Phaedrus (39-68)

So around page 39, the tone of the dialogue shifts abruptly from “let’s use a metaphor of love to talk about seeking and conveying wisdom” to “let’s go straight up into rhetoric.” Towards the end of the dialogue, we also get into what Socrates thinks rhetoric is (or rather, should be), and also why he has disdain for the execution of speech and rhetoric as he knows it. 

One of the most interesting lines of the dialogue, I thought, was when Socrates called the power of speech “a leading of the soul,” (58) it makes sense, but I never thought of it like that.  We saw earlier in the text how serious a matter Plato considers the soul, so it makes sense that Socrates later gets into what he thinks an orator should be and just how serious a job it would be (56-58).

It seems that Socrates’ main criticism with speech and rhetoric is that the focus seems to be not on the truth itself, but on convincing others: “for, they say, in the law-courts no one cares in the slightest for truth about these things but only for what is convincing; and what is convincing is what is probable, which is what the person who means to speak scientifically must pay attention to” (59). The main point that Socrates seems to be making about speech in rhetoric in the last pages of the dialogue is that they are not about the science of delivering truth in a manner than any person can follow, but merely the science of being convincing to anyone.

Overall, I found Plato’s high, if unmet, standards for rhetoricians interesting, and I can’t help but wonder what it be like if they were actually applied to the rhetoric we see today. I’d call a lot of today’s rhetoricians, at least in U.S. culture, hardly advocates of truth and justice, but rather bordering on completely shameless in their quest to be convincing. Whether its politics or advertising, rhetoric is less about getting the facts out, and more about saying what you need to in order to convince. Advertisers for example will utilize sex and personal insecurities for the sake of sales -- beauty ads, anyone? Then we have the politicians who will take advantage of people’s real struggles to emphasize that they’re good. For example, in Rod Blagojevich’s impeachment speech, he had several supposedly less fortunate people that supposedly benefited from his actions as governor stand behind him for rhetorical impact (introduction of them starts at 5:45). Even President Obama, I have no specific videos, but if I remember correctly he will often tell stories of specific people he’s met for rhetoric impact. And pretty much all politicians wants that golden photoshoot of them helping the homeless or chillaxing in a bar and drinking beer with the "regular people," in order to make them look honorable or like a cool person.    Politics and advertising are only the surface of the debatably dishonest means that can be gone through to get a point or create an image; it can be applied to celebrity culture, news and opinion, law, and even job hunters who will doctor their resume or fudge answers to interview questions or those personality/scenario quizzes given. Even in class scenarios here at WSU, I've gotten frustrated with group members, whether we’re writing memos or advertising materials, who are often eager to ignore or hide the truth in order to further our agenda, which always feels frustratingly dishonest to me. However, such is the definition that rhetoric shaped as: primarily about convincing a large population. I have no problem with advertising, speeches, or two sides debating individual points, I just wish honesty was more largely emphasized in rhetoric. 

Questions:

1. What level of dishonesty would you be willing to engage in so that you can convince someone of something? Especially if it involves say advertising or a grade, an issue that might cause real consequences if your agenda isn’t achieved. Would you lie? Would you bring up examples that accent your point and ignore others that would take away from it? Would you just frame the not necessarily positive truth in a more appealing light? Or could you tell the complete and honest truth?

2. How different do you think society would be if rhetoricians were truly advocates of truth? Do you think there are any areas in society today where rhetoric is purely (or even mostly) used for delivering truth?