Oratory

Activism for Reason, Rights, Reality
1

I’m a rare bird in that I love a well-crafted speech. While I disagree with every vicious word that comes from a televangelists’ mouth, I often watch them, momentarily the captive of a great speaker. In the same way, I’m a fan of The West Wing , because Aaron Sorkin’s writing was full of inspiring and powerful language - even though I fervently disagree with his politics.

I have enjoyed the few Objectivist speeches that are available for free online. I actually enjoy Mr Peikoff’s voice and find his style very palatable. Dr. Brook is also quite good, evoking a sense of confidence and calm strength in the words he chooses. I recently bought and watched Why Conservatives are Anti-Business, and have watched it two or three times already. Even with her really thick Russian accent, I have enjoyed the few audio and video recordings of Miss Rand. I often wonder if the fact that her accent forced people to listen intently worked in her favor; certainly her message made an impact.

I know there is a wealth of material available - and I’d have to be a bit wealthier to get it all :slight_smile: - but I want more. I don’t think there’s anything more persuasive than a great speaker, with an agreeable point to make, confidently delivering a speech to a captive audience. I want to hear someone use the same kind of uplifting language that Ayn Rand used when she described her heroes, someone expressing the conviction of Howard Roark’s court defense, and who inspires and maintains the rapt attention of a large audience. I long for the day when Objectivists can elevate from giving talks and lectures to presenting great oratory, adding that element of performance to their message, and do so in regular broadcasts.

Why should just the witch doctors get the glory? Must we continually suffer political speeches delivered by leaders who are as inept in their message as they are in its delivery? President Bush’s condescending tone, improvisational wordsmithy, and simplistic manner make my blood boil as much as his policies, and I’d rather be skinned alive than sit through an hour of CSPAN Senate coverage.

I don’t have a question or even an issue to bring up; I’m just tossing a ball out wondering if anyone’s going to run with it. I just want to ackowledge the few speakers that I have heard discussing Objectivism and say that I enjoy every bit I can get, and will buy more and more every chance I get.

Perhaps one day, we can turn on the TV and, instead of Falwell or Graham or this madman, we’ll watch an Objectivist deliver a speech to a massive congregation (little ‘c’), and in our own way, say “Testify, brother!”

2

I don’t have a question or even an issue to bring up; I’m just tossing a ball out wondering if anyone’s going to run with it. I just want to ackowledge the few speakers that I have heard discussing Objectivism and say that I enjoy every bit I can get, and will buy more and more every chance I get.

I’d just like to recommend a few specific lectures that I found emotionally powerful:

  • This Hallowed Ground by John Ridpath
  • The Declaration of Independence by John Ridpath
  • The Role of Emotion in the Life of an Ayn Rand Hero by Andrew Bernstein

The last of these, unfortunately, doesn’t seem to be available from ARB. That’s a pity. Dr. Bernstein got a massive standing ovation when he delivered it and he earned every bit of it.

3

I’m a rare bird in that I love a well-crafted speech.

Yeah. What a weirdo you are! :slight_smile:

Dr. Brook is also quite good, evoking a sense of confidence and calm strength in the words he chooses.

Unfortunately, I haven’t had the pleasure of seeing Dr. Peikoff yet (and Miss Rand passed away the year I was born, so I didn’t get to see her talk either). But, if you ever get a chance to see Dr. Brook in person, I highly recommend it. He’s got a power and a presence in person that is just not done justice by cameras and tape recorders. That’s one intense guy! And brilliant.

Perhaps one day, we can turn on the TV and, instead of Falwell or Graham or this madman, we’ll watch an Objectivist deliver a speech to a massive congregation (little ‘c’), and in our own way, say “Testify, brother!”

Lol, have you read Dr. Bernstein’s Heart of a Pagan novel? This reminds me of Swoop’s “Celebrate Self” services.

(Edit: Fixed end-quote tag. sN)

4

You threw out the ball, and I’m just returning it: the art of giving a good speech, or the art of rhetoric, has little to do with the strength of the argument of the speaker. That’s always dissappointed me. It’s kind of like acting; your gestures, the tone of your voice, and coming to a kind of crescendo at the end of the speech all sway the audience. (One must remember, an audience, statistically, must consist of mostly stupid people.) Also, all kinds of logical fallacies pass unnoticed in speaking. For example, ad hominem convinces just about everybody. As an art, I just can’t look at it as very noble. It’s play acting.

5

I wouldn’t go so far as to classify oratory as art qua art, but certainly there is an element of literary creativity to it. It can be quite poetic, as you can read in many of the paragraphs of John Galt’s speech.

Even the most brilliant mind espousing reason can dull an audience with a monotonous speech. How inspired would you be listening to Ben Stein read the Declaration of Independence (as Ferris Bueller’s economics teacher)?

I wouldn’t say that an audience “must consist of mostly stupid people”, either. It’s almost as if you’re saying that a well-performed speech must be balderdash, since it requires flowery language to woo its audience.

Can’t salesmanship be salesmanship without one feeling like they’re being taken for a ride? Must Objectivism be dry, preachy, and unemotional in order to be trusted? Certainly not, and I’m glad that most of the material I’ve listened to has not been like that.

Speech isn’t acting - a great speaker uses acting methods, true - but acting is playing a part. Oratory is not theater, though - it’s about delivering an honest, personal message in a passionate manner that inspires listeners to pay closer attention, to learn, and to act on that new knowledge - or at least ask some new questions.

6

… the art of rhetoric, has little to do with the strength of the argument of the speaker. That’s always dissappointed me. It’s kind of like acting; your gestures, the tone of your voice, and coming to a kind of crescendo at the end of the speech all sway the audience. (One must remember, an audience, statistically, must consist of mostly stupid people.) Also, all kinds of logical fallacies pass unnoticed in speaking. For example, ad hominem convinces just about everybody. As an art, I just can’t look at it as very noble. It’s play acting.

Speech – and writing, for that matter – is a combination of underlying ideas and style of presentation. Skillful presentation can make false ideas seem convincing. On the other hand, a good idea can sometimes “carry” a dry presentation. Ideally, though, there’s no dichotomy, and one can present brilliant ideas brilliantly.

Also, good presentation is not simply about speaking with a certain tone of voice, nor is it simply about demonstrating a passionate confidence in one’s ideas. There’s more to it: like understanding the context of one’s audience, relating the ideas being presented to the state of their knowledge, showing them the importance of the idea in their lives, engaging them on an emotional level, and so on.

The secret of many TV evangelists is not merely that they present wrong ideas with well-crafted speech. Rather, they present a mix of ideas. While their reasoning from the word of god is completely bogus, their final conclusions and practical advice is mixed. Listen to some of the “good” ones, and you can hear what you want to hear, including advice like: Jesus wants you to take care of yourself, give yourself that treat, and so on.