Rhetorical Structure of Fascism

Rhetorical Structure of Fascism

Kevin Rowell
Kiana Pirouz

Annotated Bibliography:
Project for the New American Century


1. In this introduction to a report released in September of 2000, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) proposes a plan for the reconstruction of America’s defenses. The first paragraph in the introduction states that a remodeling of the military is necessary to achieve American leadership around the globe and to preserve peace. It is interesting to note that PNAC forces the idea that American leadership worldwide is called for and necessary to the keeping of peace abroad. The introduction states early on that the United States has no global rival, and that the strategy should be to maintain this supreme position “as far into the future as possible.” According to this and other reports, the U.S. military is on a dangerous downslide. Budgets have been cut and weaponry is worn, so to be ready for a new century PNAC believes that a complete military restoration is necessary. The project is said to be built upon the foundations formed by Cheney’s Defense Department under President George H.W. Bush. The Project believes that the general public should and will be more receptive to this new plan in light of recent events.
2. This 2003 article in The Ecologist introduces the idea of a genetic bomb. Such a bomb, which is backed by the Bush Administration and by PNAC chairman William Kristol, could potentially target any individual fitting a certain genetic profile. For instance, the bomb would only kill Caucasians with blonde hair. An example given to support the possibility of such a weapon is that every person with ADHD shares a common inherited variation of their dopamine-regulating genes. The article asks the reader to consider the leverage a nation would have if it could credibly threaten the total extinction of one specific race. According to PNAC, “Advanced forms of biological warfare that [could] ‘target’ specific genotypes could transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.”
3. This 2003 article calls the Washington-based think tank’s plan to dominate the globe an attempt “to bring the rest of the world under the umbrella of a new socioeconomic Pax Americana.” The project’s aim is reduced to five main goals, including the permanent repositioning of forces to southern Europe and Asia, the modernization of aircraft and submarines, and the development of a missile defense system which would monitor both Earth and space. The 2000 PNAC report posited that such a reconstruction could be initiated by a minimal increase of defense spending from 3 to 3.8 percent of the GDP. The two central requirements, according to this interpretation of the plan, are for U.S. forces to fight and decisively win multiple major wars and to perform the duties associated with shaping the security in critical regions. The idea is also put forth that two events brought PNAC into the limelight: the election of George W. Bush and the attacks of September 11.
4. An article by Michael Flynn in April 2003 reviews the discourse of the United States’ leading up to the invasion of Iraq. President Bush is quoted as saying, on the eve of the invasion, “We meet here during a crucial period in the history of [the United States], and of the civilized world. Part of that history was written by others; the rest will be written by us.” This aggressive decree was given to a crowd of neoconservative thinkers at a dinner for the American Enterprise Institute, which this article calls the most influential think tank in the country at that point. Flynn says that for years neoconservative groups like PNAC have been advocating a complete overthrow of the anti-American regimes all over the world. In a 1997 article (during the year in which PNAC was founded), PNAC charter members William Kristol and Robert Kagan called for such a maneuver and dubbed it “benevolent hegemony.” Apparently, the roots of PNAC’s plans can be found in the 1992 paper “Defense Planning Guidance.” This paper was drafted by then Defense Secretary Cheney, and was authored by Paul Wolfowitz and Lewis Libby. This document then served as somewhat of a template for the project’s initial statement of principles. Flynn reiterates that the taking over of Iraq “is only stage one in a much larger global strategy…” in the minds of these neoconservatives.
5. On June 3, 1997, the Project for the New American Century issued its statement of principles. The first charge is that conservatives had criticized the policies of the Clinton Administration, but no steps had been taken to “confidently” advance a vision of America’s role in the world. The statement of course emphasizes that America is the dominant global power, and that failure to assert that dominance would be squandering a major opportunity. The aim of the PNAC is summed up in four points. America needs to: 1) increase defense spending and modernize armed forces, 2) strengthen ties to democratic allies and challenge regimes hostile to our values, 3) promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad, and 4) accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order.
6. In April 2004, a Washington report on Middle East affairs outlined some concerns about the ideas behind the PNAC. This writer expresses three problems with the current situation: 1) the refusal by America to call the situation what it really is, a longstanding religious war which will continue, 2) the overall breakdown in negotiations for peace in Israel, and 3) the challenge whether America can afford the human and monetary cost of occupying countries long enough to instill a successful democracy. These problems make such a neoconservative mission seem doomed for failure. The writer wants George W. Bush to realize what his father did, that there will most likely be no successful exit from Iraq, and that global domination is not the answer.
7. In an April 2005 report called “Iraq: Setting the Record Straight,” the PNAC focuses on the issue of Hussein’s WMD programs. The report puts forth information on Hussein’s stockpiles which is said to prove that Iraq was at least at one point building and harnessing weapons of mass destruction. Also, the PNAC states that Bush’s decision to act went beyond suspicions of WMDs as it “derived from a perception of Saddam’s intentions and capabilities, both existing and potential, and was grounded in the reality of Saddam’s prior behavior.”
8. An article called “The Thoughtful Superhawk” gives an account of an interview with Robert Kagan, a director of the Project for the New American Century. Kagan is a monthly columnist for the Washington Post and has written many controversial but influential papers and books on U.S. policy. His works have given accounts of historical events, commentary on present undertakings, and have proposed plans of action for future U.S. foreign policy. The main topic of this interview is the relationship between Europe and America. Kagan centers on the idea that Europe is not and should be perceived as a future threat to American dominance; instead, they should be considered a necessary ally. However, he does reiterate that America should use its military power to also maintain this role of Europe as a kind of right-hand man. Kagan is questioned on the meaning of a line, in his book Paradise and Power, that reads, “America did not change on September 11; it only became more itself.” This is a bold statement, but Kagan maintains that America has always been an expanding, aggressive, and unilateralist country. In this way, the United States (just as it did following Pearl Harbor) continued in this trend of purposeful retaliation. In another striking section of this discussion, Kagan goes against the grain of public sentiment when he says that he is not concerned with the loss of civil liberties during this war. To him, this is a necessary and inevitable consequence of the struggle, and he points to the idea that the constitution has time and again bounced back after a much needed cut of such liberties.
9. On September 20, 2001, just nine days after the attacks, the PNAC sent a letter to President Bush with the heading: Toward a Comprehensive Strategy. The letter begins by supporting the tracking of bin Laden, but it makes sure to state that this is just one of many goals that should be had. The next paragraph says blatantly that the President should hunt down Saddam, even if evidence linking Iraq to the attacks does not surface. Next, PNAC agrees with Colin Powell that Hezbollah (a terrorist organization) is one of the groups “that mean us no good.” Naturally, Hezbollah becomes the third main target. The letter goes on to say that Israel should remain America’s closest and most trusted ally against terrorism. In closing, PNAC requests a large increase in defense spending.
10. A 2003 article entitled “Origins of Regime Change in Iraq” gives a brief timeline of how neoconservative groups have come to be, and it also displays some of the impacts such groups have had on national policy. The writer applauds the efforts of these “neocons” in this opening line: “They offer a textbook case of how a small, organized group can determine policy in a large nation, even when the majority of officials and experts originally scorned their views.” The article traces the beginnings of the neoconservatives back to Wolfowitz in 1992’s Defense Policy Guidance document. PNAC is then praised for having declared in their 2000 report that the U.S. would be better off basing forces in countries other that Saudi Arabia, though at the time they were not calling explicitly for permanent bases in Iraq. The article concludes by stating that President Bush had by then (early 2003) began to take on the strategy: “Now, for him, regime change in Iraq is not the end; it is just the beginning.”
11. The Weird Men Behind George W. Bush’s War – Michael Lind, 2003
This 2003 article examines the proliferation of the neoconservatives in America, and how they hold direct ties to higher-ups in the American government. Members of this up and coming group generally shifted from liberal ideals to the far right. Members include the likes of Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and John Bolton, just to name a few. These men currently hold influential positions in today’s government. Lind focuses on a group he called the “new-con defense intellectuals,” who are in the apex of a “metaphorical pentagon” of the religious right, the Israel lobby, and conservative media and think-tanks. The PNAC is one of the think-tanks Lind is referring to; PNAC uses their force to write proposals concerning (typically foreign) policy. The impact lies in the signatories – Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc. The nature of the proposals usually involves a tinge of American imperialism. Lind goes on to examine the impact of the neo-cons, and the future they hold in controlling our government.

12. Two years ago a project set up by the mend who now surround George W. Bush said that what America needs was “a new Pearl Harbor”. Its published aims have come alarmingly true – John Pilger, 2002
Pilger uncovers the parallels between America’s current war on terror with government documents written previous to the 9/11 attacks calling for “a new Pearl Harbor.” Written nearly two years prior to the attacks, they propose that they only way for the US to acquire the world’s recourses in addition to achieving world domination through an event similar to Pearl Harbor. Pilger interviewed Richard Perle, founder of PNAC. Perle claims that the war on terror is a “total war,” a concept perceived as rather shocking, in the year previous to the war with Iraq. Pilger goes on to find that Rumsfeld proposed attacking Iraq immediately after 9/11 – without even knowing the perpetrators of the attack. He points out that 9/11 was considered an capitalistic opportunity to those in favor of the Iraq war. Through his findings, Pilger concludes that American imperialism is quickly brewing right under our noses.

13. The President’s Real Goal in Iraq – Jay Bookman, 2002
2002 was a year of rationalizing and questioning about the actions of the Bush administration. Jay Bookman finds that through conservative organizations such as PNAC, the eventual second war in Iraq had not merely been instigated because of WMDs or recent terrorism. The plans to go to war with Iraq, Bookman states, go all the way back to the mid 1990s. Certain members of the government, as much as ten years ago, began pushing the sentiment of American world domination. They sought to put military bases not only in the Middle East, but also Northeast Asia and Western Europe. In 2000, PNAC issued a report calling for heightened international security in the name of American peace. The report outlined many of the policies that have eventually been enacted (including the development of small nuclear warheads, cancellation of the Crusader artillery system, and abolition of the anti-ballistic missile treaty). The document also suggests straying away from the UN. By enacting on such policies presented in the PNAC document, Bookman notes, will distance our allies and increase our global commitment.


14. Axis of one - The “unipolarist” agenda – Gary Dorrien, 2003
Gary Dorrien attempts to draw a distinction between conquering and liberating, in terms of George W. Bush’s war on terror. However, Dorrien finds that there is no such distinction in this case. In the early 1990s, the unipolarist movement declared that America create a new “Pax Americana” (American Peace) through extensive economic and military power. The unipolarist ideology embodies the notion that America’s purpose is to stake claim to a unipolar world – America being the center of this world. The thinkers behind this ideology later formed PNAC, which proposed American global domination strategies. Dorrien clarifies that unipolarism is similar to the liberal internationalist nationalistic/militaristic view of world democracy. Furthermore, he describes the unfathomable amount of money that went (and goes) into the war in Iraq, which was explicitly stated in the PNAC report. He also goes as far as stating that President Bush cares little about the cost of the war, so as long as he gets one step closer to achieving his unipolarist goal of dominating the Middle East.

15. Politicizing Intelligence: The Right’s Agenda for the New American Century – Tom Barry, 2004
President Bush, with the help of neo conservatives, plan to change the shape of our world. Tom Barry writes that the neocon agenda, precisely found in the organization PNAC, seeks to gain American world order. We have already begun doing so by starting the war with Iraq. The most frightening aspect of the neocon agenda, Barry states, is their focus on politicizing intelligence.

16. Profile: Neoconservatives downplay their alleged influence on Bush administration foreign policy – Michele Kelemen, 2003
NPR’s Michele Kelemen investigates the dominance of neoconservativism in the American government. She speaks with co-founder of PNAC, Robert Kagan. He claims that American domination is ultimately good for the world. After Kelemen inquires about the neoconservatives true weight in the Bush administration, Kagan replies by discounting that notion, suggesting that 9/11 brought their ideals into the limelight. After speaking with other experts on the neoconservatives, Kelemen concludes that the group has grown tired of international checks and balances and their desire to grow the American empire has without a doubt played a significant role in the actions taken by the Bush administration regarding foreign policy.

17. Origins of Regime Change in Iraq – Joseph Cirincione, 2003
This article reviews the evolution of regime change in Iraq – from the brain child of a group of neoconservatives in the early 1990s, to the Bush administration’s decision to attack Iraq with plans of making it a democratic nation. He begins with Paul Wolfowitz’s 1992 plan to use military force in Iraq for the acquisition of raw materials and to stifle advancement of their WMDs. He put his plans into the Defense Policy Guidance document, which was so controversial at the time, it was required to be rewritten. In the later 1990s, a letter of similar nature (to remove Saddam Hussein) was presented to Clinton. The same group behind that letter formed PNAC, which collectively called for the presence of American military in the Persian Gulf. Cirincione notes that 9/11 was the catalyst for this group of neoconservatives to openly flourish, leading to President Bush’s acceptance of PNAC’s call to action

18. The Project for the New American Empire – Duane Shank, 2003
Duane Shank studies the origins and purposes of PNAC in this 2003 article. The way of thinking that PNAC members share roots back to the Reagan administration, with a focus on forceful foreign policy and military prowess. After the fall of the Soviet Union, America was the last standing superpower. This is when neoconservatives began making sure this status continues. In the 1990s, shortly after Persian Gulf War I, Paul Wolfowitz brainstormed the ideas that became ideals for PNAC. He called for unilateral action, but the Bush Sr.’s administration deemed the ideas too extreme to be considered. Finally, in the late 1990s, PNAC was officially organized and wrote letters to Clinton urging him to strengthen the military in the advancement of the American empire. PNAC began receiving considerable political attention the year before the 9/11 attacks. Shank claims that PNAC used the tragic attacks to capitalize on their own views by taking advantage of the fear instilled in people after the attacks.

19. Pax Americana – American Foreign Policy – Jim Harding, 2003
Jim Harding contemplates how America arrived at the current state of things; namely, how the US got involved in shady wars and foreign policy. As early as 1997, the neoconservative think-tank PNAC was formed. A 1998 letter signed by eighteen PNAC members urged Clinton to take preemptive military action in Iraq. Harding notes that the plans to attack Iraq again began far before 9/11, and began in the PNAC. Folowing 9/11, language such as “shock and awe,” “total war,” and “axis of evil” began swarming the Bush administration. Such language, Harding states, holds roots in the documents and blueprints created by PNAC.

20. Wikipedia Bush Administration Chart
This is a chart that demonstrates the similarities between members of PNAC and the 2000 Bush administration. Most highly influential members of the Bush administration also contribute to PNAC. Clear correlations are obviously drawn. John Bolton, the candidate for US ambassador to the UN, is the vice president of PNAC. The US ambassador in Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalizad, is also an ambassador of PNAC. Paul Wolfowitz, a president of PNAC, holds a position in the World Bank. The list continues, showing that members of the Bush administration are not only members of PNAC, but hold titles in the organization as key influential positions.








Bibliography
1. The Project for the New American Century. (2000, September). Rebuilding America’s
defenses: Strategy, forces and resources for a new century. Retrieved May 21,
2005, from the Project for the New American Century Web site:
http://www.newamericancentury.org

2. Hartmann, Thom. 2003. The genetically-modified bomb. The Ecologist 33, (9): p. 19.
Academic Search Premier, via Galileo, http://www.galileo.usg.edu

3. Pitt, William. 2003. The making of the U.S.’s far-right establishment. The Ecologist 33,
(3): 20-22. Academic Search Premier, via Galileo, http://www.galileo.usg.edu

4. Flynn, Michael. 2003. The right flexes muscle with new U.S. agenda. IRC Right Web:
http://rightweb.irc-online.org

5. The Project for the New American Century. (1997, June). Statement of principles. Social
Policy 34, (4): p. 13. Academic Search Premier, via Galileo, http://www.galileo.usg.edu

6. Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. 2004. The need to refocus our policy priorities
in the war on terror, April.

7. The Project for the New American Century. (2005, April). Iraq: Setting the record
straight. Retrieved May 21, 2005, from the Project for the New American Century
Web site: http://www.newamericancentury.org

8. Windybank, S. (2005). [Interview with Robert Kagan, director of The Project for the New
American Century]. Policy, 21, (1): 42-47.

9. The Project for the New American Century. (2001, September). Letter to President Bush
on the War on Terrorism. Retrieved May 21, 2005, from the Project for the New
American Century Web site: http://www.newamericancentury.org

10. Proliferation Brief. 2003. Origins of regime change in Iraq, March 19.

11. Lind, Michael. The weird men behind George W. Bush’s War. New Statesman. October 2003.
12. Pilger, John. Two years ago a project set up by the mend who now surround George W. Bush said that what America needs was “a new Pearl Harbor”. Its published aims have come alarmingly true. New Statesman. 16 December 2002.
< http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/nc-pilger.html>. 21 May 2005.

13. Bookman, Jay. The Presiden’ts Real Goal In Iraq. 29 September 2002. . 22 May 2005.

14. Dorrien, Gary. Axis of one – The “unipolarist” agenda. The Christian Century. 8 March 2003http://www.findarticles.com. 20 May 2005.

15. Barry, Tom. Politicizing Intelligence: The Right’s Agenda for the New American Century. IRC Right Web, Chronicle of the New American Century. 12 Febuary 2004. http://rightweb.irc-online.org/analysis. 22 May 2005.

16. Kelemen, Michele. Profile: Neoconservatives downplay their alleged influence on Bush administration foreign policy. All Things Considered, NPR. 06 May 2003. < http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1288587>. 20 May 2005.

17. Cirincione, John. Origins of Regime Change in Iraq. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 19 March 2003. < http://www.ceip.org/files/nonprolif/templates/Publications.asp?p=8&PublicationI D=1214>. 21 May 2005.

18. Shank, Duane. The Project for the New American Empire. Sojourners Magazine. September 2003.
. 21 May 2005.

19. Harding, Jim. Pax Americana – American Foreign Policy. Briarpatch Magazine. May 2003.http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JQV/is_4_32/ai_101448333/pr int >. 22 May 2005.

20. The Bush Administration. Wikipedia.
. 22 May 2005

If you're bored...

For those of you still in town with nothing to do on Sunday, May 15th, I'll be giving a talk at Athica that afternoon/early evening. It deals more with my actual area of research - the investigation of technicity, mostly in more recent incarnations - but I thought I'd let y'all know. I think I'm scheduled for around 4:00, but exhibitions play out starting at 2:00 and go through a panel disussion that follows after my talk. Feel free to come by :)

Plato's Phaedo

Classical Greek Rhetoric

“Soul is most similar to what is divine, immortal, intelligible, uniform, indissoluble, unvarying, and constant in relation to itself, whereas body, in its turn, is most similar to what is human, mortal, multiform, non-intelligible, dissoluble, and never constant in relation to itself (80b)”.

This description of the body and the soul was presented by Socrates to a number of his closest companions, just hours before his execution order was to be fulfilled by his consumption of the poisonous hemlock. These distinctions between the divine soul and the human body serves as summation of much of the dialogue presented within Plato’s Phaedo, which is commonly referred to as one of Plato’s greatest masterpieces. This argument for the nature of the soul is much like the description of the soul that can be found within the dialogue of Plato’s Phaedrus, where Socrates theorizes that the soul is immortal and the actions of living men decide the fate of the soul after the death of the body. Unlike the Phaedrus however, the Phaedo is a detailed recollection of the events and discussions that occurred throughout the hours leading up to the death of Socrates, as told by Phaedo to Echecrates.

In the discussions that occur before his death, Socrates greatest and most detailed arguments are for the existence of “forms”, which are the oppositions we have discussed briefly in class. The major forms discussed in the Phaedo include but are not limited to life versus death, which is the most prominent form discussed by Socrates, opinion (doxa) versus knowledge (episteme), largeness versus smallness, and sleep versus awake. Socrates assesses here that, “For all things subject to coming to be; opposites come to be only from their opposites—in the case of all things that actually have an opposite—as for example, the beautiful is opposite of course, to the ugly, just to unjust, and so on in countless other cases (70e).” This argument, for the existence of forms is one of the simplest and most outstanding theories that Socrates describes to his companion, yet he does not explain these forms in detail beyond the fact that opposites come to be from that which they oppose.

With Socrates facing death, he is surrounded by his closest companions, who have traveled to be by his side in his final hours. In the opening pages of the dialogue, as re-told by Phaedo, many of the members in Socrates company, including his wife Xanthippe, are very distraught and upset, realizing that this will be their final moments spent with their loved one. Surprisingly, Socrates does not exhibit this same fear of death, and in an attempt to avoid an emotional outbreak, he sends his wife, who holds his young boy away. He calls out to Crito, stating, “Someone had better take her away (60a).” It is at this point that Socrates begins his intriguing and in depth discussion of the philosophic approach to death.

According to Socrates, death is nothing to be feared or avoided, especially if an individual lives out their life in a just manner. He begins his discussion of death with an argument against suicide. Here Socrates relates the idea of suicide to an “escape (62e).” Because humans are under the care and possession of gods, it is unreasonable to kill oneself without the desire of the gods. He then continues his argument against suicide by claiming that after death the soul, “shall enter the presence of gods who are very good masters (63b).” This again reflects the theme that a truly wise man who searches for knowledge should not be fearful or resentful of approaching death.

Following this argument against suicide, Socrates continues to describe how the philosopher should view death. Here he defines this phenomenon of death as, “nothing but the separation of the soul from the body (63e)” which leaves the soul alone and by itself. Again Socrates argues that the soul is immortal, yet it has the purpose of serving the body while it lives. Describing the body as a vehicle of numerous distractions, which fill the soul with lust, desire, fear, and fantasies which lead men to wage wars to gain wealth and fulfill the desires of the earthly body, Socrates assesses that the soul is polluted by the body. According to this argument, the true lover of knowledge would understand the body to be this vehicle that only restrains the soul from purity. Therefore, if one is a true philosopher, he realizes that there is in fact no reason to fear or despise death. Socrates considers himself to be a philosopher and lover of knowledge, and therefore he himself looks into the face of death without distress. There is no need to fear separation of the body and soul if one lives the life of a philosopher, who abstains from adhering to human desires.

To these arguments, Socrates requests the response of his companions Simmias and Cebes. At first they are reluctant to give their opposing opinions regarding the subject of death and the separation of the divine and immortal from the human body, in an attempt to be respectful of Socrates’ final hours. Socrates on the other hand, criticizes this reluctance to argumentation with another theory on behalf of argumentation itself. Here he warns his company against hating arguments, stating that, “there’s no greater evil that could befall anyone than this—the hating of arguments (89d).” Socrates argues here that hating arguments becomes problematic for those who place complete trust in someone. Without arguments, Socrates fears that this mistrust in others will result in succumbing to the human desires and fantasies that restrict the soul from remaining pure and divine.

Finally after some coaxing, Simmias confronts Socrates’ arguments on the nature of the body and soul. In his argument, Simmias relates the soul to the strings on a lyre, while the body is the instrument as a whole. The instrument itself is earthly as thus can be destructed, but the soul exists within the body. If the strings on the instrument are properly tuned, the instrument can play, but without this tuning of the strings or soul, the instrument itself fails. The body or instrument, which is earthly by nature, can thus be destroyed, which then also results in the destruction of the soul.

At first Socrates admits that he is quite impressed with the objection of Simmias, but then states that this argument is flawed. Socrates continues his theory on the immortality of the soul by presenting a few more arguments. First, he points out that although a musical instrument can be tuned to sound more or less beautiful, the soul cannot be any more or less of a soul. He then continues with this idea of tuning an instrument, by claiming that both good and bad souls exist. Unlike the instrument which can be tuned to make it “good”, souls themselves are not equally good. Finally, Socrates points out that the soul instructs the body, while an instrument depends on the instrument itself as a whole. These claims solidify Socrates’ previous arguments on the nature of the immortal soul, and Simmias and Cebes now are in agreement about this nature.

Before making his final argument, which concludes the dialogue of the Phaedo just before his death, Socrates describes in some detail his philosophic history that has brought him to create his theories on the nature of the body and the soul. Socrates assesses that as a young man he searched for the causation of life’s mysteries, or the facts about the universe. Later in life Socrates took on the life of a philosopher as he began to create theories that deal directly with the fact of the universe. It is at this point that Socrates begins his final argument for the existence of opposing forms as well as their nature. He uses the example of a shorter person in comparison to a taller person, to show that the first person is only short in relation to the tallness of the second. Without the second person standing by the side of the shorter person, the shortness itself does not even exist. This solidifies the argument that opposites cannot exist without the presence or existence of the forms opposition.

Socrates’ presentation and explanation of forms reflects some similar ideals of forms and kinds that Plato introduces in The Sophist. Much like Socrates’ forms that cannot exist without the existence of that which they oppose, the forms introduced in Plato’s Sophist are considered to be interwoven with one another. As defined by the stranger in this particular dialogue, forms and kinds are recognizable in relation to other forms. For example, a particular shape, like a circle or square, is recognizable in relation to other forms that are characteristically different. This suggests that forms are not actually separate from one another, but rather have an innate similarity, just as opposites cannot exist without the presence of that which is exactly separate and different.

The Phaedo is often regarded as one of Plato’s most distinguished works. At the conclusion of the dialogue between Phaedo and Echecrates, Phaedo describes in detail the dramatic ending of the life of the great philosopher Socrates. Here Socrates is told to have met death with true wisdom and therefore he drinks the hemlock without fear. He peacefully grows tired and his legs begin to feel heavy. Along with Socrates’ description of how the true lover of knowledge should face death, his actions in his final moments of life again reiterate his beliefs that death is not to be feared if one has lived life in a noble manner. Interestingly, Plato’s thoughts and arguments on the existence of forms and the life of the philosopher seem to mature in this particular dialogue as previous theories and arguments are explained in even further developed in Phaedo. Although many of these arguments might seem archaic toady, Plato still presents some very fascinating theories on the nature of life and death, two phenomena that are still debated and will continue to be discussed forever. Discussions of the nature of the death and the immortality of the soul will continue to be debated until the end of time, as the living can never really understand death until one comes to face it personally.

Works Cited
Translation by Gallop, David. Plato’s Phaedo. Oxford World’s Classics. Oxford
University Press. 1993.

Book 3 of Aristotle's On Rhetoric

Leadership Essay
Scott Hall

Book 3 in On Rhetoric brings us to Aristotle’s views on Delivery, Style, and Arrangement in rhetoric. As I read through Book 3, I felt as if I was being given an overview of several topics which I have covered in my past few as a Speech Communication major (although, of course, with graduation only a few weeks away, many of my thoughts as of late have been reflective which probably influenced how I read this piece). Nonetheless, I could not help but be floored by the simplistic brilliance of some of Aristotle propositions regarding so many components of rhetoric. Book 3 is not simply a “how to” lesson on constructing a rhetorical position. Several instances in these chapters explain why is it that certain devices work in ways that I must admit have never been evident to me before. That being said, a general review of Book 3 as a whole did bring to my attention a few aspects that seemed possibly contradictory. I’ll begin my discussion of this piece as Kennedy as informally organized Book 3, which is by dividing the chapters into two mains sections. The first section, chapters 1-12, deal with lexis, which we should interpret as “way of saying”, or what may be effectively comprehended as “style.” The second section, chapters 13-19, discusses taxis, which is the “arrangement” and “ordering” of the parts in oration.
The first twelve chapters are, in my opinion, the more interesting of the two sections. It is here that we receive Aristotle’s take on the notion of language shaping reality. He spends a great deal of time in these chapters discussing the correct use of metaphor, which he believes is a valuable tool when used correctly. Aristotle proposes that audiences are seduced by beautiful metaphor; that we can be captivated by more mysterious language. “As a result, one should make the language unfamiliar, for people are admirers of what is far off, and what is marvelous is sweet” (221). However, soon after this claim he does make the point that one should still preserve their sense of honor and dignity, saying that “authors should compose without being noticed and should seem to speak not artificially but naturally” (222). Later Aristotle extends this conversation on metaphor to include the use of similes, which he writes are essentially the same as metaphors, having only the slight difference in delivery. It was shortly after this point that I was beginning to feel as if I were reading a grammar lesson. Aristotle begins to discuss composition and by the end of Chapter 5 I was feeling as if I had received a crash course in such grammatical devices as parallel structure and pronoun/noun agreement, although he does insert some personal ethics into this area, condemning the use of amphibolies for their obscurity.
The second section of Book 3 deals with taxis, or the arrangement, of rhetoric. Aristotle begins this section by identifying early on that there are two parts to a speech, which are stating the subject (prothesis), then demonstrating it (pistis) (258). The rest of the section then looks at each part of the speech and demonstrates the different methods available in constructing. The parts, as defined by Aristotle, are the Introduction (prooimion), then a part which addresses the question at hand, followed by the diegesis which leads us through the facts. Next comes the pistis, which we remember is the proof, part of the oration, followed by the Interrogation (erotesis), then finally the Conclusion (epilogos). Within these sections, Aristotle discusses the three different strategies for different types of speeches, which are epideictic, judicial, and deliberative. Epideictic speeches are for praises and blame (261). Judicial speeches are concerned with teaching the audience something that they do not know (262), and deliberative, which he says are very similar to judicial, are concerned with what the audience alreadys knows (265). In summation, Book 3 was mostly like a “how-to” in conducting rhetoric (both spoken and written), and included a wide variety of tools and strategies which I have to admit made me relive my past few years of higher education.