Phaedrus Introduction

Well, there's only so much that can come out of reading simply the introduction but it does give an idea of what the following dialogues will hold:

One thing I found interesting is that it seems there will be a difference in tones between Gorgias and what seems like will occur in Phaedrus. In the introduction, it says, of Socrates that, "on this occasion with Phaedrus, circumstances contrive to make him take the role on, and - as he says - his speech is 'forced to use somewhat poetical language because of Phaedrus'" (xix).   

At first I was surprised by this, because I certainly know Plato hates poets, and I wouldn't say Socrates' normal style that I've seen from Gorgias and other readings I've had from Plato involves poetical language. His usual style seems to be the one we saw in Gorgias: Primarily question-and-answer with the occasional longer speech, all the language being relatively simple and to-the-point. 

However, an important part of any rhetoric is knowing your audience, and from what I’ve gathered so far of the exuberant nature of Phaedrus, poetical language seems more suiting when engaging with a dialogue with him, or at the very least, mimicking the style of the speaker Phaedrus just saw will be more likely to keep his attention. Again, it’s hard to say much with certainty without reading beyond the introduction, but I predict that the nature of Phaedrus will be different enough from Gorgias/Polus/Callicles where this different style of dialogue may seem like a necessary choice for this opponent.

It’s an odd move for Socrates though, who prides himself for telling things straight (xix). For someone who doesn’t approve of the orators he debated against in the previous reading, changing your oratory style to match with your opponent or audience is the move of a rhetorically aware person. It actually seems a bit hypocritical for him to earlier call himself pretty much the one true statesman if he too is capable of conforming himself, or “pandering,” to an audience, in this case, Phaedrus. Thus occurs the dilemma we’ve discussed in class: for someone who is so against the Sophists and oratory, Plato and/or Socrates were actually, whether they knew it or not, quite brilliant in what they supposedly despised.

Questions:

1. Since Plato is obviously against the idea of oratory, do you think it’s hypocritical of him use moves that are clearly rhetorical in nature? Or do you think Plato had a different idea of oratory that is sufficiently different from the Sophists but still employs similar rhetorical strategies?

2. Do you think it’s possible to make a convincing argument without using rhetorical strategies or pandering in any way to your audience?