The staple diet of public speakers

The battle of wits and oratory has subsided and an unusual calm prevails in the country after the campaign for the Presidential Election. Those who had listened to the speakers on political platforms and over television are now weighing the pros and cons of their arguments. Whatever the outcome, the speeches remind us of two Zenos known to philosophy. They are Zeno of Elea (c.490-430 BCE) and Zeno of Citium (490 BC - ?).

We know very little about Zeno of Elea except his paradoxes of motion. It is said that he produced 40 paradoxes out of which only a few remain today. He produced such paradoxes mainly to defend his teacher Parmenides who said that the changing and varied world we perceive around us is not reality. According to him, reality is something motionless, uniform and simple.

Parmenides (c.515-445 BCE) said, “All is one.” What he meant was that everything that is real must be eternal and unchanging and must have an indivisible unity. Through this process he shows that our perception of the world is faulty and full of contradictions. During the recently concluded Presidential election campaign, some people desired a change and others wished to retain the status quo. However, according to Parmenides, change is something impossible to achieve.

Logical technique

Through his logical technique of reductio ad absurdum (literally, reduction to absurdity) Zeno tried to show that his opponents’ view to be false because it leads to contradictions. Through a series of paradoxes he tried to prove that the common sense notion of change and plurality are illusory and they cannot represent the true nature of the world.

Zeno was at pains to show that there cannot be many different things in the world. He said that any three dimensional object can be divided into many parts. Even the smallest part can be further divided until you get down to the very basis of substance. Modern science has shown that even atoms can be split into neutrons and protons. It logically follows that any physical entity can be divided into half that magnitude.

Zeno also had an argument against the idea of motion. In one of his well-known paradoxes, known as “Achilles and the Tortoise”, he wants us to imagine Achilles giving the tortoise a headstart. But before he can get to where the tortoise is, it will have moved a little further on. This process will continue ad infinitum and Achilles would never catch the tortoise no matter how fast he runs! Later philosophers such as Immanuel Kant, David Hume and Friedrich Hegel offered many solutions to Zeno’s paradoxes. But they were not very convincing.

Absurdity

Modern speakers have something to learn from Zeno’s method of argument. He is credited with perfecting a way of revealing an idea’s absurdity by showing that accepting it leads to a logical conclusion. The well-known political analyst, Dr Dayan Jayatilleke seems to have perfected this way of arguing a point. Secondly, such an argument leads to a logical conclusion that is somehow obviously ridiculous because it offends either our reason or common sense.

Let’s look at another popular paradox known as “The Flying Arrow.” Zeno begins from the premise that everything which occupies a space equal to itself either is in motion or is at rest, that nothing is moved in an instant, and that the mobile always occupies in each instant a space equal to itself, seems to adjust itself in this way.

“The flying arrow occupies a place equal to itself and thus for the whole time of its motion. But what occupies in an instant a place equal to itself does not move because nothing is moved in an instant. Hence, the flying arrow, as long as it is in motion, does not move for the whole time of its flight.”

Mockery

Most public speakers on political platforms and other fora make a mockery of themselves when arguing for or against an issue. Shouting, cracking jokes, gesticulating and mud-slinging may satisfy the lower instincts of the audience. However, such practices will not appeal to intelligent listeners. Logic, philosophy and psychology should be the staple diet of public speakers and others who wish to mould public opinion.

The power of persuasion does not come to a speaker at birth, He has to learn the art of speaking to win friends, show the falsity of his opponent’s argument and to drive home a point powerfully. Even writers have to cultivate the art of persuasion which take long years to learn.