Churchill, Hirohito, and Goebells are all three very influential WWII figures whose words were so profound, we are still reading and analyzing them today. All three men use hyperboles to advance their arguments and gain the support and/or loyalty of their people.
All of their exaggerations use the method of rallying people to support their cause because the fate of the world or the future of humankind rests in their fight. Goebells uses this tactic often in his speech, as his claims usually contain no support and are in no way truthful. His figurative language rouses his audience, because who wouldn't support a war that "overshadows all previous human and historical experience"(3)? Although he is completely off target, his use of hyperbole creates no choice but for his listeners to agree with him. Hirohito, on the other hand, is not rallying people to fight as Goebells is, uses a hyperbole to covertly convince his subjects of something, and that is, that "all" have turned against Japanese interests. Considering this was after the atom bomb, the Japanese would very likely believe this idea, especially coming from their divine ruler, that the whole world is against them, however, Hirohito does this in such a simple and unknowingly effective way that one would not even recognize it.
Churchill is much more similar to Goebells in that his overstatements are explicit and dramatic. In an attempt to gain support, he informs them of the "monstrous tyranny" that needs to be stopped, and reminds that they are fighting "one of the greatest battles in history." By doing this, his tactics closely resemble those of Goebells in that both are using extreme, direct, forceful and aggressive language and statements to gain the support they need. Their hyperboles are undoubtably pathos driven, as Churchill describes the enemy as the devil himself, while Goebells believes the war to be the biggest event to humankind ever.
Furthermore, the use of hyperboles in all three speeches effectively aid the speakers in getting their claims across and fulfilling the intention of their speech. Althought Goebells and Churchill are looking to gain support while Hitrohito seeks to keep his people loyal, and Goebells and Churchill's over statements are more forceful when Hirohitos are covert, they all demonstrate the idea of hyperboles and how they are an essential part to a speech, and when well crafted, can push people into action without them ever knowing.
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Machiavelli & Thoreau: A conversation on "Man"
Thoreau and Machiavelli are in complete contradiction when it comes to their view on men. While Machiavelli believes men to be incompetent and mindless, Thoreau stresses the capability of the individual to be his own advocate and an opposing force.
Machiavelli believes the prince, or for comparative purposes to Thoreau, the government, to be the all powerful and all righteous, with the people being its mindless followers. He gives men none of the credit for being the self-sufficent thinkers that Thoreau does, and is, in fact, in complete disagreement to his idea. Machiavelli believes that "men are so simple of mind and so much dominated by their immediate needs, that a deceitful man will always find plenty who are ready to be deceived,"(464) meaning that men are so simple of mind that someone who wants to deceive, there are plenty of men "ready" to be deceived. Thoreau is in complete contradiction with this view, as he believes individuals are capable of standing up to authority and injustices. He gives men the credit of being able to think for themselves and stand up to power, something Machiavelli does not. While Machiavelli believes there are plenty of men to be deceived, Thoreau encourages men to not be complicit, making his warrant that men are not deceived if they are recognizing an injustice.
Machiavelli also goes by the idea that "it is a good general rule about men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, liars and deceivers, fearful of danger and greedy for gain." (461) His belief is that people by nature are greedy and generally bad, while Thoreau has a different idea about the selfishness of man. Thoreau believes that "he who gives himself entirely to his fellow-men appears to them useless and selfish; but he who gives himself partially to them is pronounced a benefactor and philanthropist." (278) Thoreau's take is that men who give themselves totally are selfish, while Machiavelli believes that all men are by nature greedy and therefore selfish for "gain". Thoreau distinguishes that men who give themselves to others are the better, while Machiavelli attributes this selfishness to all men. This really embodies the contrast between the two men and their ideology- Thoreau believes men choose to be complicit or self sufficient, good or bad, while Machiavelli believes more or less that all men are bad, except, well, if you're the prince.
Machiavelli and Thoreau have both completely contrasted views on men, both going to the extremes of each side. Machiavelli attributes all negative connotations to men, and Thoreau acknowledges the power men have to be great and have their own voice. One would think that the two men are writing these pieces in response to one another, as they are in essence arguing the opposition against the other.
Machiavelli believes the prince, or for comparative purposes to Thoreau, the government, to be the all powerful and all righteous, with the people being its mindless followers. He gives men none of the credit for being the self-sufficent thinkers that Thoreau does, and is, in fact, in complete disagreement to his idea. Machiavelli believes that "men are so simple of mind and so much dominated by their immediate needs, that a deceitful man will always find plenty who are ready to be deceived,"(464) meaning that men are so simple of mind that someone who wants to deceive, there are plenty of men "ready" to be deceived. Thoreau is in complete contradiction with this view, as he believes individuals are capable of standing up to authority and injustices. He gives men the credit of being able to think for themselves and stand up to power, something Machiavelli does not. While Machiavelli believes there are plenty of men to be deceived, Thoreau encourages men to not be complicit, making his warrant that men are not deceived if they are recognizing an injustice.
Machiavelli also goes by the idea that "it is a good general rule about men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, liars and deceivers, fearful of danger and greedy for gain." (461) His belief is that people by nature are greedy and generally bad, while Thoreau has a different idea about the selfishness of man. Thoreau believes that "he who gives himself entirely to his fellow-men appears to them useless and selfish; but he who gives himself partially to them is pronounced a benefactor and philanthropist." (278) Thoreau's take is that men who give themselves totally are selfish, while Machiavelli believes that all men are by nature greedy and therefore selfish for "gain". Thoreau distinguishes that men who give themselves to others are the better, while Machiavelli attributes this selfishness to all men. This really embodies the contrast between the two men and their ideology- Thoreau believes men choose to be complicit or self sufficient, good or bad, while Machiavelli believes more or less that all men are bad, except, well, if you're the prince.
Machiavelli and Thoreau have both completely contrasted views on men, both going to the extremes of each side. Machiavelli attributes all negative connotations to men, and Thoreau acknowledges the power men have to be great and have their own voice. One would think that the two men are writing these pieces in response to one another, as they are in essence arguing the opposition against the other.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)