Abstract
This article intends to illuminate the educational significance of the rhetorical and humanistic tradition. This tradition exerted a great influence upon Western education in the past, but its significance has been largely overlooked by the current philosophy of education. This is probably owing to the centuries-old prejudice against rhetoric and “pedantry” espoused since Plato. Against such criticism, this article intends to defend the educational value of the rhetorical and humanistic tradition by retrieving three essential features as noted by its major theorists—Protagoras (ca. 490–420 B.C.), Cicero (106–43 B.C.), and Leonardo Bruni (1370–1444). These features include public spiritedness, a broader understanding of language, and multi-perspective knowledge. Protagoras, Cicero, and Bruni (each in their own historical context) criticized the closed attitude of philosophers toward monopolizing truth and stood in favor of the public sphere where important matters could be openly discussed. Second, they criticized the philosophical understanding of language as a mirror that represents truth and presented a wider understanding of language that considers the speaker–listener relationship. Third, they developed their concept of multi-perspective knowledge, which was opposed to the philosophical knowledge directed toward a special object, as seen in the Platonic Ideas. The re-evaluation of these three features is absolutely necessary if we wish to rescue the rhetorical and humanistic tradition from the blame of parochial chauvinism. By retrieving these features, the rhetorical and humanistic tradition can help to make contemporary education more publicly open (less closed to specialists), more sensitive to the power of language, and more appropriate within the multi-cultural and multi-lingual experience of the modern world.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
As Chris Higgins has shown in his keynote speech in the ICER conference, “humanism” has a wide range of meanings. We take “humanism” in its original, historical sense and mean by “humanistic education,” education that places an emphasis on the humanistic studies (studia humanitatis) such as language, literature, and history.
(Leeman and Pinkster 1981, p. 81)
(In this translation, I changed “language” to “letters”. The original word is “lettere”.)
David Hansen, in his comment to my original paper, asked me about the relationship between education and persuasion. My answer is that education is persuasion. That is why rhetoric can provide useful resources for education. And yet, there is good persuasion and bad persuasion, just as there is good education and bad education.
David Hansen kindly asked me about Protagoras’ position toward relativism. Now, we should remind ourselves that it was Plato who brought the charge of reckless relativism against Protagoras. What Protagoras intended by his “man = measure fragment” is to criticize the authoritarian view of the absolute truth. By destroying the absolute truth, Protagoras encouraged everyone to speak up. And yet, he also believed that in exchanging ideas one voice will turn out to be more convincing than the others.
A part of this paper is based on Kato 2002, in which the three characteristics of the rhetorical and humanistic tradition were first appeared in a concise form.
References
Aristotle, (1936). Categoriae et liber de interpretatione. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Aristotle, (1959). Ars rhetorica. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Aristotle. (1963). Categories and De Interpretatione (trans: Ackrill, J.L.). Oxford: Oxford Clarendon Press.
Baron, H. (1966). Crisis of the early Italian renaissance: civic humanism and republican liberty in an age of classicism and tyranny. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Baron, H. (1969). Leonardo Bruni Aretino. Humanistisch-Philosophische Schriften. Leibzig-Berlin: B. G. Teubner.
Bernsen, N. O. (1969). Protagoras’ Homo Mensura-Thesis. Classica et Mediaevalia, 30, 109–144.
Birkenmajer, A. (1922). Der Streit des Alonso von Cartagena mit Leonardo Bruni Aretino. In A. Birkenmajer (Ed.), Vermischte Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der mittelalterlichen Philosophie (pp. 129–210). Muenster: Aschendorff.
Bloom, A. (1988). Closing of the American mind. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Buchheim, Th. (1986). Die Sophistik als Avantgarde normalen Lebens. Hamburg: F. Meiner.
Cassin, B. (1986). Du faux du mensonge à la fiction. In B. Cassin (Ed.), Le plaisir de parler :études de sophistique comparée. Paris: Minuit.
Cicero, M. T. (1942). De oratore (Vol. 2). Cambridge: Massachusetts, Loeb Classical Library.
Cicero, M. T. (1948). De oratore (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Massachusetts, Loeb Classical Library.
Cicero, M. T. (1949). De Inventione; De Optimo Genere Oratorum; Topica. Cambridge: Massachusetts, Loeb Classical Library.
Cole, A. T. (1966). The apology of Protagoras. Yale Classical Studies, 19, 101–118.
Cole, A. T. (1972). The relativism of Protagoras. Yale Classical Studies, 22, 19–45.
Crystal, D. (2002). Language death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D. (2012). English as a global language (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
de Montaigne, M. (2009). Essais. Paris: Poche.
de Romilly, J. (1956). Histoire et raison chez Thucydide. Paris: Belles Lettres.
Descartes, R. (2000). Discourses on Method and Related Writings (trans: Clarke, M.). London: Penguin Classics.
Diels, H., & Kranz, W. (1951) Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker: Mit Nachtrag von Walter Kranz, Band 1. Hildesheim: Weidmann’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.
Diels, H., & Kranz, W. (1952) Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker: Mit Nachtrag von Walter Kranz, Band 2. Hildesheim: Weidmann’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.
Erasmus, D. (1989). The praise of folly and other writings. In R. M. Adams (Ed.). New York: W. W. Norton and Company.
Flashar, H. (2004). Aristoteles. In H. Flashar, et al. (Eds.), Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie, Die Philosophie der Antike 3 (pp. 175–457). Aristoteles, Peripatos: Aeltere Akademie.
Franceschini, E. (1955) Leonardo Bruni e il «vetus interpres» dell’etica a Nicomaco. In Medioevo e Rinascimento: Studi in onore di Bruni Nardi, Vol. 1, (pp. 297–319).
Fritz, K. von. (1964). “Die epagoge bei Aristoteles”, Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse Sitzungsberichte 5.
Garin, E. (1958). Educazione in Europa: 1400–1600. Laterza: Bari.
Garin, E. (1975). Educazione umanistica in Italia. Laterza: Bari.
Gerl, H.-B. (1981). Philosophie und Philologie. Leonardo Brunis Uebertragung der Nikomachischen Ethik in ihren philosophischen Praemissen. Muechen: Wilhelm Fink.
Griffiths, G., Hankins, J., & Thompson, D. (1987). The humanism of leonardo bruni: Selected texts. New York: Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies.
Guthrie, W. K. C. (1971). The sophists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harth, H. (1968). Leonardo Brunis Selbstverstaendnis als Uebersetzer. Archiv fuer Kulturgeschichte, 5, 41–63.
Hegel, G. W. F. (1986). Vorlesungen ueber die Aesthetik I-III. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Heitsch, E. (1959). Ein Buchtitel des Protagoras. Hermes, 57, 292–296.
Hirose, T. (1996). Pestalozzi no Gengo Kyoiku-shisou (Pestalozzi’s Thought on Language Education). Keisoshobo: Tokyo.
Hoelscher, U. (1969). Protagoras. Vom Wesen des Seienden. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Ijsseling, S. (1976). Rhetoric and philosophy in conflict: A historical survey. The Hague: Nijhoff.
Illich, I. (1971). Deschooling society. London: Penguin Books.
Isocrates, (1928). Volume I: To demonicus. To Nicocles. Nicocles or the Cyprians. Panegyricus. To Philip. Archidamus. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Loeb Classical Library.
Kagan, D. (2003). The Peloponnesian war. New York: Viking.
Kapp, E. (1942). Greek foundations of traditional logic. New York: Columbia University Press.
Kato, M. (2002). Kusuri to shiteno logos (Logos as Pharmakon). Kindai Kyoiku Forum (Forum on Modern Education), 11, 47–57.
Kerferd, G. B. (1981). The sophistic movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kimball, B. A. (1986). Orators and philosophers: A History of the idea of liberal education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Kondo, T. (1984). Petrarca kenkyu. Sobunsha: Tokyo.
Kube, J. (1969). TEXNH und ARETH. Sophistisches und platonishces Tugendwissen. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Leeman, A. D., & Pinkster, H. (1981). M. T. Cicero. De Oratore Libri III, 1. Band, Buch 1. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitaetsverlag.
Maguire, J. P. (1973). Protagoras … or Plato? Phronesis, 18(2), 115–138.
Mansfeld, J. (1981). Protagoras on epistemological obstacle and persons. In G. B. Kerferd (Ed.), The Sophists and their legacy (pp. 38–53). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mill, J. S. (1989). On liberty (Cambridge texts in the history of political thought). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Napoli, D. J., & Lee-Schoenfeld, V. (2010). Language matters: A guide to everyday questions about language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pestalozzi, J. H. (1932). Wie Gertrud ihre Kinder lehrt. In J. H. Pestalozzi (Ed.), Saemtliche Werke Band 13. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Petrarca, F. (1942). Le Familiari (Vol. 4). Firenze: G. C. Sansoni.
Plato. (1996). Gorgias. In E. R. Dodds (Ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Paperbacks.
Rorty, R. (1980). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Sciappa, E. (1991). Protagoras and logos. Columbia: South Carolina, University of South Carolina Press.
Unterstiner, M. (2008). I sofisti. Milano: Mondadori Bruno.
Vasoli, C. (1991). Il dibattito tra Leonardo Bruni e Pedro García de Cartagena: Due culture a confronto, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche. Quaderni della Sezione di Studi Storici “Alberto Boscolo”, II, Miscellaenea Umanistico-Catalana, (pp. 3–28).
Versenyi, L. (1962). Protagoras’ man-measure fragment. American Journal of Philology, 83(2), 178–184.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kato, M. Significance of the rhetorical and humanistic tradition for education today. Asia Pacific Educ. Rev. 15, 55–63 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-013-9297-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-013-9297-2