Dostoevsky and the complete man

This is a paper I wrote for my Great books class. Pardon if some of the ideas are redundant from previous posts, as I drew a good bit from them. I owe alot of the expansion of ideas for this paper to Juliet San Nicolas, though these words are my own, and the one place I did quote her is noted. :-)

In the study of rhetoric, there are three things you can appeal to; Logos, which is logic, Ethos, which is ethics or morality, and Pathos, which is the appeal to the emotions. These make up the entire human being, and thus Rhetoricians of old said to appeal to the whole man. I was reading Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov and I noticed that each of the three brothers correspond to the three appeals of rhetoric. We begin the book meeting Ivan, who is a rationalist, Dimitri, who is a sensualist, and Alyosha a monk, who is a moralist. Dostoevsky speaks to the whole man, not just the intellect, like a technical manual, or to the emotions, like a soap opera, but to the mind, heart, and soul of the reader. Making that connection brought to mind a verse in Matthew 22:37, when the Pharisees asked Jesus what is the greatest commandment. Jesus responded, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ “ We are commanded to love God with the whole of our being. Man was perfectly designed to be with God. His soul was molded by God, and in turn, God fits the mold perfectly, because he created it. God appeals to all aspects of a man; Heart, Soul, and Mind, and it is precisely that complete self with which we should love God.

No workable idea is complete without all three being answered for. “Cultures have risen and fallen based on their failure to emphasize all three characteristics of man; Rome degraded into sensuality, The Enlightenment suppressed emotion, Romantics relied overmuch on it.”(J.S. Nicolas) Atheism is built in the mind, and is formed on pure, cold reason, and mind you, on its suppositions it is very logical, but it has no answer for morality, and emotions are a just a hiccup in nature. Atheism does not appeal to the whole man. Ascetic Gnosticism denied the emotional characteristic of Man, and said he should be ruled by Ethos mainly, and Logos along side. Libertine Gnosticism denied morality and ethics, in favor of emotions. Gnosticism does not appeal to the complete man. The only thing that appeals to the whole man completely and perfectly is God. "The greatest commandment is this; You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and all your mind." God is the great orator.

Seeing Man as three parts makes the trinity easily understandable (as far as we can understand it.) For some reason, the idea of three in one is hard to think about if you don't understand man. Like Jesus said to Nicodemus, "I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?" It's easier to understand the concept of a skyscraper, if you see a picture of a skyscraper; it’s easier to understand God, if we look at the image of God. But to confuse the two-to take the image for God-is a grave error in deed

Beauty is a reflection of God. What we perceive as beautiful is such because God has left his hand print on everything he's made. Good art is not only technically brilliant, but it inspires emotion, an also moves your soul. Think about the music you love. All the musical theory is excellent (Logos), it makes you feel a particular emotion (Pathos), and it gives you inspiration, and you admire it with your soul. (Ethos) You love a musical piece when all three things happen. Joy is when all three aspects of our being are fulfilled. That's why beauty is joyful, and why joy is beautiful. A Christian feels constant joy because God completes our whole being!


I learned a lot about myself, while reading Brothers Karamazov. Dostoevsky transports you out of yourself, and only then you can you look back and see yourself, and be transformed for the better. The situations and episodes are unlike most anything that I’ve experienced, but he presents them in a way most like everything. He creates a reality quite real. The conflicts between the characters ring familiar the conflict inside us. His characters are so like us that we think alongside them, and we feel we think for them, and above all, we learn from them. A part of me left me when I finished the book, because it affected the whole of me. I was almost sad to leave a world so real. I think I may go visit again sometime. :-)

Sublimity in persuasion

The following is an essay I wrote for my Rhetoric class.

“Genius, it is said, is born and does not come of teaching”.(On the Sublime, Ch.2) It essentially comes from nature, not art. But nature is both improved and checked by art, “for genius needs the curb as often as the spur.” (Ch.2) Genius unchecked strays into superfluous grandeur, and unspurred fails to move us. Sublimity walks hand in hand with subtlety. The audience should not be conscious that they are being influenced, and should feel as if they are thinking along with the orator. “The true sublime naturally elevates us: uplifted with a sense of proud exaltation, we are filled with joy and pride, as if we ourselves had produced the very thing we heard” (Ch.7) What Longinus terms as sublimity is what the orator ultimately aims at. Rhetoric is the art of creating the circumstances conducive to persuasion, clearing the obstructions, literary goo gone, if you will. Persuasion happens most easily when the audience aren’t caught up with personal prejudices, and when it feels that the thoughts of the speaker are their own. “The effect of genius is not to persuade the audience, but to transport them out of themselves”. (Ch.1) The Orator should appeal to the whole man, the intellect, emotions, and soul of the auditor. The audience will truly be transported out of themselves, if they are transported into themselves. The golden rule for composing speeches is “know your audience”, and to be sublime is to make them know their selves also. When presented with themselves they can then think for themselves, and thus persuasion is possible.

A great example of Sublimity is Dostoevsky’s Brothers Karamazov. He creates characters so like us, that we think alongside them, and we feel we think for them. He transports you out of yourself, and only then you can you look back and see yourself, and be transformed.

Brothers Karamazov

In the study of rhetoric, there are three things you can appeal to; Logos, which is logic, Ethos, which is ethics or morality, and Pathos, which is the appeal to the emotions. These make up the entire human being, and thus Rhetoricians of old said to appeal to the whole man. I was reading Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov and I noticed that each of the three brothers correspond to the three appeals of rhetoric. We begin the book meeting Ivan, who is a rationalist, Dimitri, who is a sensualist, and Alyosha a monk, who is a moralist. Dostoevsky speaks to the whole man, not just the intellect, like a technical manual, or to the emotions, like a soap opera, but to the mind, heart, and soul of the reader. The conflicts between the three characters ring familiar the conflict inside us. I learned a lot about myself, while reading. The situations and episodes are unlike most anything that I’ve experienced, but he presents them in a way most like everything. He creates a reality quite real. A part of me left me when I finished the book, because it affected the whole of me. I was almost sad to leave a world so real. I think I may go visit again sometime. :-)

Welcome to The Orator's Education

Welcome! The aim of this blog is to express my thoughts on various subjects, what I had in mind primarily being Rhetoric, Philosophy, Theology, and the occasional technical explanation or two, but it will surely drift beyond those guidelines, and I intend to keep them as mere guidelines. Now as much as this blog is to express, it is to listen. American culture teaches everyone how to talk (and talk and talk), thus the appeal for blogs, and such. But we aren't taught to listen. In the cries for free speech, all we really hear is crowd noise. This blog is my attempt to express what I've listened to, and processed, in a sane manner.
In many of the blogs I've seen, People often express their emotions, sometimes their mind, and rarely their soul. Hopefully this will be a balance of all three, continually checked by each other, and I hope that that the expression of those three in this complete man will be glorifying to God. That is my wish, and prayer, and the most essential aim to this blog.