Phaedrus Part 4: Introduction to Rhetoric
Again I am amazed at the imagery that Plato invokes of the surrounding scene. While Plato is setting up for a discussion about rhetoric and writing and what makes it good as opposed to bad, he starts talking about the cicadas, and the heat, and how normal mortals would be prone to sleeping because of mental incompetence; but they are engaged in philosophical dialogue, and as such, they can be “deaf” to the cicadas, get away from their senses, and think upon higher matters. Yet at the same time, I am noticing a more positive treatment of the material world than I usually allow myself to see in Plato; he does not deny the beauty of the world, on one level, I think I now understand; he just says that ultimately it is unfulfilling.
In the beginning of the speech the word “seem” appears; Phaedrus is under the impression that an orator will be classified as good if he knows what will seem true to the people; true knowledge does not necessarily matter. What a platonic word! Things that seem to be one thing, but really are not… that could be described as the philosopher’s goal, to get beyond what seems to what really is. Socrates fascinatingly addresses rhetoric herself, and refers to the arguments against rhetoric as an art as “noble creatures.” Again the notion of dialectic tension arises, but is not seen as a hindrance, but a benefit.
They then follow the correct methodological approach and define what rhetoric is: the art of persuasion, whether it is in a court room or in politics or in any form of conversation. He then turns to the speeches that were read/ given earlier. Socrates starts talking about whether we all have the same notion in mind when a word is uttered; he distinguishes between some words that are “obvious” and everyone would clearly have the same notion, and other words that have more uncertain of a meaning. Other philosophers would disagree, and say that every word is uncertain, and every word needs interpretation. Also interesting is that Socrates criticizes Lysias for the order in which his speech is delivered; that his beginning statement should have been at the end, mostly. I took a rhetoric class in high school my junior year, and we were taught that as well; the structure of the speech was intrinsic to how it was delivered. Oddly enough, he then says that it is better to have begun with a bad definition of love than with no definition at all, even though his point earlier was that rhetoric can only be good if it is concerned with true knowledge. A bad definition of love does not seem like true knowledge to me.
The section on definitions the editors included a note that said this might be the most boring part of the dialogue for modern readers… but it brought back memories of my classical education! I feel like the rhetoric class was Plato reworked… it probably had plenty of quotes from Socrates that I neglected to put to memory in my ignorance. The structure of a speech as follows: Introduction, Statement of Facts, Argument, Proof and Refutation, and Conclusion. So many of my speeches that year had to follow that format, and it was obnoxious… but beneficial I’m sure.
The final installment in this series will be on Rhetoric and Philosophy and the Inferiority of the Written to the Spoken Word.
