What then?" you say; "should not philosophy sometimes take a loftier tone?"
Of course she should; but dignity of character should be preserved, and this is stripped away by such violent and excessive force. Let philosophy possess great forces, but kept well under control; let her stream flow unceasingly, but never become a torrent.
And I should hardly allow even to an orator a rapidity of speech like this, which cannot be called back, which goes lawlessly ahead; for how could it be followed by jurors, who are often inexperienced and untrained?
Even when the orator is carried away by his desire to show off his powers, or by uncontrollable emotion, even then he should not quicken his pace and heap up words to an extent greater than the ear can endure.
Of course she should; but dignity of character should be preserved, and this is stripped away by such violent and excessive force. Let philosophy possess great forces, but kept well under control; let her stream flow unceasingly, but never become a torrent.
And I should hardly allow even to an orator a rapidity of speech like this, which cannot be called back, which goes lawlessly ahead; for how could it be followed by jurors, who are often inexperienced and untrained?
Even when the orator is carried away by his desire to show off his powers, or by uncontrollable emotion, even then he should not quicken his pace and heap up words to an extent greater than the ear can endure.
—from Seneca, Moral Letters 40
Yes, I do sometimes find it difficult to distinguish between elegant language and blubbery language; as swiftly as I claim to detect it in others, I am often hesitant to admit it in myself.
The intention clearly plays a role, whether I wish to educate or manipulate, clarify or confuse, and yet the motive is blind without the direction of awareness. If I know of what I speak, I will not have to make exaggerated gestures or jump up and down. If I comprehend the truth of the matter, I do not require parlor tricks and sleight of hand.
The loftiness of the words will be in purity of their origins; the dignity of speech is a consequence of the wisdom that stands behind it. I have known many people babble on and ramble on about things they know to be untrue, while I don’t think I have ever heard someone fail to make his point if he is sincerely willing to die for it.
Just as form follows function, so style follows character.
As much as I try to learn about contemporary norms of marketing, I am always met with blank faces when I ask about whether they are right or wrong. The most helpful response I ever received was “If it moves the product, you’ve done it right.”
Now I may not agree with the underlying premise, but I respect the honesty. Where some see a spectrum from virtue to vice, others see a difference between riches and poverty.
I’m not sure, however, why the practice of fast talking or the shifty deal should have a place in any model. Where did we get the assumption that profit and candor must be at odds? I suppose it will only happen if we care far more for the former than we do for the latter.
Similarly, I have been called to jury duty far more often than can ever make sense statistically, and each time I have managed to make a fuss.
“Yes, your honor, I do have a bias in this case. Simply by observing how they pander to you, I have a sneaking suspicion that both lawyers involved have the gift of the gab, and I’m pretty sure they will try to pull a fast one on the jury. They are slick and they are quick. I wouldn’t buy a car from either of them, and so I certainly wouldn’t trust them to make a case in a matter of justice.”
Some judges grinned, others yelled at me, but I’ll be damned if I let either fast talking or bullying tell me how to inform my conscience.
Just as a decent man has a hunch when a nude is art and when it is pornography, so a decent man discerns noble rhetoric from disgraceful sophistry. Spending some solid time on the habits of judgment will allow me to catch the fast talker.
Yes, I do sometimes find it difficult to distinguish between elegant language and blubbery language; as swiftly as I claim to detect it in others, I am often hesitant to admit it in myself.
The intention clearly plays a role, whether I wish to educate or manipulate, clarify or confuse, and yet the motive is blind without the direction of awareness. If I know of what I speak, I will not have to make exaggerated gestures or jump up and down. If I comprehend the truth of the matter, I do not require parlor tricks and sleight of hand.
The loftiness of the words will be in purity of their origins; the dignity of speech is a consequence of the wisdom that stands behind it. I have known many people babble on and ramble on about things they know to be untrue, while I don’t think I have ever heard someone fail to make his point if he is sincerely willing to die for it.
Just as form follows function, so style follows character.
As much as I try to learn about contemporary norms of marketing, I am always met with blank faces when I ask about whether they are right or wrong. The most helpful response I ever received was “If it moves the product, you’ve done it right.”
Now I may not agree with the underlying premise, but I respect the honesty. Where some see a spectrum from virtue to vice, others see a difference between riches and poverty.
I’m not sure, however, why the practice of fast talking or the shifty deal should have a place in any model. Where did we get the assumption that profit and candor must be at odds? I suppose it will only happen if we care far more for the former than we do for the latter.
Similarly, I have been called to jury duty far more often than can ever make sense statistically, and each time I have managed to make a fuss.
“Yes, your honor, I do have a bias in this case. Simply by observing how they pander to you, I have a sneaking suspicion that both lawyers involved have the gift of the gab, and I’m pretty sure they will try to pull a fast one on the jury. They are slick and they are quick. I wouldn’t buy a car from either of them, and so I certainly wouldn’t trust them to make a case in a matter of justice.”
Some judges grinned, others yelled at me, but I’ll be damned if I let either fast talking or bullying tell me how to inform my conscience.
Just as a decent man has a hunch when a nude is art and when it is pornography, so a decent man discerns noble rhetoric from disgraceful sophistry. Spending some solid time on the habits of judgment will allow me to catch the fast talker.
It isn’t about fancy words or common words, and it isn’t about more words or fewer words—it’s about heeding a moral compass from the get-go.
—Reflection written in 1/2013
IMAGE: Anonymous, A Roman Orator (c. 1850)
No comments:
Post a Comment