Weaver’s “The Unsentimental Sentiment”- Reflection

After reading Richard Weaver’s essay, “The Unsentimental Sentiment,” I found that much of what he discusses has a very current relevance. I can see very clearly what he is speaking of and can quickly see the relation of it to various things in the modern situation. Alongside that, it also gives an insight into the role of Rhetoric and its significance and importance.

In this essay, Weaver discusses the cultural importance of what he calls “the metaphysical dream.” It is the most important element of man’s thinking. The metaphysical dream is essential to good will. It is the goal that all of man’s faculties work for, and gives them all meaning and purpose. This gives man something to be driven towards, to strive for. When men live among one another sharing a familiar dream, this is a good culture. The dream rests in the human intuition, and is reinforced by Reason, and brought into light by realities and sentiments. Weaver stresses the importance of forms and ideals, and criticizes the barbarism which cares to know only the physical realities of any given thing. This then leads to relativism, something which is dangerous to a person and to a culture. If one only cares to see things for their material value, they stop making distinctions, and they stop classifying things as their proper forms. Logic then just gets twisted up in its own knot always circling back on itself, going to no end, fulfilling no purpose. This can lead to twisted demagoguery and confusion. Since these metaphysical sentiments reside in the conscience of every man, he must rid himself of them to think in a relativist, or materialist way, which of course leads ultimately to insanity. All of these things rely on each other for a cultured mind: Logic and reason, sentiments and metaphysical realities, the moral imagination, and the telos of it all; the metaphysical dream. We see, however, that in an age of secularism and progressive thinking, this way of thinking is flourishing.

At one point in his essay, Weaver states:

“In any case, it has been left to the world of science and rationalism to make a business of purveying of the private and the offensive. Picture magazines and tabloid newspapers place before the millions scenes and facts which violate every definition of humanity. How common is it today to see upon the front page of some organ destined for a hundred thousand homes the agonized face of a child run over in the street, the dying expression of a woman crushed by a subway train, tableaux of execution, scenes of intense private grief. These are the obscenities… The extremes of passion and suffering are served up to enliven the breakfast table or to lighten the boredom of an evening at home. The area of privacy has been abandoned because the definition of person has been lost; there is no longer a standard by which to judge what belongs to the individual man.”

I find this to be true. Now, by this I’m not saying that everything that’s disturbing should be censored necessarily, I’m just stating the effect that these things have on a society. It is true that there are images which should be seen and thought disturbing, or cause one to look away, which are looked on in fascination, in an entertaining fashion. Men have become desensitized to such things, because of the narrative that we should see things ‘as they are.’It’s just the human body, it’s just some blood, it’s just a meat suit run by a brain. These kind of notions, which follow from materialism, pose a threat to our humanity and our morals. I find that this resonates most in the case of abortion and euthanasia. In these cases, ‘death’ turns into ‘termination,’ and ‘killing’ turns into ‘removing’ or ‘putting down.’ What all the new terms have in common is that they are used in referring not to a person, but a thing. In the case of abortion, it is not just a distressed mother who cannot raise her child throwing herself down a flight of stairs. Though this be a tragedy, it is a human tragedy; the violent angst and insanity of a woman driving her to do crazy and terrible things, not caring in that moment that that is her child. Abortion as we know it, however is not the same. A mother’s distress becomes a deliberate appointment, giving her plenty of time to think about it. The doctors assure her that she will be okay, then they sterilize themselves and their tools, and get to work. Without their faces wavering in their expression, they carefully pull apart this mass inside the woman. What this is goes beyond human tragedy as we know it. This is a certain corruption, a true evil. For it is not the passions taking reign and pushing one over the edge, it is pure reason, deprived of the sentiments in the human conscience. The child is a cluster of cells, and this cluster of cells is an inconvenience, so why keep it? Euthanasia bears the same corruption. It is not the tragedy of a man so deeply wrought by pain and hopelessness that he takes a gun to his head, but rather the gentle shutting down of a machine that doesn’t work as well anymore. Likewise, it goes beyond human tragedy into the realm of inhuman corruption.

Materialism then teaches us to value things based on their convenience to us, or how they make us feel, for what other value is there without the forms which Weaver exemplifies? Of course these forms must be supported by a final destination, which is sought in religion and philosophy. In our case it is God and Christ. He is the beginning and the end, all things return to him for he created them. Because of the victory won on the cross, Christians can live understanding that there is a life beyond this one. This is the “metaphysical dream” which drives us and dictates our actions and principles. With that, I feel that I should also address why secularism will always have trouble standing. One can reject God, reject and end and purpose, and logically live by materialist standards. One can say “I am only a brain in a meat suit,” or “intelligence and genetics is what makes the superior man,” for if you hold secularist views, these are the propositions which follow. But the problem is this: the sentiments which drive us towards a familiar vision, forms and ideals, the value of life, rest in the human intuition. One can say “There is no right or wrong, but only thinking makes it so,” but they don’t actually believe it. They aren’t only insane, but like Hamlet was, they are pretending to be. The notions which follow from secularism go against the notions in the human conscience. This is why they try to present “secular morality” as a thing at all, even though it obviously has no basis. Ultimately, a society run by secularism will not stand, for the people will always be seeing that something is wrong.

Now, all of this has a very important place in Rhetoric. Rhetoric, as defined by Aristotle, is “the faculty of discovering in any particular case the available means of persuasion.” First we must establish that by “available means” we are speaking of any means which are real and true. Second, we must know that in the process of persuasion, one must appeal to the audience in such a way as to move them. As the great and ingenious professor, Dr. James Tallmon states, “We use words… to pique the imagination, which stirs the emotions, which moves the will.” In order to do such things, one must appeal to more than pure reason, they must touch the conscience; appeal to the intuition. Rhetoric, then, cannot properly exist in a society where notions of the conscience are destroyed to be replaced by pure logic. But how can one reason if there are no propositions? The propositions are limited to material truths. Because of this, rhetoric can no longer have a proper place. It is replaced by the tool; the tool which now serves no function but to twist around on itself, never to reach any end. Persuasion can only be executed with twisted dialectical reasoning which has nothing to rest on, which is demagoguery. Rhetoric is not the only art that is defiled and destroyed. All of the arts; the expression of these metaphysical dreams and formal realities which unite a culture, are nothing. The art scene would be reduced to abstract art, and the music would be tonal chaos, there wouldn’t be any more stories; it would all be experimentation. Using the theory of color, of tone, of words, to no real purpose. Using logical reasoning, but having no truths to rest it on.

Weaver stresses in his essay the importance of these things for a culture. A true culture is united by a similar metaphysical vision. Something which I’ve always liked to refer to as “a distant memory of Eden.” If the human intuition is not destroyed by, but rather supported by reason, rhetoric and the other arts can properly be, and can be aimed to a proper end; and end shared by all. In this is a magnificent unity and harmony, in spite of every small difference that the individual man may have. The conscience and intuition remains, and art brings light upon those things.

Rhetorical Criticism on Winston Churchill

  During the second World War, in 1940, the Dunkirk evacuation took place. It was also named “The miracle of Dunkirk” for many soldiers were saved from great disaster that day. The Germans were attacking the French shores, and the allied troops on the shores managed to be evacuated and re-embarked, in the face of hopelessness. Still then, there were many soldiers who were left to face the situation. The people rejoiced and considered this a victory, and in their euphoria, Sir Winston Churchill delivered one of his great speeches to the House of Commons at the Parliament of the UK. Known as “We shall fight on the beaches,” this oration made known the great military disaster, assured that victory was not found in evacuation, and urged the British people to fight for their country.

This speech is often remembered as one of the great speeches in history, for it was effective and properly suited the occasion, and persuaded toward an end which all know is best. Churchill did indeed use Aristotle’s three modes of artistic proof beautifully, and his words flowed with eloquent prose and overall coherency. One may see nobility in his character and in his ideas expressed through his words. He appeals to the principles deep in the minds of the British people, which moves them, and really, this speech would move anyone, even one who doesn’t know what it’s like to be fighting a war. There is a noble patriotism embedded in his speech, and it is resounding with courage and fortitude.

First, his ethos is good. In his deliverance, he speaks with authority, but with calmness. He does not speak with much expression in his voice, nor is it monotone. He speaks as one who will handle the war with tact, vigor, and prudence; an intelligent and authoritative man. If I just insert a small part from the speech, you may see how this comes across in his words alone: “I feared it would be my hard lot to announce the greatest military disaster in our long history…These were the hard and heavy tidings for which I called upon the ouse and the nation to prepare themselves a week ago. The whole root and core and brain of the British Armies in the later years of the war, seemed about to perish upon the field or to be led into an ignominious and starving captivity.”  

Not getting too far into the real heart of his speech, already, his ethos already comes across. His words are graceful yet effortless. Effortlessness gives the audience trust in the speaker, for one who has to strain for the right words may very well be pushing towards an unrightful goal. His poetic way of speaking, that is being able to make a point and say much in few words, shows a degree of straightforwardness, a venerable characteristic in a leader and a man. He says in response to the thankfulness of the people for Dunkirk: “We must be very careful not to assign to this deliverance the attributes of victory. Wars are not won by evacuations. But there was a victory inside this deliverance, which should be noted.” Also at the end, “Nevertheless, our thankfulness at the escape of our Army and so many men, whose loved ones have passed through an agonizing week, must not blind us to the fact that what has happened in France and Belgium is a colossal military disaster.”

These statements are somewhat of wake-up calls to the people, and such words show a man of good sense and judgment.

Churchill also has a solid structure and coherency throughout his speech. He is making one point, very clearly and has a clear purpose: to urge the people to fight for their country, and giving them the will to. He starts by giving an in-depth description of the recent disaster, which engages people’s sympathies, or more appropriately, concern and need to take action. He then praises the efforts and the persistence of the British Army, not just in this instance but throughout history. This supports his reason for them to go and fight. So, his structure goes as so: There was a military disaster. This is how the British handled it. Now that there are to be attacks in the future, this is how we must handle it.

It is a simple structure, which goes to say that the effectiveness of his speech doesn’t lie as much in the logos as it does in the pathos.

I would say that the strongest mode that Churchill uses in this speech is pathos. His prose and poetic wording, alongside his appeal to principles, all play a role in good persuasion. His use of poetry in this passage appeals to a great patriotic passion in every man.

“There never has been, I suppose in all the world, in all the history of war, such an opportunity for youth. The Knights of the Round Table, the Crusaders, all fall back into the past- not only distant but prosaic; these young men, going forth every morn to guard their native land and all that we stand for, holding in their hands these instruments of colossal and shattering power, of whom it may be said that

Every morn brought forth noble chance

And every chance brought forth a noble knight,

Deserve our gratitude, as do all the brave men who, in so many ways and on so many occasions, are ready, and continue ready to give life and all for their native land.”

A man has a love for his fatherland embedded in his mind. It is an impulse to protect and love his own country and homeland. This is what patriotism is. This is the impulse which made Rome great, which made America great. All war and violence was inspired by a passionate love for one’s own country, her people, and most of all the ideals which uphold her. Churchill’s words move this part of the soul and ignite a fire inside every man, reminding him that the lengths of his love go to his willingness to die for her. It is a particularly masculine desire as well, that for Honor and nobility. He brings light to these passions, and that is what truly makes his speech persuasive. I quote the ending words of his speech to further demonstrate how he communicates these things:

“Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence, and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old”

His instruction to endure the struggle until the end is an important part of the speech, for it comes with an understanding that they are at a disadvantage, and they are on the defensive. He does not shirk the possibility of defeat and desolation, but rather considers it a case of desperation and necessity.

“I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our Island home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone. At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do.”

More specifically, in his examples of how the British army has been before, persistent, he raises the impulse in the British people. Like in George S. Patton’s great speech: “Americans were born to fight.” It is an appeal to the mental state and nature of the group being addressed. In this case he addresses the British people, and shows how they have fended off tyranny and malice before. How they were not ones to surrender or retreat. That is why he was careful to remind that the evacuation may have been fortunate, but was not a victory. This made the speech very suitable for the occasion.

Churchill was an eloquent speaker in his words. Not much can be said on his diction, for he was a chain smoker with a speech impediment, maybe a short tongue. Thus he is hard to understand at times. Nevertheless, his words resound and inspire. This speech, like all great speeches, is considered great because it was truly persuasive, and also honest and good-willed. And like most of the great speeches, the aftermath of the speech was the action which it was persuading towards. With his clear stated structure and coherency, beautiful English, inspiring pathos and appeal to beautiful ideals, his calm and leader-like ethos, he made a masterpiece. Like a great edifice, carefully and properly embellished, with nothing unnecessary to say what is being said, Churchill left quite the legacy with his orations alone.