A Serious Conversation About Morality (and more..) (with Ji(o)e)

Joe:  So what’d you think of the readings: what do you think is the major point of Ramus? What do you think he contributes?

Jie: I think Ramus’s argument is somewhat simplified. He believes that his general principles and ten topics can cover everything—it is not really convincing to me. On the other hand, he emphasizes reasoning and syllogism to redefine dialectic and rhetoric. He believes rhetoric has little to do with moral philosophy, which is a part of dialectic.

Joe: Ok, so let’s talk about Ramus’ ideas about morality and ethics. One of the fundamental arguments that Ramus makes is the dialectic is involved with finding a true knowledge; it’s not necessary to find a true knowledge for rhetoric. 

Jie: Then how would you define true knowledge here? It seems that Plato, Aristotle, Astell all define true knowledge differently. Plato’s true knowledge is transcendent while Astell’s understanding of true knowledge is “Thinking conformably to the Nature of Things.”

Joe: Astell’s focus is on “nature” which I think is probably related to God—a Christian God. So, I think Astell speaks of true knowledge as found through the teachings of God.  Only through Christianity can moral and ethical truths be found. 

Jie: Yes, I agree with you. And Astell also emphasizes that knowledge is important for women to successfully persuade other people.

Joe: So is the “knowledge” you’re speaking about True Christian knowledge or the knowledge of the specific subject she’s speaking about?

Jie: I think her “knowledge” at least includes two parts. The most important part, as you mentions, is the knowledge about God, the nature of things. But she also talks about how to speak and write well. In order to do that, women have to increase their knowledge. One example she uses here is the education of children.

Joe: I think you raise another focus of Astell: where women fit in the art of rhetoric. Astell separates discourse into two spheres: the public and the private.  She finds that women have a major role in private life: including the education of children; every-day conversation; and just overall domestic life. She further mentions how single women have the ability to educate the community—she is involved with the moral compass of the community.

Jie: Another important thing is that she believes everyone is capable of reason – both men and women are equal in this sense.  This is liberating and democratic.

Joe: Ramus, also, makes a claim that the art of rhetoric should be made to be understood by every man—but not just understood, but could be practiced by anyone.

Jie: But does that include women?

Joe: I don’t know—he doesn’t seem to mention women which Astell probably would have a problem with.  Another thing that Astell would have issue is with Ramus’ belief that rhetoric does not need to involve itself with morals—rhetoric is a means to a rhetor’s end.  The end doesn’t necessarily need to be moral—as long as the end is met.  How would Astell respond to that do you think?

Jie: Astell’s rhetoric is related closely to Christianity and God. In her view, believing in God is a natural part of being a good orator. So there is a specific moral purpose behind her oration, that is, doing good and pleasing God. “the way to be good Orators is to be good Christians.”

Joe: Astell also mentions that Rhetoric does have a immoral potential: “an Artificial and Rhetorical Stile Comps’d of false Thoughts, Hyperboles and forc’d Figures which is the greatest fault in Rhetoric” So, I think—possibly—that Astell might agree with Ramus that rhetoric could be used for “evil,” but she says that the “design of Rhetoric is to remove those Prejudices that lie in the way of Truth to reduce the Passions to the Government of Reasons.” So, while rhetoric could be used for “evil,” she says that the most successful orators are the ones that are True Christians—with a moral purpose. I think you touched on this earlier.

Jie: I totally agree with that. And I think her rhetoric is also audience-oriented. She is very conscious of the audience. When you said her “design of Rhetoric is to remove those Prejudices that lie in the way of Truth,” it also includes correcting other people’s mistakes and helping others find the right path.  One thing interesting is that when she talks about style, she emphasizes creating a style that different audience can find things they need –- it is a challenging job.  An orator needs to know how to deal with different people, well educated and perhaps not well-educated, at the same time.

Joe: Yes, I think that she would agree with the saying “you can catch more bees with honey”—she says that True Christians—because of their natural morality—can empathize with people more than those who pretend to be moral. Because of this True Christians are more persuasive.  This is connected to the orator’s ethos: ethos is not simply credibility, but credibility through a moral way of life—exemplified through being Christian. Ethos is a way of life—an ethical life.

Jie: So in this sense Astell may disagree with Ramus, who attacks Quintilian’s statement that “the orator cannot be perfect unless he is a good man.”

Joe: Yes, I think so too!  It’s interesting to see how Astell and Ramus both contribute very different things, but Astell still seems to be (somewhat) influenced by Ramus. I wonder what I A Richards has to say.