In book 2, Chapter 21, Aristotle discusses the appropriate uses of maxims. He defines a maxim as “a statement, not a particular fact… but of a general kind…about questions about practical conduct” (Bk 2, Ch 21, Para 1). For example, a common maxim might be “you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs”. He goes on to give some general advice about the use of maxims. I found a couple of noteworthy statements in this section.
Aristotle posits, in the last paragraph of the section (1395b) that “One great advantage of Maxims to a speaker is due to the want of intelligence in his hearers, who love to hear him succeed in expressing as a universal truth the opinions which they hold themselves about particular cases” (Ch 21, Para 6). It seems that for Aristotle the purpose of a maxim is to capitalize on the values of your audience, and trick them into regarding their values as absolute truths. He describes how “people love to hear stated in general terms what they already believe in some particular connexion” (Ch 21, Para 6). Aristotle recommends that the orator guess the subjects on which his audience holds views, and restate these views as general truth (Ch 21, Para 6). This, presumably, is meant to make an audience more receptive to other things you say. So, by constructing your views in order that they affirm the values of the audience, you are able to convince them to take other actions your prescribe. What’s troubling for me is that maxims are virtually never universally true. In fact, many of them contradict each other. For evidence of this, visit this page, which offers competing maxims on various facets of life. So it seems that anyone could discredit Aristotle merely by stating a competing maxim (assuming there were conflicting maxims). Also, gaining audience credibility by pretending to share their views (when you don’t) seems morally problematic, and likely to discredit a speaker when their ruse is discovered. This passage is ironically followed by the claim that “One advantage of using maxims…is more important – to invest a speech with moral character” (Ch 21, Para 6).
Earlier in the chapter, Aristotle seems to advocate outright lying: “To declare a thing to be universally true when it is not is most appropriate when working up feelings of horror and indignation in our hearers.” (Ch 21, Para 5). In other words, hate-mongering is best achieved by lying. But wait, wasn’t Aristotle a noted advocate of virtue and moderation? And isn’t misrepresenting yourself to your audience likely to be eventually discovered, thus being detrimental to your moral character?
“One great advantage of Maxims to a speaker is due to the want of intelligence in his hearers, who love to hear him succeed in expressing as a universal truth the opinions which they hold themselves about particular cases” (Ch 21, Para 6).
ReplyDeleteI want to respond to this line for two reason. First of all, because when I came across it in my reading, it made me laugh. I was tempted to blog about it myself, but ended up choosing another theme. So, I'm quite please that you found it interesting as well.
Secondly, because the second part reminds of of a discussion that took place in one of my journalism classes. Namely about the type of news people expose themselves to. The general consensus was that people watch what confirms their pre-existing beliefs--not to gain information that will facilitate the formation of new ones. If you're conservative, you will probably want to watch Fox, where your assumptions will be echoed in an authoritative voice. If you're liberal, perhaps you'll listen to NPR, where you will hear about the importance of the things you feel are most important. Of course, this is a generalization, but on average, it may bear some truth.
I visited the page where they list the different dueling maxims. Reading them made me laugh a little because some were very old-school and others cliché, "Two cooks spoil the broth". But I do agree with you on the point that at times Aristotle does not seem to follow his own values. To gain an audience’s approval by simulating their values does not seem morally correct. It also does not seem virtuous to say that a statement is universally true when isn’t. But I feel that these kinds of tactics are used by many people today. When I think of individuals portraying a value to their audience, the first thing that comes to my mind is politicians. They probably don’t agree 100 percent with everything their party advocates, but they have to take on those values their side promotes if they want to gain the trust and approval of their audience. I believe someone made the point in class that Aristotle seems to exclude himself out of his own claims and the issue between maxim and virtues is a situation where I think he does this.
ReplyDeleteIt's an interesting thing about Aristotle that he seems to switch between the idealistic and the utilitarian with impunity. Maybe it's a side effect of him being such a "renaissance man" interested in such a huge variety of topics. He might have been interested in spreading a moral philosophy on a personal level, but these sections you've pointed out are good examples of how the work occasionally turns into what is essentially a how to guide on how to be an effective rhetor. And the advice contained is still used today. It's an interesting look at Aristotle the Scientist instead of Aristotle the Philosopher.
ReplyDeleteThe bit about maxims reminded me of what Tolkien said about Hobbits, who "liked to have books filled with things that they already knew, set out fair and square with no contradictions" (Fellowship of the Ring, Book 1, Prologue).
ReplyDeleteMaxims are interesting, because you can find one for pretty much any situation, and as such they don't tend to work and play well together. Which can be really confusing for the person trying to decide what to do based on folk wisdom.
I think most of the benefit of maxims is that no one thinks they contradict each other. This is also the benefit of Scriptural argumentation. I grew up Episcopal, which is one of the most paperwork-heavy kinds of Christian, and my parents' church got embroiled in the whole brouhaha over whether to ordain a gay bishop. Our priest submitted tons of writs full of lines of scripture to support himself, which is standard practice in the church, and got back writs from the bishop full of totally contradictory lines of scripture. What they eventually have to do to settle this stuff at council is determine which books and verses are more true than the others, and preference arguments accordingly. In the meantime, everyone looks like the exact same shade of devoted Christian, because no one will admit that the maxims make no sense together. Everyone just accuses everyone else of misinterpreting or misusing the Word of God.
ReplyDeleteThat might be what Aristotle is suggesting happens with "moral character"; the maxims he refers to would probably in large part be based on religious stories, and would give the impression of a devoted follower. You see the same type of thing in anything written in English between the years 1550-1700.
On a different note, what I tend to find most compelling is when a speaker uses a metaphor that could be a maxim but isn't yet, when they explain exactly how I feel about something in words that I haven't heard before. Maxim creation can be treacherous and hokey, but if you're good with wordplay, it's a much sneakier way of getting people to agree with you. They feel instinctively bound the way they would from a common maxim, but they also think you've spontaneously discovered the absolute truth.