I've been reading guys like Cicero, Saint Basil, Origen, etc. lately and it strikes me that they are vastly more compelling and accessible than modern philosophy, analytic or continental, and also scholasticism.

Do you think the decline of oration as a skill drilled in all educated men in some ways hurt writing. I get that not all topics are suited to this sort of discourse, but these guys cover very complex topics in this way and it makes it far more appealing. Whereas today, in trying to ape the sciences, a lot of philosophy and humanities stuff seems intentionally abstruse.

Origen's On Prayer is a great example. It pulls you in with a very familiar and conversational tone, while making tight arguments, but at times flies into high oratorical style when it needs to, and is great for that.

Are you reading translations? Have you ever considered that this might effect your evaluation of the tone?

>>24508409
Perhaps, but the translators notes try to highlight this aspect, and I've read multiple in some cases and they all seem to have this element.

Whereas Aristotle, as much as I love him, obviously doesn't come across this way in any translation. Plato, in some speeches he has, does in all of them, so obviously it's a stylistic thread; that's what the translators say anyhow.

>>24508409
If he's comparing them with Origen, Cicero, St Basil etc then I suggest he's reading translations in both cases

>>24508559
(not OP) would it be productive to watch recorded modern Greek plays/shows, subbed in my case english, to get a better grasp of how to treat the translations mentioned?

>>24508802
cont'd for me it's worked well for chinese japanese adaptations, already have a base for latin, so just wondering.

>>24508386 (OP)
>Do you think the decline of oration as a skill drilled in all educated men in some ways hurt writing
It certainly has. But writing culture has also changed over time. Unless you were writing a Panegyric it was unacceptable to write something which just waffled on or didn't properly explain your points. Greek and Roman authors were usually concise and quite economical with how they wrote regardless of genre. Which to me makes it quite funny a lot of the writers of the Enlightenment to the late 19th century are the exact opposite of that, making their style completely insufferable. You would think for people who admired ancient literature so much they would at least learn to admire their brevity.

>>24508810
>19th century, the decline of the gentleman and the influx of cribbed garbage to the public, was disappointing to learn about.

>>24508386 (OP)
I agree, modern philosophy gets so tangled up in linguistics and definitions that real discourse sometimes never occurs. If philosophy was primarily defended verbally, this would be less of a problem since the goal would be to convince an audience. Obtuse writing leads to groupthink since every reader comes up with their own interpretation thinking they've found a great truth when in reality, they've been reading gibberish.
>>24508810
It's strange how while we say "simplicity is genius" we tend to worship obscure writers and philosophers.

>>24508409
Even in translation you can tell if somebody has a poor style or not.