Crassus--after listening to Antonius explain the difference between the middle, the low and the high styles; after listening to Antonius discuss the appropriate method of countering logical, and emotional appeals; in short, after listening to Antonius continually advocate and explain technical proficiency—turns the dialogue to a discussion of the relationship between oratory and philosophy. This turns out to be another effort, by Crassus, to argue that the orator must know everything imaginable. According to Crassus, there is nothing outside of the orator’s purview or responsibility, no bit of human knowledge not contained in the ideal orator’s library. Crassus, however, does not think that poetry and philosophy should be private pursuits, nor does he think that they will lead to ultimate truth. Rather, he advocates the orator’s exposure to them as enriched examples of human argument. If philosophy cannot guide us to a virtuous life, what is the virtue in its pursuit? Why would Crassus--a man who sez that human knowledge is limited, that human decisions are most often made in contingent circumstances based on probabilistic reasoning—say that the virtuous orator should study philosophy (a discourse that often promises a royal road to virtue) while also maintaining that this discourse gives no royal road to virtue, just another series of arguments?
First of all I think it is important to note Crassus’ definition of philosophy. He says: “For philosophy does not resemble the other sciences ― for what good will a man be in geometry if he has not studied it? Or in music? … whereas the contents of philosophy are discovered by intellects of the keenest acumen in eliciting the probably answer to every problem, and the results are elaborated with practiced eloquence (338). Still, the orator having been trained in oratory but not in philosophy “will anyway be enabled merely by that ordinary experience [of studying rhetoric] to give those persons [philosophers] a sound drubbing” (338). So here I think the proper interpretation is that philosophy may be good, but a good rhetorician can successfully argue against a philosopher without actually having studied any philosophy at all. Interestingly though, Crassus still seems to hold out some place for philosophy in rhetoric. He believes that the method of attaining thought (i.e. philosophy) and the method of expressing thought (i.e. oratory/rhetoric) were at one point one in the same pursuit. Socrates “in his discussions separated the science of wise thinking from that of elegant speaking” (335). Crassus holds Socrates and Plato accountable for “the undoubtedly absurd and unprofitable and reprehensible severance between the tongue and the brain, leading our having one set of professors to teach us to think and another to teach us to speak” (335-336). So the good orator will be able to philosophize as a result of his study of rhetoric: “whereas eloquence is so potent a force that it embraces the origin and operation and developments of all things, all the virtues and duties, all the natural principles governing the morals and minds and life of mankind, and also determines their customs and law and rights, and controls the government of the state, and expresses everything that concerns whatever topic a in a graceful and flowing style” (338). The contents of that list are all questions that philosophy has attempted to explain; the good orator has not only been able to work all of that out but can talk about it or anything else. So the study of philosophy is but a part of attaing the ideal of the good orator.
I agree with Saba. The search of virtue need not lead to the ultimate truth because the pursuit of virtue can be an inherent good (we grant things that are considered virtuous--justice, for example--and in the same manner we can can grant the pursuit of virtue). Moreover, the pursuit of virtue, though it may not discover the one moral path, can still help us reject that which isn't virtuous, and direct us toward not necessarily one but several 'palatable options'.
Crassus' argument on the importance of philosophy despite the dependence on reasoning is interesting because logic or probabilistic reasoning is one of the tools for human beings to discuss things they can never actually prove. The other tool being revelation (divine texts) but that takes us to a religious arena. Since Crassus believes that there is no guarantee that virtue will come out of philosophy, maybe the virtue is in the act of trying to find the path itself. Reasoning may be looked down upon, but it is an endless process of revision and self-reflection and it's hard to see how these are bad things. Sure, we may not discover the manuscript "How to Lead a Virtuous Life," but we may find out which arguments to lead to more palatable conclusions.
I think Crassus says that “the virtuous orator should study philosophy” because philosophy is the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct (according to Webster). So, if the idea is to be virtuous in any form, especially in oratory, then I agree that it’s imperative that one should obtain a broad realm of knowledge in the area of philosophy. You can’t achieve an ultimate goal of being something that you know little to nothing about.
Contrary to Crassus’ saying, I do believe that this discourse offers a royal road to virtue, NOT a discourse that promises a royal road to virtue – but a discourse that allows the opportunity. Because as the saying goes: “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink it.” In this case’s scenario: You can show a man the path of righteousness, but you can’t make him walk down that road.
I agree with Sarah. The pursuit of the unattainable can still have merit. In the virtuous orator's case, the pursuit of perfection, which according to the definition of Crassus includes gathering as much knowledge as possible about the widest range of topics in order to find the best possible truth, has value, though perfection may never be reached. The best that they can hope for is to approach perfection. If this were not the case would there be any merit in studying at all?
If Crassus' ideal orator is one which has vast knowledge and understanding of many topics, then philosophy should aid the orator on his quest for perfection (or as close to it as anyone can realistically hope to be). If philosophy is the search for truth, and it is the virtuous orator's goal to convey truth as best he can in argument, then learning philosophy can help him. I also believe that the pursuit of philosophy is virtuous for it shows that the orator is searching for some sort of truth.
I agree with csbowman that " virtue in the pursuit of philosophy to an orator is that it makes you a better orator". Philosophy is defined as both the "system of values by which one lives" and the "love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self- discipline". An orator is constantly seeking to expand his already vast knowledge base, and his eagerness to continually pursue new areas of interests is what eventually makes him a more virtuous orator.
If 'a virtuous life' signifies a life full of virtues that someone would be happy with, that life will likely be different for each of us. A little philosophizing goes a long way in guiding me to realize my virtuous life in this sense. Aristotle's virtuous life would be built around and unvariously filled with rationally-directed thought all the time (because rationality is that higher aspect distinguishes us from other animals). He is probably unique in holding this as his virtuous life though, but he's also unique in practically inventing (or discovering) physics, biology, formal logic, and being the tutor of Alexander the Great.
Alternatively, if 'virtuous life' signifies a life lived by a person who is in fact virtuous, we need only decide what it is 'to be virtuous'. Once we know that, we can philosophize to figure out some good ways to go about reaching that state, and philosophize some individually to figure out which way will work best for us as an individual.
In sum, I think that philosophy can guide us to a virtuous life, I think that I would argue that philosophy can assist us in any and every endeavor, and also that it can especially help us become more adept as orators by pushing us to imagine all sorts of distinctions that we might draw for clarification, whether our topic is truth, justice, virtue, something we can more easily point to, or whatever.
So sorry for the delay... wireless picks the worst times to not work.
Crassus begins by linking philosophy to oratory. According to Crassus, in more ancient times philosophy and oratory were taught together and there were not “professors in two separate groups, but the same masters gave instruction in both ethics [one field of philosophy] and rhetoric” (335). They have since been separated, which he finds unfortunate if not down right stupid (and seems to blame on Socrates). Crassus considers thinking and speaking (philosophy and oratory) to be closely related, so he calls their separation “undoubtedly absurd and unprofitable and reprehensible” (336).
From this discussion on the former relationship between philosophy and oratory, Crassus goes into his views on the resultant philosophical schools. Crassus particularly seems to take aim at the schools of philosophy that believe pleasure is the ultimate end. A man who seeks pleasure is “quite remote from the man whom we are seeking and whom we wish to be a political leader of the nation, guiding the government and pre-eminent for wisdom and eloquence in the Senate, in the assembly of the people and in public cause” (336). He is more accepting of the Stoics who have named eloquence and a virtue and form of wisdom (336). Another of Crassus’ problems with philosophy is the philosopher’s tendency to lead a private life. Crassus points out that if the philosophers successfully convinced the best men that “it is not the business of a wise man to take part in politics” they would not be able to live their ideal life (336).
Nevertheless, Crassus believes that orator should be familiar with philosophy. In response to Antonius, Crassus argues that the orator needs more than technical proficiency. He says that if his opponents think it is enough for an orator to know only rules, they are making him “abandon a vast, immeasurable plain and confine himself to quite a narrow circle” (337). And as Crassus believes that the ideal orator should know everything, he finds the limiting of knowledge repugnant.
This is where I think the importance of philosophy to the orator comes in. Philosophy’s role in the ancient world was to pursue the answers to questions that religion seeks to answer now – what is the nature of man? What is the meaning of life? One aspect of philosophy (ethics) was to find the correct way for a person to live, which surely is something the ideal orator must know in order to argue effectively and virtuously.
Perhaps Crassus believes that the virtue is the pursuit of truth, making the most informed decision at the time and acting upon it, because the ultimate truth is unknowable. Philosophy is the pursuit of ultimate knowledge and oratory the pursuit of eloquence, which requires knowledge (Crassus would say of everything). Therefore, to be an ideal orator requires a knowledge of philosophy because though it may not provide any real answers it is the best set of arguments for a particular knowledge. “The only true and perfect orator,” according to Crassus, is he who is able to argue either side of every case, against every statement, and with style (338).
The virtue in the pursuit of philosophy to an orator is that it makes you a better orator.
*I'm a bit tardy, I know, but this is an ongoing debate (and has been for centuries), right? So for what it's worth...
I'm not going to upset the general consensus around here; I agree that virtue is drawn not necessarily from attaining the ultimate truth, but from the pursuit of it. I agree with Crassus that ultimately, the truth is unattainable, but one would indeed do well to equip oneself with the philosophical knowledge that would allow one to come as close as possible to the truth.
There is one way to look at it, which is the simple reason that one has nothing to lose by attaining knowledge for a good aim (seeking the truth). Then there is the other way to look at, in which I would argue that not seeking the ultimate truth because it is unattainable is a defeatist outlook, so to speak. That would be like not loving your mother, for example, for fear of getting emotionally attached becuause, after all, she will die in the end, much like everybody else. So let's save ourselves from the hurt.
And finally, I would still argue that the search for the ultimate truth, the learning of as much knowledge as possible to better equip oneself, is good for the sole reason that one can't go wrong. I sometimes think that Crassus shouldn't be taken so seriously, that he of course knew that knowing everything is impossible, but that hypothetically speaking, if one did, they would be very sharp indeed. They would, assuming they knew everything, know what was right and what was wrong, and therefore be the epitome of the virtuous orator. As such, one can't question Crassus for arguing that the all-knowing person is something to be. In other words, this example could be fuel for Crassus' argument. How can you question the all-knowing individual?
I think one important distinction to make regarding whether or not the pursuit itself is virtuous has to do with the end that is ultimately trying to be achieved by the philosopher ad/or orator. Crassus does this by targeting the philosophers that would consider the hedonistic or epicurean modes of living as valuable. On a more serious note though, why do people pursue absolute truth by means of the accumulation of knowledge? When this way of life is examined, it oftentimes seems to me to be so absurdly egocentric as to be done merely to feel smarter than your fellow man. Is that virtuous? It is really the pursuit of absolute truth in the name of personal gratification, the same thing that some would decry the "pleasure" philosphers of doing, and therefore practicing bad philosophy and base virtue. Basically, there is virtue in the more "serious" pursuits of truth via absolute knowledge, but not in those which would lean toward pleasure.... WHY?!? As fundamental a question this is, I fail to come up with a satisfying answer.
Philosophy opens up a vast body of knowledge. Great orators devoted their entire lives in the pursuit of philosophy and further their knowledge “…These abandoned…and gave themselves entirely to study.” It allows the orator to explore beyond the confines of technical proficiency. In order to continue to excel, you cannot become complacent in what you are already proficient at. I agree with csbowman, the virtue in the pursuit of philosophy, although it cannot guide us to a virtuous life, is that it makes you a more adept orator.
These are both good comments; I'm starting to think of Crassus' idea of knowing all aspects of philosophy is similar to the sense that life is a journey, not a road to an end. The good orator may not know everything about everything, but he pursues knowledge ceaselessly to continue on the path of virtue. So perhaps it's not knowing all that makes you virtuous, or even the pursuit of a virtuous philosophy, but the pursuit itself that adds virtue?
"So perhaps it's not knowing all that makes you virtuous, or even the pursuit of a virtuous philosophy, but the pursuit itself that adds virtue?"
I would say that it is the pursuit itself that adds the virtue. Philosophy is not necessarily a means to an end -- you can study it your entire life and never come to a concrete "conclusion" -- but the study of philosophy leads to knowledge and wisdom. As such, the pursuit adds to one's rhetorical talent and virtue.
pursuing philosophy nonetheless sharpens an orators skill and proficiency. Although you will never know all there is to know in the world, gaining knowledge will help you debate. After all, philosophers act as orators when they want to convey their thoughts and arguments persuasively.