Dialectics in Persuasion - Marc Antony - Super Salesman

Dialectic From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In classical philosophy, dialectic (Greek: διαλεκτική) is a form of reasoning based on the exchange of
arguments and counter-arguments, advocating propositions (theses) and counter-propositions (antitheses).
The outcome of such an exchange might be the refutation of one of the relevant points of view, or a
synthesis or combination of the opposing assertions, or at least a qualitative transformation in the direction
of the dialogue
Theoretical principles
Dialectics is based around three (or four) basic metaphysical concepts:
1. Everything is transient and finite, existing in the medium of time (this idea is not accepted by some
dialecticians).
2. Everything is made out of opposing forces/opposing sides (contradictions).
3. Gradual changes lead to turning points, where one force overcomes the other (quantitative change
leads to qualitative change).
4. Change moves in spirals (or helixes), not circles. (Sometimes referred to as "negation of the
negation")
The basic idea is all is in constant change. (Heraclitus)
The aim of the dialectical method is resolution of the disagreement through rational discussion, and
ultimately the search for truth.
1. One way to proceed — the Socratic method — is to show that a given hypothesis (with other
admissions) leads to a contradiction; thus, forcing the withdrawal of the hypothesis as a candidate for
truth (see also reductio ad absurdum).
2. Another way of trying to resolve a disagreement is by denying some presupposition of both the
contending thesis and antithesis; thereby moving to a third (syn)thesis or "sublation". However, the
rejection of the participant's presuppositions can be resisted, which might generate a second-order
controversy.
So, the Socratic method challenges the logic process and/or the conclusion.
The second method challenges the presuppositions, the world model.
Hegel presented 2 other ideas around transformation of the differences.
1. As an example, Hegel mentions the states of aggregation of water: "Thus the temperature of water is,
in the first place, a point of no consequence in respect of its liquidity: still with the increase or
diminution of the temperature of the liquid water, there comes a point where this state of cohesion
suffers a qualitative change, and the water is converted into steam or ice". This is like the Malcolm
Gladwell tipping point or the Pareto Principle idea.
2. Another important principle for Hegel is the negation of the negation, which he also terms Aufhebung
(sublation): Something is only what it is in its relation to another, but by the negation of the negation
this something incorporates the other into itself. The dialectical movement involves two moments that
negate each other, a somewhat and an another. As a result of the negation of the negation,
"something becomes an other; this other is itself somewhat; therefore it likewise becomes an other,
and so on ad infinitum".[28] Something in its passage into other only joins with itself, it is self-related.
[29] In becoming there are two moments:[30] coming-to-be and ceasing-to-be: by sublation, i.e.
negation of the negation, being passes over into nothing, it ceases to be, but something new shows
up, is coming to be. What is sublated on the one hand ceases to be and is put to an end, but on the
other hand it is preserved and maintained. In dialectics, a totality transform itself, it is self-related.

The antithesis is the negation of the thesis. If the antithesis is negated then no antithesis remains but now
the synthesis includes the negation of the antithesis. Considering the persuasion process, as presented by
Shakespeare, it can be very instructive.
BRUTUS In this first part Brutus uses the logical argument that he
Be patient till the last. Romans, countrymen, should be listened to because of his cause, his
and lovers! “ethos” (character) and his love for Caesar.
hear me for my cause, and be silent, that you
He now presents antithetical arguments that
may hear:
1. “Not that I loved Caesar less,
believe me for mine honour, and have
but that I loved Rome more”
respect to mine honour, that you may
2. “Had you rather Caesar were living
believe:
and die all slaves,
censure me in your wisdom, and awake your
3. than that Caesar were dead,
senses, that you may the better judge. If there
to live all free men?”
be any in this assembly, any dear friend of
as justification of why he would slay a friend. Suggesting
Caesar's, to him I say, that Brutus' love to
“censure” for the deed. Basically, a reprimand or slap on
Caesar was no less than his. If then that friend
the wrist.
demand why Brutus rose against Caesar, this
is my answer: --Not that I loved Caesar less,
He then goes on to use a rhetorical device, cause - effect,
but that I loved Rome more. Had you rather
prefacing each with repetition to link them.
Caesar were living and die all slaves, than that
1. As Caesar loved me, I weep for him
Caesar were dead, to live all free men? As
2. as he was fortunate, I rejoice at it
Caesar loved me, I weep for him; as he was
3. as he was valiant, I honour him
fortunate, I rejoice at it; as he was valiant, I
4. as he was ambitious, I slew him
honour him: but, as he was ambitious, I slew
He presents 3 justifications, cause - effects, as proof of
him. There is tears for his love; joy for his
fortune; honour for his valour; and death for his credibility along with the action he wants them to accept
ambition. Who is here so base that would be a as justifiable. He then summarizes. “There is tears for his
love; joy for his fortune; honour for his valour; and death
bondman? If any, speak; for him have I
for his ambition.” He tries to show a cause and effect
offended. Who is here so rude that would not
relationship, that Caesar chose to be a “bondman” (slaver)
be a Roman? If any, speak; for him have I
offended. Who is here so vile that will not love and challenges anyone to defend him. He labels anyone
who would oppose his view as base, rude, unpatriotic and
his country? If any, speak; for him have I
vile.
offended. I pause for a reply.
As you can see Shakespeare had a good
grasp of rhetorical argument use.
1. antithesis
2. repetition as a linking/classification tool
3. cause - effect to deflect/blame the victim
4. labeling behaviour/situations to skew perspective

He then proceeds with Marc Antonyʼs reply
Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your
ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Caesar answer'd it.
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest--
For Brutus is an honourable man;
So are they all, all honourable men--
Come I to speak in Caesar's funeral.
Marc Antony starts with a statement of intent, an
expectation, “to bury Caesar, not praise him.”
Next, comes his use of antithesis
“The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones”
The bones here are “Caesarʼs” bones by inference and he
has cleverly attached the label “good” to interred bones and
indirectly by connection to Caesar.
Next he subtly challenges the label of “ambitious” that
Brutus has given Caesar. He starts by prefacing the idea of
his being “ambitious” with “if”. This doesnʼt challenge the
idea directly but attempts to remove it from the realm of
certainty into the land of mere possibility. He also
He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
But Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.
He hath brought many captives home to
Rome
Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill:
Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?
When that the poor have cried,
Caesar hath wept:
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.
You all did see that on the Lupercal
I thrice presented him a kingly crown,
Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And, sure, he is an honourable man.
I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
You all did love him once, not without cause:
What cause withholds you then, to mourn for
him?
O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason. Bear with
me;
My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar,
And I must pause till it comes back to me.
acknowledges the seriousness of the charge and that
Caesar has been punished, “if” it is so.
He then lumps together Brutus and his followers as
“honourable men”.
Next comes a testimonial in support of Caesar.
He overuses “honourable” intentionally when referring to
Brutus. The overuse of words can.have a reverse effect.
Someone who repeats can create a question of whether
they are repeating because they are not fully believing their
own words. He repeats “ambition” in a similar way,
creating a question the label of “ambition” presented by
Brutus.
He then challenges the idea that Caesar is ambitious.
1. “He hath brought many captives home to Rome
Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill “
2. “When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept:
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:”
3. “I thrice presented him a kingly crown,
Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?”
4. “You all did love him once, not without cause”
The last presents an associated cause - effect from their
own experience, asking if they doubt themselves.
He then labels the situation as one of reason, and emotion.
He then uses a play on words, to label, Brutus and his
followers, as “brutish.”

Here Shakespeare uses some interesting tricks, showing his expertise with language and argumentation.
1) declaration of intent and expectation to misdirect and avoid direct confrontation
2) presenting antithetical arguments
3) creating labels by association
4) the psychological effect of exaggerated repetition
5) challenging the premise with 3 logic arguments - classic persuasion technique - present in 3ʼs
6) the 4th argument is an emotional argument
7) he appeals to personal (associated) experience as being their standard to use - sets standards
8) he then labels, ʻjudgingʼ as what brutes do, not reasonable men.
9) he infers that Caesar was judged and killed by brutes and that his heart goes out to Caesar.
10) he appeals to reason and emotion and not to believe the declaration of character by a brute.

He uses only a few of the tools of rhetoric, but uses them well. He challenges the hypothesis that Caesar
was ambitious. The argument that anyone who opposes him, an honourable man, is primitive and
uncivilized, is then challenged. This is a challenge to the presupposition that Brutus is honourable. Once he
has reached the point of negating the argument that Brutus is honourable, he has negated the argument
against opposing argument. Brutus had established several standards to be met, base (civilized), rude
(rules of conduct), unpatriotic (loyalty) and vile (having character). Marc Antony now measures the actions
of those who slew Caesar against Brutusʼs standards and finds them lacking. He declares them uncivilized -
brutes, that jumped to judgement (failed to follow reasoning rules), with no claim to character. In his
testimonial to Caesar, Marc Antony describes Caesar, as loyal and just, in his experience. This combined
with how Caesar had enriched the general coffers, were his argumentative proof, that Caesar was loyal.
This challenge, to Brutusʼs logic, is in the form of, “How can you believe this when you know this?”