No perspective is complete without its corresponding varying reflection. The validity of any one view is ironically made more lucid through its contradictory comments. These perceptions are subject to an audience??™s perception of the event, situation or personality which is shaped to evoke a fervently passionate response. Such notions are depicted in Shakespeare??™s ???Julius Caesar???, and the reconciliation speeches presented by former political leaders, Kevin Rudd (SMH article: 13/02/08) and Brendon Nelson (SMH article: 13/02/08), that mirror similar but also differing views on one issue. ???Julius Caesar??? explores the nature of conflicting perspectives through the funeral orations by both Brutus and Antony.
The power of persuasion is implemented in order to manipulate meaning of both speeches so as to evoke emotional responses. Brutus employs the art of rhetoric as a device to veil intent and to persuade the audience about his perspective on Caesar??™s assassination. His patriotic approach in justifying the killing of Caesar through an antithesis in his claim that it??™s ???not that I loved Caesar less but I loved Rome more???, conflicts with Antony??™s emotive claim that ???My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar, and I must pause till it come back to me??? which is engineered to allow the plebeians to think and is a clever tact used by antony to gauge their response. because he ???loved,??? him while the latter presents an enigmatic action by pausing which confuses the audience but for a purpose. Antony waits for a response in order to weigh up the public??™s feelings. Shakespeare??™s purpose is to demonstrate to the audience Brutus??™s naivety and innocence in the ways of men relying only on truth and Antony??™s shrewd mastery of a soldier and a politician.
Brutus??™s rhetoric asks for the judgement of his audience leaving himself relying on their approval and judgement. His sympathetic manner encapsulated in his softer tones as he questions, ??????Who here is so rude that would not be a Roman If any, speak, for him I have offended??? positions him as a target for Antony who sucks the audience??™s allegiance through ???money,??? while Brutus relied on value. Brutus changes the situation to a point where the plebeians cannot retaliate without conflicting with their own morals and values, ???I honour him, but as he was ambitious, I slew him??? Thus, Shakespeare represents two situations on opposing sides: Brutus who sees Julius Caesar as ambitious while Antony rejects that claim. Instead, Antony provides the audience with a scenario that most members of the audience had witnessed; ???You all did see that on the Lupercal I thrice presented him a kingly crown, which he did thrice refuse???, in order to convey his conflicting perspective. By providing the plebeians with an event that occurred in public, Antony impacts on the physical needs of the plebeians and uses the ???will??™ as a prop to shape their perception of Caesar as he gives ???To every Roman citizen.
..seventy-five drachmaes???. Thus by addressing the current needs of his audience, Antony is able to repeal to Brutus??™s conflicting perspective. A similar issue outlining the nature of conflicting perspective is present in the reconciliation speeches presented on the 12th of February 2008 (in parliament) by the former Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd and the opposition leader, Brendon Nelson. In his speech, Rudd claims that his purpose was ???to deal with this unfinished business of the nation??? alluding to the ???pain, suffering and hurt of these Stolen Generations, their descendants and for their families left behind???. He alliteratively praises the Indigenous culture through the phrase ???proud people and a proud culture??? emphasising on the value of the audience in order to sway them towards his side with words.
His word choice of ???we??™ and ???honour??™ in his opening line, ???”Today we honour the Indigenous peoples of this land,??™ followed by the superlative in, the ???oldest continuing cultures,??™ immediately addresses the purpose of his speech. Rudd places his audience in a position where they are able express their perspective on this reverence as he acknowledges and honours the existence of the Indigenous Australians. However, conflicting with Rudd??™s perspective is Brendon Nelson??™s ???apology???. Being the opposition leader, Dr Nelson??™s speech was strongly influenced by the views of his former party leader, John Howard, and it was also aimed at making his audience believe that he was sincerely ???sorry??? for the actions of the past Australians. However, this claim that ???we are sorry,??? conflicts with his later stance that, ??? Our generation does not own these actions,??™ alluding to his belief that ???he??? or ???contemporary??? society are not responsible for these actions; neither should they feel any guilt because, ??? what was done in many..
.with the best of intentions,??? relying on a tone of indifference. Conflicting perspective arises as Dr Nelson fails to take responsibility for the actions of the past Australians and differs wsith the views of his audience regarding the ???Stolen Generation??? thus creating a disparity. These speeches thereby reinforce that conflicting perspectives are perceived differently by various people, relating it to the nature of conflicting perspectives.
In summary, the nature of conflicting perspectives is that it is the mechanism that enables humans to understand and discuss important issues of opposing views. The differing views of Kevin Rudd and Brendon Nelson demonstrate two very valid points on a controversial issue in our history. Likewise, Antony and Brutus??™s conflicting perspectives shed light on a monumental figure of the past. Conflicting perspectives are not a source of argument but rather a stimulation to move forward. – Lose focus on arguments a little- Need better synthesis- – – Brutus??™s perception of Caesar as a, QUOTE differs from Antony??™s which reveals juxtaposed ideologies presenting varying situations.
NOW EXPLAIN BRUTUS??™S SITUATION AND PERCEPTION THAT CAESAR WAS AMBITIOUS. THEN BRING IN ANTONY??™S PERCEPTION OF THE SITUATION ??“ CAESAR WAS A NOBLE LEADER WHO LOVED HIS PEOPLE- – – – who sees Julius Caesar as ambitious while Antony rejects that claim. Instead, Antony provides the audience with a scenario that most members of the audience had witnessed; ???You all did see that on the Lupercal I thrice presented him a kingly crown, which he did thrice refuse???,