benozur-blog - Tumblr blog

[benozur-blog]

The final days at Lafayette

For the last few practices of the year leading up to the second tournament, we were responsible for teaching the students the topics for the tournament as well as helping them fine-tune their debating abilities. Some students were very eager to continue learning – some to the point where they tried to help lead or offered to write on the board, which we tried to prevent from happening – but unfortunately some hardly paid any attention. It is in part because of this that some of the students were not asked to attend the tournament by our teacher. While I understand that the students may have found that a bit harsh, considering I never wanted to have a super strict environment established during practice, I also understand that going to tournaments is a privilege that those who are willing to engage in practice deserve to have.

During the second to last practice, we broke the students up into two groups – prop and opp – and put together solid arguments for the second topic. Though hardly any students came with any outside research that we had asked them to do, they were still able to come up with pretty good arguments for each side that we felt, with a little extra substance, would be good ones to use for the tournament. For the final practice, we had a mock debate with six of the students, with the remainder serving as judges, on the first topic. Some of the students seemed well prepared for that round, and the ones who didn’t quite seem as prepared were given constructive criticism on how to improve for the tournament.

We hoped that these practices would help them put everything together in time for the tournament. In terms of victories among each of the teams, we did not see the results we were expecting. Some students were sadly down in the dumps once the final round wrapped up, but the overall energy seemed to be that of joy that they got to participate in such an activity as debate that they thoroughly enjoyed. That’s honestly all I could have asked of them.

[benozur-blog]

Socrates and Aristotle Discuss Rhetoric Yet Again

My classmate 5ydn3 raises an interesting point on Plato’s differing views on the writings of rhetoricians versus poets in Phaedrus, saying that rhetoricians write with a “guided by knowledge of philosophy” and that poets write “without purpose at all, but rather solely for pleasure (Plato 276d).” I would have to definitively agree. The works of those who express philosophy versus art are written in different ways, for different means, and for different audience. Nothing in that regard suggests one being inherently more valuable in the other. While we have discussed in class how rhetoric and philosophy are virtues, that does not mean expressing words in an artistic form is worthless. In fact, I think a case could be made that the work of rhetoricians is a kind of art.

My classmate chlocris discusses the value of facts in rhetoric as discussed in Phaedrus, saying that “without the transparency of truth, it is unfair, unjust, and unethical to speak to the public on topics one does not know. This refers to Socrates’ point, that ‘there is no genuine art of speaking without a grasp of truth and there never will be’ (261).” I wouldn’t necessarily go as far to say that it us unethical to talk about topics that one does not understand. In many instances of people giving speeches, they are void of objective content but rather are geared towards subjective argumentation. Of course, facts are needed to back up these arguments, and if those fact as clearly wrong, then that is certainly a misdeed. Generally speaking, in many arguments, there is more than one right answer. Just because one may totally disagree with the case of an opposing viewpoint doesn’t make that viewpoint wrong – unless that viewpoint does not come close to displaying any truthfulness.

This relates to what kirakiraposts is talking about in regards to the power of persuasion in Aristotle’s Rhetoric, when she says that “because ‘rhetorical study…is concerned with modes of persuasion,’ it follows that some mistruths will be stated as not everything said reflects reality (Aristotle 1355b30); a skilled speaker may be able to convince me that there is a harmful toxin in a commonly eaten cereal, but that may not be the case at all.” This somewhat juxtaposes what I just discussed Socrates was talking about, because there is no sense in speaking when all of the facts are wrong. It is, however, relevant to my analysis about how multiple viewpoints in an argument can all simultaneously not be wrong. Facts can sometimes conflict, and it is up to the speaker to persuade his/her audience that his/her viewpoint is the most accurate.

[benozur-blog]

With a Little Help from *Aristotle’s* Friends

When discussing book 8 of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, kirakiraposts points out that “people create bonds as social creatures” in reference to the virtue of friendship. While animals can form friendships of their own, friendship “seems to exist naturally among… human beings” (Aristotle 1155a). As these social creatures, we humans have a unique way of expressing this kind of love (perhaps this could be a helpful argument for one of the topics for the upcoming tournament). But why do people form friendships? People may love “what seems good” (Aristotle 1155b) for many reasons; lanesamoet notes that Aristotle “explains we are friends with people because they either provide some benefit, or aid, and because of some pleasure.” On the surface, this seems somewhat selfish – that we have friends to make us feel better for our own sake. It is important to recognize that Aristotle discusses how friendship must be mutual between both parties in order to exist. If this affection only goes one way, then it is not friendship. The affection must be mutual in order to create any actual positive results for both people involved (I will touch more on this when I address book 1).

The book goes on to discuss several different types of friendships. The most important one seems to be complete friendship, as bbrence points out: “Complete friendships… rely on some form of equality, as each person in the relationship should be gaining the same thing, and each should be putting in equal effort (1157a).” While I believe that not all friendships are necessarily created equally, I do agree that equality within the friendship is paramount. One-sided friendship isn’t a real thing; it is a bond that one person feels he/she has with another that is not mutual, so that person ends up putting in all of the effort for no real reward outside of personal pleasure. On the idea of what it takes on the part of both parties, lanesamoet recalls that “Aristotle explains that only good people can have true friendships: ‘clearly only good people can be friends for the sake of the other person himself, because bad people do not enjoy each other’s company unless there is some benefit in it for them’ (1157a). He also goes [on] to explain that only a good person is worthy of love….” As friendship is a virtue, it takes a person completing virtuous acts to realize it. I interpret this as distinct from saying that it takes a good (virtuous) person to realize friendship, because people who are generally wicked are still capable of having friends, regardless of the intent. Of course, we would hope that people form friendships in the name of goodness. Those are the types of friendships that seem to last the longest, because they are mutually beneficial.

Friendship is definitely one aspect of happiness, which Aristotle explains more in book 1. According to ewilkin4, “‘some think that happiness is virtue, some practical wisdom, others a kind of wisdom; while others think it is a combination of these or one of these along with more or less pleasure’ (Aristotle 1098b). No matter what the true definition of happiness, virtue, pleasure, and wisdom [they] are all mixed in there somewhere….” While I believe that happiness can be acquired in the same way wisdom can, it seems to be more similar to virtue. To me, happiness can lead to goodness, which can lead back to happiness, and so on. This cycle can continue to work in a multitude of ways, including acquiring friends. To seek happiness, one ought to live as a social creature, which requires friendship. If the friendship is mutual as intended, then that will have positive impacts on both friends. These impacts can include pleasure – which leads to more happiness – or helping each other out for the sake of each other, as opposed to oneself – which leads to goodness. As the purpose of friendship is in part to create happiness and (ideally) goodness in both parties, then it can be said that happiness and friendship should both be sought after like any other virtue.

[benozur-blog]

The Irrationality of Love and Lust

When discussing Plato’s Phaedrus, my classmates tylertbuck and kirakiraposts each do a good job in pointing out the irrationality that is exploited in a relationship with a lover as opposed to a non-lover (friend). Tylertbuck says that “some people in love definitely do perceive the good things as exceptionally good and the bad things that might happen as worse than they really are…. Love can make you see things as extremes and it can impair your judgement.” This quote really reminds me of Billy Joel’s “I Go to Extremes,” in which he says, “darling, I don't know why I got to extremes. Too high or too low there ain't no in-betweens. And if I stand or I fall, it's all or nothing at all.” When someone is in love, they exaggerate everything as either the greatest or worst thing ever, likely because of the emotional investment put into it. This lack of judgement can be dangerous, especially when the lover may be in the relationship for intentions instead of love – perhaps lust instead.

Kirakiraposts points out that lovers “will not show their true character in order to win someone over while non-lovers will be more straightforward and bring out the best in their love interest.” Someone who gets to know another’s character will be better at understanding that person for who they are as opposed to simply their body, as Phaedrus points out, lovers “generally start to desire your body before they know your character or have any experience of your other traits, with the result that even they can't tell whether they'll still want to be friends with you after their desire has passed. Non-lovers, on the other hand, are friends with you even before they achieve their goal, and you've no reason to expect that benefits received will ever detract from their friendship for you” (Plato 232e).

Socrates seems to have an even darker interpretation of love, as bbrence points out, “’a lover will not willingly put up with a boyfriend who is his equal or superior, but is always working to make the boy he loves weaker and inferior to himself’ (239a). This plays off of the idea of a lover as someone who is manipulative and not entirely concerned with the other person.” Socrates sees love, in cases where there is a decipherable power dynamic, as transactional as opposed to personal. Love really should be transformational – that is, each person should be working to better the other as well as themselves. I sure hope that Socrates is actually referring to lust instead of love.

[benozur-blog]

Public Speaking Practice

This week we worked on the students’ ability to publicly speak. We found this drill to be necessary when we realized that one of the main problems many of them dealt with at the tournament was the delivery of their arguments. In order to address this issue, we printed out works that they were familiar with, from famous song lyrics, to basketball postgame commentaries, to MLK’s “I Have a Dream” speech. The majority of the students made an attempt to take it seriously. What really impressed me, even more than this desire to improve their skill, was the support that they provided each other. After each person spoke, the rest of the students gave that person an applause, followed by constructive feedback on what they should consider for next time. Even though we have our work cut out for us as we prepare for the next tournament, it is very settling to know that the students have each other’s backs.

[benozur-blog]

What is courage?

kirakiraposts points out the struggle that Socrates, Laches and Nicias had in Laches in defining courage. Nicias says, “’courage is knowledge of the grounds of fear and hope’ (Plato 196a). ‘This knowledge is something possessed by very few,’ and those who don’t ‘won’t be courageous without acquiring this particular knowledge’, Socrates continued Nicias’s line of reasoning (Plato 196a).” They also debated whether courage had anything to do with knowledge. This is the epitome of debate, which I love. Is courage knowledge, or is it not? Another layer of complexity comes from how they each admitted to having discovered courage from themselves, as kirakiraposts also points out. It seems a little bizarre that those who have not experienced courage can really pinpoint exactly what it is. Part of the reasoning for this is that – and I know I’ve said this for several points in these readings – it is a subjective term that should be left up to the individual to define. This theme also comes up in Nicomachean Ethics.

5ydn3 discusses how Aristotle feels in Nicomachean Ethics, that “the courageous person ‘fears the right things, for the right reason, the right way and at the right time’ (Aristotle 1115a). However, Aristotle makes no attempt no attempt to exactly define what quantifies “the right thing” in and of itself. Perhaps, with this lack of definition, understanding the right thing to do comes from an understanding of oneself.” This is what I was referencing with Laches: without a clear definition, it really becomes tough to engage in a debate here. However, he also refers to courage as “moderation or observance of the mean with respect to feelings of fear and confidence” (1115a). These are terms that aren’t defined so much themselves, but they do seem to have a narrow focus. “Fear” primarily refers to an emotion during a dangerous or threatening situation, and “confidence” refers to self-assurance. These terms each refer to an individual’s state, but unlike with the lack of definition of “courage” in Laches, we now have base definitions for these terms that can help us more broadly describe courage.

[benozur-blog]

Lafayette Practices Pre- and Post-Tournament

The practice before the tournament, I was all alone. My co-coach was sick, and the teacher that usually helps us out was out of the room for the majority of the practice. Because of that, it was very difficult to accomplish what we had planned on doing. Instead of breaking them into two groups based on experience like we had planned, I gave a lecture to all of the students on ARESR, TBBT, and tournament format. It was more geared toward the students who had not been to a tournament yet, and the more experienced students were willing to chime in during the lesson with their previous tournament experiences. The students all seemed engaged, asking very specific questions about debate etiquette and nuances. I was pleasantly surprised to see this level of interaction, as I anticipated that they would just ignore me since it was a lesson and not a mock debate. I was very impressed to see them stay engaged despite having to do a lesson different from the one that they were expecting.

The first practice after the tournament was on Halloween. Thus, we decided to play a game with the students. Of course, it was still debate-related, but we wanted the kids to have a little more fun at this practice – after all, it was the first one following the tournament and also Halloween. The game was geared towards improving their rebuttal skills, and it worked like such: we would give them an absurd topic that no reasonable person would defend and make them give arguments for it for 45-60 seconds. Some of the students did not pay attention as much as others, unfortunately, but I think the students got a lot out of the game. It was also great that it looked like some of the students who struggled with their speaking style give their best effort to improve in that department as well. Hopefully we can do another drill similar to this in the future, because it looked like many learned a lot from it.

[benozur-blog]

What have experts done for me anyway?

My classmate tylertbuck raises an interesting point when referencing Socrates’s claim in Plato’s Laches that “it is much more effective to make decisions based on the opinions of experts. Even if there is only one expert and many others, the opinion of the expert outweighs that of the rest of the group.” Lysimachus, one of the men with whom Socrates is talking, even says that the praise that Socrates receives is “of a high order, both because it comes from men who are to be trusted and because of the qualities for which they praise [him]” (Plato 181b). While obviously it is important to rely on expert opinion and value it higher than the opinions of non-experts, that doesn’t mean that those opinions are useless, especially if they do raise legitimate question pertaining to the expert’s opinion. For example, in the field of economics there has been a debate over the subject of the minimum wage: should one exist – and if so, at what level? I’m no economist, but I have seen the effects of the minimum wage, or a lack of one, throughout my own research. I agree with the analyses of some and disagree with others because of how I have noticed certain policies played out throughout time. An important lesson that can be learned from this is to always keep challenging others’ thoughts if there appears to be some sort of error. Hmm, that sure sounds a lot like what we do in debate….

5ydn3 notes that “Nicias lauds men who willingly submit to the interrogative tactics of Socrates’ philosophical dialogues (Plato 188b). He elaborates that, in doing so, a person demonstrates a strong sense of character and devotion to wisdom, sacrificing their personal ego to the pursuit of knowledge (Plato 188b).” This seems like an idea we can all get behind: let’s all throw our egos and biases out the window to try to find truth. Unfortunately, this is not how the real world works. The fact of the matter is that there is no one hard objective truth. Society’s definitions of morals and tastes constantly change; and there’s always new scientific research that comes out that debunks the one before it. While we should all strive to find the closest thing to the truth, it’s okay to have biases and opinions on certain matters; that’s human nature.

[benozur-blog]

Is time really money?

It looks like I am the first in the class to post about Seneca’s “On the Shortness of Life.”

Seneca begins by explaining that life isn’t short but that “we make it short” (Seneca 2). He then goes on to explain why many people complain about life being short. What I noticed was that most of the things listed – including “political ambition,” “money,” constantly seeking [and sometimes unsuccessfully] goals (2), lust, and glory (9) – were external. This tells me that Seneca believes that people are so caught up with things around them to make up for the fact that our time is limited; not that it is a short amount of time [“the actual time you have… inevitably escapes you rapidly…” (9)], but rather that people try to worry about so many things outside of themselves to fill the time. This, as he explains takes away time for people to “recover their true selves” (3); that is, worrying about how to better themselves. [Perhaps understanding that people ought to fill their time with how to be more virtuous is the segue from learning about what virtue is with Aristotle.] Since people cannot spend time on external as well as internal factors simultaneously (9), people unfortunately choose to have bettering themselves come second, even if they recognize this mistake (10-13).

Seneca provides a potential solution for how to find a worthwhile balance between the two: “of all people only those at leisure who make time for philosophy, only those are really alive” (23). This is because philosophy teaches how to view oneself in the grand scheme of things. Only until people understand that they have intrinsic value for themselves and not just for others – although it is important to remember that being the “best you” possible requires some role with others – will they truly be able to internalize how much time we truly have.

This oddly ties into how the second day of coaching at Lafayette went. Since our team was not able to practice one of the days last week, we moved the lesson plan intended for that day to today. Because we already had had an idea of what we were going to do today in order to stay on track to best prepare for the upcoming tournament, we had to combine the two together. So, we discussed the censorship topic as well as reviewed ARESR. This crammed/truncated time serves as the epitome of the limited time that we have in total to prepare for the tournament. It almost seems like there isn’t enough to help the students understand the topics and nuances of debate structure in depth. This is where Seneca’s provided solution may come in handy. Of course, we should not plan on discussing philosophy not pertaining to the topics with the students; but if we don’t necessarily worry about external motivation and just focus on how we can help them become the best debaters, our time will become worthwhile.

[benozur-blog]

Does what we say really matter?

It looks like I am the first in the class to discuss the second part of Plato’s Meno and chapter 20 of Quintilian’s Book II of Institutio Oratoria.

In Meno, as Socrates and Meno continue to discuss – or, rather, Socrates induces his argument for Meno as Meno doesn’t add many of his own arguments – the idea of virtue, they once again show how complex the concept of it is. While I continue to hold that virtue is a term that cannot be defined objectively but rather on an individual basis by the person him/herself, Socrates does his best to give a general overview of what it means to be virtuous. He discusses about its relation to such things as knowledge (87c-d), benefits (87e) and harms (88a-b), the soul (88e), and teachability (89d). I do agree that the actions can be carried out to create either benefits or harms depending on result and intent. However, I do believe that, to an extent, virtue is something that can be taught to others. Parents can instruct their children what it means to be “good” (again, another subjective term), but it is really only effective when it is consistent with their actions – “do as I say, not as I do” does not usually work. This in part shows that what we do in front of our debate students can have at least some impact on the way that they will carry themselves.

In Institutio Oratoria, Quintilian discusses how rhetoric is a virtue. The one line that stuck out to me was: “If consistency in what should and should not be done is a virtue…, the same virtue should appear in respect of what should and should not be said” (403). Since what people say is usually a reflection on what they do, it would stand to reason that rhetoric does carry a certain amount of weight that can be measured in terms of goodness. As related to what this means for our debate students, we have to make sure that the words that we use to teach them are chosen with caution and thought such that they can have a net beneficial impact on them.

[benozur-blog]

Socrates debating definitions... again

While the debate between Socrates and Meno in Meno is not the type of debate that we will be teaching our middle school students, it does provide an introduction to the nuances of how to respond to others’ points. As ewilkin4 acknowledges, Meno avoided “the question and [didn’t give] Socrates the concrete answer he was looking for. Socrates becomes quickly infuriated, making remarks such as… ‘I begged you to tell me about virtue as a whole, you are far from telling me what it is’ (79c).” This demonstrates that failing to address a person’s point directly will prevent from any substantive conversation from occurring. Providing a counter-definition is perfectly valid – in fact, Socrates even allows for this by saying, “if [the debaters] … want to discuss with each other, they must answer [such that] … the answers must not only be true, but in terms admittedly known to the questioner” (75c-d) – but going off on a tangent is not an acceptable way to respond.

As a result of the vagueness in definitions, we still do not get a clear picture of what virtue is. As Socrates admits his “complete ignorance on virtue” (71b) and blames Meno for not paying attention to his own argumentation about it (79b), he does not use that as an excuse to not discuss the topic of virtue. As tylertbuck points out, he “uses his questioning in order to investigate ideas surrounding virtue” and “wants to find the definition for virtue instead of merely listing on characteristics or ideas that are virtues.” This further stresses the idea that a substantive debate cannot occur unless both sides are clear on the definitions at hand; even here, a discussion of the definitions can prove to be a worthwhile discussion in itself.

If I had to conclude from this reading what virtue is, I would have to agree with 5ydn3’s interpretation – in relation to Nicomachean Ethics – that “virtue is an action or response that both upholds and seeks to provide the greatest good. This good, according to Aristotle, is ‘that at which everything aims’ (Aristotle 1094a).” However, because we would then need to define what good it, it is at this point that I would have to argue that good is relative to the individual who is determining virtues for himself or herself. If that’s not an objective enough answer, well, I guess we’re gonna have to start from square one and debate the definition of good.

[benozur-blog]

Day one in the books

Despite having to adjust our lesson plan on the fly as a result of starting 20 minutes late, I would definitely call it a successful first day. The teacher showed that she wanted to be hands-on at several points, but I appreciate that she gave us our time to do what we had to do. The students were very cooperative and engaging – maybe talking a bit too much when they shouldn’t have, but hey, they’re middle schoolers.

Because most of the students have experience with debate, our future lesson plans can now be a little more in depth and accelerated. We can spend the time that we thought we would on the nuances of debate structure on more research into the topics; that is, we can discuss more detailed explanations for both sides of all three topics. Of course, we will need to spend time on other potential topics as well as making sure everyone is in their optimal speaker position (first, second, or third speaker); but if this first day is any indication, these students will have the drive to make it easy to accomplish.

[benozur-blog]

Maybe Quintilian should be a middle school debate coach

I am the first person to be writing about books eight and ten of Quintilian’s Institutio Oratoria; and as middle school debate coaching begins next week, I will try to relate two of Quintilian’s signature points to this.

Quintilian discusses the beauty of words and the meanings behind them, saying, “what I want is care for words, but deep concern for the subject…. The best words are bound up with the subject” (Quintilian 319). What he means here, to me, is that words have some value on their own, but they way that are used to construct an idea is what is most important. For example, if I were in a debate round about the topic of unions, it’s important to know the laws that protect unions. However, knowing the wording of the law is not valuable if I cannot tie it into the topic in an insightful way. Being able to put the pieces together, no matter how well I know the pieces themselves, is key to debate and orating in general.

Quintilian then focuses on what is expected of the student after significant learning, by explaining that, when orating, “the basics begin to be less important as the work proceeds” (255). For a given student, at the beginning of learning certain skills is the fundamentals. As that student continues to practice, those basics become muscle memory as he/she continues to enhance those skills. Let’s again use debate as an example. The middle schoolers will first learn how to create an argument, by coming up with several points of contention and expanding upon them using examples and impacts. As they practice with more topics, they should already have in the back of their minds how to construct an argument. While even their later arguments will contain the basics of debate, that is the part that they should not even have to think about anymore.

[benozur-blog]

Winning is the best goal, but it shouldn’t be the only goal

When discussing the second part of book two of Quintilian’s Institutio Oratoria, my classmate bbrence raises an interesting point about the distinction between raw talent and work ethic: “Quintilian points out that those with raw talent and not necessarily a lot of training ‘manage to force out some grand senteniae, and as they boast ‘good things’ [but] so do barbarians and slaves’ ([Quintilian] 335).” As far as I’m concerned, at the end of the day the ideal outcome is the best possible results. This would mean that, if raw talent and hard work equate to the same result, the difference is negligible. However, life is not about completing one obstacle; it is about learning mistakes from one obstacle to help figure out how to handle the next one. How does this relate to what Quintilian is saying here? Raw talent cannot take a person to his/her maximum potential. While raw talent is obviously great, it is the hard work that a person puts in to improve on his/her skills and be better equipped to deal with the more difficult obstacles down the line.

What does this have to do with coaching middle school debate? While winning a round or a tournament is obviously the ultimate goal, that does not mean that there is no value in improvement. If a student struggles in one round, I would hope that he/she learns from his/her mistakes and tries to make improvements into the next several rounds until progress is apparent. Another classmate, kirakiraposts, also expresses this idea in a great way: that “rhetoric must be nurtured in students learning to be orators no matter the skill level present prior to schooling…. ‘nature is the raw material of teaching’ (Quintilian 400).” A naturally gifted debater may not feel like he/she has to put in work because he/she is constantly winning, but someday that person will likely be confronted with someone who challenges them; and unless he/she is prepared, he/she likely will fail.

[benozur-blog]

Not student vs. teacher, but student & teacher

It looks like I am the first to post about the first part of book two of Quintilian’s Institutio Oratoria.

Here, Quintilian talks a lot about how the teacher needs to establish the rules for the student. Not only must the student reach a certain level of studying before being taught rhetoric (Quintilian 269), but the teacher has to instruct the student how to carry himself in addition to teaching him. His references to inquiring “into their good character” (269), not allowing the students to be intimidated or speak with hatred (271) or stand to applaud (273), making sure they [the teachers] are heard (273), and keeping them [the students] from sitting together (275) suggests a dynamic that best suits a learning environment. As it pertains to our eventual teaching debate to middle schoolers, while we do not necessarily have to be as strict with them as Quintilian seemingly implies here, making sure that we as the teachers establishes a good learning setting is vital. We do not want to put the middle schoolers in a situation where they feel an enormous pressure to execute our agenda exactly, but at the same time we do not want them to be able to run the show.

Not only does Quintilian speak about the actions that a teacher must do to establish a healthy learning environment, but he also stresses how a teacher ought to act to bring about these actions. On balance, students will not appreciate – or even respect – a teacher who is strict, rude and/or dictatorial in the way he/she carries himself/herself. The students should feel respected in their ability to be free and express creativity (287), and teachers need to make sure that they appropriately act harsh when necessary but also kind when the students appear to be struggling (285). After all, the middle schoolers we will be soon teaching will definitely have a way of carrying themselves or presenting themselves (or their debate style) that may be different from what we’re used to, and that’s okay. As long as we’re working with them to achieve the same goal of a successful debate team, and we’re treating them with the utmost respect, I am confident that their true skills will shine.

[benozur-blog]

Finally, someone cares about the teacher

Like casshayno, I also appreciate Quintilian’s choice to inform the teacher how to best teach his student as opposed to inform the student how to be the best student. Not enough literature is written on this, but students do value the work teachers put into assisting them. While it may be difficult to measure at times, Tulane has taken the measure to do course evaluations to determine the impact that a professor has had on his/her students.

Now, Book I of Institutio Oratoria doesn’t harp on education for college students. Rather, it focuses on how an orator should impart his knowledge on a child as he/she progresses through growing up. The line that really sets the tone for how to treat the child for me was: “As soon as his son is born, the father should form the highest expectations of him” (Quintilian 65). Right from the beginning Quintilian makes it clear that the child should be given a lot of information early. I like andalsohawaii’s analysis of this, when he says, “Childhood psychologists agree that in a child’s infancy, they can pick up on things easier than children and adults, which is why children raised in bilingual households are able to speak better than those who try to learn a second language later on.” (Not coincidentally, Quintilian suggests that children learn both Greek and Latin at an early age.) He doesn’t believe that children should be babied, but rather that they learn a variety of skills early (97, 245). Even when the child has grown up to take education more seriously, the teacher should not be directly intervening with his studies or reading (83-89).

These lessons can definitely be applicable when we begin coaching middle schoolers in debate. While they ought not to be treated as young children, but rather as teenagers who can think for themselves, it is likely that many will lack any substantial knowledge of how to debate or on the topics that they will have to debate. That’s where we come in. As the book also discusses how the orator ought to “be as highly educated as possible” (67), it will be our responsibility to help the students – not just for their sake, but for ours as well.

[benozur-blog]

Will Aristotle ever define his key points?

One of the first lines of book two of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics that really caught my attention was: “the branch of philosophy [dealing with virtues] … is not purely theoretical like the others, because it is not in order to acquire knowledge that we are considering what virtue is, but to become good people – otherwise there would be no point in it” (Aristotle 1103b). While I completely understand that comprehending virtues and how to apply them to one’s life – that is essentially what this entire book is about – isn’t that the purpose of philosophy as a whole? Why study any philosophy if we cannot apply it to ourselves and better ourselves? I’ve never fully understood why anyone studies much theory outside of any practicality, so what he is saying here is somewhat confusing. However, the remainder of his book, as I will continue to explain, is quite clear to me.

ewilkin4 raises an interesting point: “’Actions, then, are called just and temperate when they are such as the just and the temperate person would do’ (1105b). But does mimicking the actions of a just and temperate person make one just and temperate?... I like to drink water. I know that Obama also probably drinks water. Does this mean that I am virtuous and just like Obama?” From my point of view, his later statement provides the answer of that question: “it is by doing just actions that one becomes just, and by doing temperate actions temperate” (1105b). In other words, mimicking a just and temperate person does not make that person just and temperate; rather, that person must mimic the actions that are just and temperate in and of themselves.

Finally, I would like to personally thank Aristotle for finally using definitions to initiate his arguments. In my blog post about book one, I was dissatisfied that he failed to define either good or happiness, the crux of his entire argument. Here, the conversation is about virtues, and he makes sure to make clear how he wants to define them. He discusses that the two types of virtue are of intellect and character (1103a, 1106b), how virtue is the mean of excess and deficiency (1104a, 1108b), and the way a virtue can be a good state (1106a-1107a). This makes it very easy to track his argumentation, and it ends up quite sound.