus theory, various artistic proofs can be identified. The language that he chose to use, the emotion that he conveyed through his message, and the reason that he used to arrive at how to formulate both of these things are all examples of artistic proofs. There are also inartistic proofs in every theory. These things would be all the ideas that are out of the speakers control. Examples of inartistic proofs in Epictetus theory could be many things, mostly things going on the environment around him and his society. The class status of the students that Epictetus taught would be an inartistic proof. Had Epictetus been directing his speeches at lower class people who had never been schooled, they may have no idea what he was speaking about. The potential students that are attempting to learn have to be on relatively the same level as the teacher. The historical events can also be an example of an inartistic proof. The mindset of the society and the way that they feel about their government, their peers and their noble classes had a huge influence on how they acted in everyday life. Now that Ive discussed the exigencies, the audience, and the constraints of Epictetus, I will focus on the same characteristics of Aristotle. Aristotle taught some of the most influential rhetoricians of his time and to them he tried to instill the same ideals that he valued so much. The most memorable of these was likely the scientific method that he used to explain why things happened the way they did. Aristotles exigency was marked by urgency mostly because he wanted the people of his day to understand what he did. Reason is the source of the first principles of knowledge, and from this reason Aristotle used the ideas that came about to persuade people of what exactly was going on in their day. Public discourse at the time was used to hinder peoples reason and they could never make decisions on their own if they were not taught how to reason for themselves. Aristotle was a firm believer that the mind is led by language, and he used his language to teach the people about their ability to learn and rationalize ideas. Aristotles main goal was to have a democratic government, and he knew that the people would never get to have one without the knowledge base that they needed to be expressive. Rhetoric is essential to any democracy according to Aristotle and it was important for him to teach all aspects of rhetoric to the people who supported it. The people who were most affected by Aristotles views were the people who heard him speak. At the time of his lectures most of these people were people in the kings court. He was hired by various kings to counsel them and lecture in their courts. The ideas that Aristotle was preaching about at the time were easily accepted because the people were easily impressionable. He believed that citizens must have knowledge and reason to be able to express their ideas. They were dealing with things that were easily explained by the scientific ideals that Aristotle believed in, and therefore he wanted to teach them how to express the ideas that they had about the things that were going on. Aristotle said that All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore, Socrates is mortal. This was a simple idea that almost everyone could hold onto. It was explained by logic and was the dominant form of logic for almost 2,000 years. Some constraints were also posed on Aristotles scientific logic. Various artistic and inartistic proofs are identifiable in Aristotles theory. The language that he chose to use was important if nothing else than because he was preaching to men who favored the king he was working for at the time. He had to be very aware of what he was saying in honor of the king. Another artistic proof that Aristotle faced was the emotion that he portrayed in his lectures. People have said that Aristotles ideas would not have been so widely accepted had he not added to them so much emotion while he was speaking. There are also some evident inartistic proofs in Aristotles theory. As in the artistic proofs, the status of the audience members of Aristotles lectures, was very important, but out of his control. He was hired by the king; he could not discriminate who he was appointed to speak to. This brings up another inartistic proof, the government. The government was greatly out of Aristotles control, he was even manipulated by them because he was employed by them. They were however the people who could remove the exigency facing his theory. Both of the rhetors discussed, Aristotle and Epictetus, have similarities and differences in the situations that they faced. Epictetus was more faced with the guidance that he was offering to his students. His issues were more of a moral and emotional case where as Aristotles ideals were focused primarily on science and nature. The audience members that each rhetorician spoke to had personalities of their own as well. While each rhetor spoke to a fairly similar audience, their reasons for doing so were very different. Epictetus knew that he would have to focus his attention to upper class nobles, who had been schooled enough to know vaguely what he was talking about. Aristotle on the other hand, was appointed to teach to the kings court, he had no real decision in who he was preaching to. Aristotle over came this difference by teaching people to teach others. There are also some differences in the artistic and inartistic proofs that each rhetor faced. Epictetus, for example, used a specific language, showed a certain amount of emotion, and the reason that he was trying to convey to his audience. Aristotle believed that emotions were a rational feeling that gets in the way of good reason. Epictetus would have greatly disagreed with this notion that emotions were logical. Epictetus believed that emotions were the way to lead a person to unveil his true happiness. He felt that few people were content with life, but that through his learning they could find solutions to be happy most, if not all of the time. Where Epictetus would try to explain how to overcome the frustrations and setbacks of every conceivable type of complication, Aristotle would spend his time trying to find the truth and showing people how they had arrived at that conclusion. Both rhetors used various means to arrive at the success that they did with the individual audience that they were speaking to. Each one was faced with different exigencies and faced some constraints along the way. However Aristotle and Epictetus both overcame all of these things and were able to teach their message and let it be taught for many years after they were gone. Ashley Mock March 3,2004 Rhetoical Theory Paper #2 593-62-3535 Bitzer, Lloyd, Functional Communication: A Situational Perspective, in E. E. White, ed. ,Rhetoric in Transition (University Park: Pensylvania State UP, 1981) 21-38. James Fieser, Ph. D. , The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Epictetus: Overview: 1 March 2004. iep. utm. edu/ James Fieser, Ph. D. , The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Aristotle: Overview: 1 March 2004. iep. utm. edu/.