Responses to Discussion Post Required - Urgent - 12 Hours

It seems like Plato wrestled with philosophical issues and how they were intertwined with rhetorical endeavors. He visits this concept more than once and evidence of his struggle, or perhaps lack of intent to reconcile the two completely, is represented in both Gorgias and Phaedrus. In Gorgias there is a category of art that works on the soul and the body and each true art has a counterpart. Some counterparts can act as a false alternative to another, and Plato seems to imply that rhetoric can fall into this category of counterpart, rhetoric being the counterpart of dialectic which he preferred (Kennedy, pg. 37). My attention is drawn to his standards for rhetoric which seem to prioritize virtuous intent of the speaker, proper structure of logic, consideration of the audience, and appeal to the soul. It appears Plato could affirm rhetoric, if used virtuously, as a philosophical tool for leading the soul to truth through knowledge which is organized logically, articulated considerately, and disseminated appropriately rather than a tool of persuasion. He believed that if rhetoric could be used righteously there must be a transcendental knowledge unlike the Sophists who believed only in probable knowledge or what Plato would call, “appearances of truth” (Bizzell & Herzberg, 2001, p.81).

Plato viewed rhetoric not as a politician but as an educator and philosopher (Bizzell & Herzberg, 2001, p. 82). Plato believed that it was not good enough to, “induce belief,” as the Sophists did (Bizzell & Herzberg, 2001, p.81). He wanted a rhetoric whose discourse was, “analytic, objective, and dialectical” (Bizzell & Herzberg, 2001, p.81). The Rhetorical Tradition elucidates the kind of virtue rhetoric must have by Plato’s standards in the section on Phaedrus, “a kind of persuasion that combats the power of convention and seeks to rise above it, rather than trying to exploit convention so as to satisfy base desires” (p.84). The dialectic style emerges for proper rhetoric where the speaker must base their rhetoric on truth, which is attained through carefully defining terms, bringing their ideas together in an, “organic form,” and with combination of careful thinking and speaking (Bizzell & Herzberg, 2001, p.85).  Because Plato prefers dialectic to rhetoric, the method for reaching truth cannot be, “a totally autonomous method,” and in this sense cannot, “itself generate truth…but is a necessary pathway to truth” (Bizzell & Herzberg, 2001, p.86). Plato’s philosophical view of rhetorical methodology was not only concerned with transcendental truth and dialectic but also the relation of speech to the soul and the nature of the soul. In Phaedrus, Socrates explains the function of speech as leading souls by persuasion and states that the rhetorician, “must know the various forms of the soul,” and classify them (Bizzell & Herzberg, 2001,p.162). The student of rhetoric must be able to make practical application of this knowledge and have an awareness of the classes speech and how to connect them to certain audiences (Plato, ca 367 B.C.E., p.162). Ultimately Plato could not reconcile the Sophists idea of persuading others with what appeared to be true, he wanted to “clear away the worldly debris that obscured the mind” (Bizzell & Herzberg, 2001, p.81).

I think that his view of rhetoric is more easily reconcilable with a biblical perspective than that of the Sophist. As mentioned above, Plato had this idea of clearing away worldly debris which comes from living a human life with our, “carnality and temporality” (Bizzell & Herzberg, 2001, p.81). We must believe in transcendental truth often by faith which is strengthened by the connection of what Plato would refer to as, our souls and the Divine. I think there is a biblical connection to be taken from his view on artistic counterparts, the idea that human beings find false alternatives for what is truly meant to work on our souls.  Plato acknowledges the potential of humans to make mistakes because of what we are, but I don’t think he gives enough credit to what people are able to use scripture to accomplish and overcome. Sometimes that same human nature that draws us closer to death, is what gives the scripture its life and its truth. He thought the nature of the soul should be understood and that the audience must define the class of speech in some way, but the bible has no parameters like this. The bible has been shown to almost every audience from every walk of life, the word has no limitations on who can receive it. My question is how with his preference for dialectic, he could reconcile transcendental truth as not coming from an autonomous source but also as being innate, coming from knowledge obtained before our human existence.

References:

BIZZELL, P. & Herzberg, B. (Eds.). (2001). Rhetorical Tradition: readings from classical times to the present (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: BEDFORD/ST. MARTIN'S.

Kennedy, G. A. (1995). A New History of Classical Rhetoric. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Plato (ca. 365 B.C.E.). Phaedrus. P. Bizzel & B. Herzberg (Eds.), The Rhetorical Tradition (pp. 162). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s.