Speaking Ex Cathedra
There is a habit of delivering ideas in a way that is so confident in its dogma, its foundation, its truth, its relevance, and its beauty that is rather convincing enough to not be questioned. This speaking ex cathedra is a skill of rhetoric, developed in different methods: the assertive deliver in pride, the meek in performative, the thoughtful in conclusion. The form becomes dominant over the content, its beauty more prominent over its substance. There is a confidence, a belief in what is said, that expresses the faith and sincerity of the speaker that serves as a social cue that this idea has been examined and found to have merit to be declared instead of questioned. The chair they speak from is their own dogma, as baseless as the world which was said to have been upheld by the back of a turtle or the arms of Atlas. But when they deliver from the chair, usually no one looks for the legs, being so charmed.
It is common for listeners to be charmed by the idea and therefore the pope who served as its mouthpiece. Someone who could speak so confidently some idea so beautiful must be credentialed, revered, and emulated, like Jesus. The more in love with the idea, the more sincere the delivery, the more comfortable the utterance is in the infallibility of the idea, the more prophetic the statement and the speaker. Rhetoricians such as politicians are conscious, practicing their confidence, engagement, and persuasion as the discipline of the liberal arts it is. Many listeners are not aware of the nature of the game as a game, or choose to be in bad faith, content to play audience. They enjoy being seduced. Rhetoricians are pleased to seduce, to see their power take the place of the listener’s space for thinking.
Debaters speak persuasively, but do not believe in the magic of their own position, just the beauty of their persuasive skills, and would easily switch to another position. The art of persuasion for them is a subject to master, and they are present to the competition. Marketers are a little less aware, but intentionally so, since putting on the mask of bad faith aids in selling the advertisement, from the health benefits of smoking to the potential disaster of not having insurance. Cult leaders believe in the truth of their own self, when for instance they issue revelation which makes them the head of the following with the appropriate special provisions—their ability to commit to the delusion adds to their own benefits. These individuals have seen how the sausage is made, and have dirtied their own hands in the process, so commitment is too difficult, as there is always a cognizance of bad faith.
In contrast to these examples where some self awareness inhibits fully speaking ex cathedra, there are some examples that are much more common than preaching hell and brimstone from a pulpit. Parents develop rather early their ability to embrace this speaking method with phrases such as “because I said so” and “my word is final”. Patriarchs or matriarchs take an unchecked taste for this power to the next level, where the family migrates, believes, and studies what they dictate. Bosses in positions of power without immediate market consequences create narratives where the consumer responses changed by some unforeseen outside force and the subordinates can be appeased in their complaining with a morale boosting pizza party. Politicians who failed to learn about the end of divine right of kings in history class apply this speaking skill with impressive ability, considering that most of them were handed the speech by their staffers a few moments before delivering it. They legislate morality, start wars, and change the course of the individual lives of their citizens with declarations of right and wrong, must and should, ad hominem attacks and calls to action, all delivered with vibrato. With these examples, it seems that social roles, especially ones involving power, create the environment of acceptance and even encourage speaking ex cathedra.
The listener is the one who responds as a believer, rather unaware of his proletarian ability to reject, protest, or just stop listening. The rhetorician wins the game, the listener is seduced—it is a win-win. The listener has two main reactions in their passive role. The first is to be charmed: the rhetorician deemed them worthy of expending his skill to seduce them, which in itself is part of the seduction. Thinking can be put aside, the listener would rather be led than do the work of creating dissent or their own path. Belief is easy and peaceful. The second is to be envious: this power looks tempting, the listener wishes they could emulate this skill in order to lead. But they consider the skill rather magical. Magic is left to magicians, not recognized as skills mortals are able to develop with conscious practice. The desire for power via charming or seducing is there, but lacking the drive to be aware of the art as an obtainable skill to develop, or the desperation for power is too prominent to see the path to develop rhetoric for its own beauty.
Socrates warns of the oratorical charms of the Sophists, especially in his testimony defending himself against corrupting the youth and failing to honor the gods. The Sophists claim to have knowledge, teaching the youth their knowledge, accepting payment for the vocation of educator. They are confident and persuasive in expressing and perpetuating their dogma. Socrates, in contrast, is in the mode of asking questions, more interested in exploring thinking than conveying knowledge. The philosopher should not completely disregard developing skills of rhetoric though, as Socrates was aware and playful with the discipline. To invite someone to philosophical dialogue already takes some seduction, as many interlocutors shy away from what they perceive as the opportunity to make fools of themselves. Sometimes Socrates offers his own hypotheses or concedes to give words of affection over provocation. The difference between speaking ex cathedra and these moves of Socrates is open consciousness in the dialogue and even explicit naming of these moves. The philosopher’s attitude is not of indulging the nature of retreating into passivity of thinking, but rather conscious and deliberate with skills available in the thinking process.