The Game of Aristotle’s Art Of Rhetoric

Game and Rhetoric are two sides of a coin; the one concerns itself with the means to seduce women, the other with the means to seduce a crowd.

From the opening of the Art of Rhetoric, concerning Game and Rhetoric:

Both alike are concerned with such things as come, more or less, within the general ken of all men and belong to no definite science. Accordingly all men make use, more or less, of both; for to a certain extent all men attempt to discuss statements [seduce women] and to maintain [lay] them, to defend themselves and to attack others. Ordinary people do this either at random [naturals] or through practice and from acquired habit [Game]. Both ways being possible, the subject can plainly be handled systematically, for it is possible to inquire the reason why some speakers succeed through practice and others spontaneously; and every one will at once agree that such an inquiry is the function of an art. –Book I, Part I

The art of Rhetoric is the art of persuasion; the art of Game is the art of seduction, a particular form of persuasion that deals mainly with attraction of the sexes. How long has Game been around, not literally as seduction has been around as long as man has, but the art of such that we refer to as Game proper? A decade? Barely longer, if at all. How long has it been purified, refined, into something more than eldritch acronyms and stock lines, into an internalized set of principles that are still being enumerated and further distilled to the benefit of us all? Five, Four, Three Years? Maybe?

Rhetoric on the other hand has been studied, categorized, analyzed, deconstructed and reconstructed, refitted, reformatted, and scrutinized of its impurities for thousands of years and by the greatest minds the West, and concurrently the world, has ever known.

Classical Rhetoric is a vast untapped resource which Game corresponds with while remaining ignorant of the work that has already been laid out before it. Take this tidbit:

Emotions are all feelings that so change [wo]men as to affect their judgments, and that are also attended by pain or pleasure. Such are anger, pity, fear and the like, with their opposites. We must arrange what we have to say about each of them under three heads. Take, for instance, the emotion of anger [attraction]: here we must discover, first, what the state of mind of angry people [attracted women] is, second, who the people are with whom they usually get angry [become attracted], and, third, on what grounds they get angry with [become attracted to] them. It is not enough to know one or even two of these points; unless we know all three, we shall be unable to arouse anger [attraction] in any one. -Book II, Part II

Rhetoric has prepared the way; only a fool would travel the road unassisted by a willing accessible guide with such experience in the field. Who would refuse to wing with Roissy, or God-forbid Mystery? Roissy is Aristotle, Mystery is Diogenes, possibly. Aristotle on the hated cock-block:

It is a thwarting another man’s wishes, not to get something for yourself but to prevent his getting it. The slight [cock-block] arises just from the fact that you do not aim at something for yourself: clearly you do not think that he can do you harm, for then you would be afraid of him instead of slighting [cock-blocking] him, nor yet that he can do you any good worth mentioning [because only Nigel mentions the good one gives to mud slinging with a land whale], for then you would be anxious to make friends with him. -Book II, Part II

On Approach Anxiety:

As for our own state of mind, we feel confidence if we believe we have often succeeded and never suffered reverses, or have often met danger and escaped it safely [pregnancy scares, LJBF’d, alimony, etc]. For there are two reasons why human beings face danger [approaches] calmly: they may have no experience of it, or they may have means to deal with it: thus when in danger at sea [approaching] people may feel confident about what will happen either because they have no experience of bad weather [rejection from self-righteous hamsterbaters], or because their experience gives them the means of dealing with it [you know, “dealing” with it, nudge is as good as a wink to a blind bat]. -Book II, Part V

The ways in which Aristotle and the art of rhetoric precede the advent of Game are as numerous as the collective notch counts of the enlightened. It is only gain from here, Readers.

This week I only have the first of three ‘books’ which compose the Art of Rhetoric; next week will have something new, and only tangentially related, to consider, but if all goes well this week, I will have books two and three on offer as well.

Till then, –Aristotle’s Art of Rhetoric, Book I

Veritas numquam perit,
The Poet

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Ancient History, Essays, Greeks, Rhetoric, Western Heritage and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to The Game of Aristotle’s Art Of Rhetoric

  1. GlymnPymnDync says:

    jovencitas luciendo sexis piernas

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s