Final Exam: Clever Speech After reading The Trial and Death of Socrates and Meditations on First Philosophy I would consider both Socrates and Descartes clever speakers in their own way. Their approach to speaking are very different but they have a way of being extremely meticulous with their use of language. By doing so, they both reach a point of being what many may consider “clever”. I on the other hand would not consider them clever. In my opinion, Socrates speaks in a more manipulative manner where as Descartes speaks not so much clever but theoretical. Socrates attempts to explain to the jury that he is not a clever speaker. He tries to rationalize with the jury that the claims made against him are incorrect. Socrates states, “Of the
…show more content…
His approach to speaking isn’t in a way to convince others that his way of thinking is right, but instead he rationalizes and talks through why he thinks what he does. For example, “I am not that concatenation of members we call the human body. Neither am I even some subtle air infused into these members, nor a wind, nor a fire, nor a vapor…” (Descartes, 19) We see this as a benefit because he is capable of feeling his body, not for what it is but for what he perceives it as. The downfall of this is he makes himself believe that an evil demon committed itself to deceiving him, or for him to be misled. By doubting everything, Descartes claims he can escape the demon. I believe Descartes is more concerned with rationalizing his theories even though some theories may seem a little “out there”. I would not consider his end goal to change the views of others through his meditations. I imagine that his meditations were more focused on reflecting on his own thoughts and putting them to paper. Every person can go through a time of meditation but does that deem it necessary for others to judge whether or not the meditation was successful? Everyone has a right to their own opinion. I think his meditations were indeed successful because what really is success? He was able to formulate a thought, many thoughts, and compose multiple meditations from them. To be able to think in such a creative and out of the box type of way is a form of success in my eyes. Although my definition of success may be far different than my
His approach to speaking isn’t in a way to convince others that his way of thinking is right, but instead he rationalizes and talks through why he thinks what he does. For example, “I am not that concatenation of members we call the human body. Neither am I even some subtle air infused into these members, nor a wind, nor a fire, nor a vapor…” (Descartes, 19) We see this as a benefit because he is capable of feeling his body, not for what it is but for what he perceives it as. The downfall of this is he makes himself believe that an evil demon committed itself to deceiving him, or for him to be misled. By doubting everything, Descartes claims he can escape the demon. I believe Descartes is more concerned with rationalizing his theories even though some theories may seem a little “out there”. I would not consider his end goal to change the views of others through his meditations. I imagine that his meditations were more focused on reflecting on his own thoughts and putting them to paper. Every person can go through a time of meditation but does that deem it necessary for others to judge whether or not the meditation was successful? Everyone has a right to their own opinion. I think his meditations were indeed successful because what really is success? He was able to formulate a thought, many thoughts, and compose multiple meditations from them. To be able to think in such a creative and out of the box type of way is a form of success in my eyes. Although my definition of success may be far different than my