As I read Phaedrus,
I kept thinking back to the question Dr. Barnett asked us to keep in mind: “Has
Plato’s view on rhetoric changed?” Because of this question, I approached the
dialogue half expecting Plato’s view to change.
After reading the dialogue and Bernard-Donals article, I do see a shift in
thought for Plato, or what seems like a shift. Through Socrates’ inquiries with
Phaedrus about love and the state of lovers, I find that Plato is still
searching for an answer. By using the myth form, Plato allows Socrates to style
his speech after Homer. There is an epic quality that reminds me not of
scientific inquiry but artful language. I think this adds to the idea that the
dialogue contains more of a discussion as rhetoric as art, or an attempt at an
art. This can be seen in the following excerpt from 260c-d:
SOC: So then, when the
person skilled in rhetoric, ignoring good and bad, takes on a city that is in
the same condition and persuades it, not composing praise concerning the shadow
of an ass as of a horse but concerning bad as if good, and having carefully
studied the multitude’s opinions persuades it to do bad things instead of good
ones, what kind of fruit do you think, after this, the rhetorical art would
harvest from what it has sown?
PHAE: Not quite a proper
one, at any rate.
SOC: Now then, good
man, have we reviled the art of speeches more boorishly than need be? She might
perhaps say: “What in the world, wondrous men, are you babbling about? For I do
not compel anyone who ignores the truth to learn to speak; but—to give some
counsel of mine—when he has acquired that, thus let him take me up. Now then,
what I am saying is this big thing: that without me, he who knows the things
that really are will not all be able to persuade by art.”
I think this shows where the philosophical form of rhetoric
comes into view, because Socrates and Phaedrus agree there must be truth in a
good speech. But the question still remains: How do we get to the essence of
truth? Is that even possible? I found Socrates’ consideration of the soul to be
quite interesting especially since he believes “the power of speech happens to
be a leading of the soul” (271d). His
mythical pursuits throughout the dialogue reveal a journey towards truth. It is
only when a soul is filled with “forgetfulness” that it comes down to earth and
becomes a certain kind of man (248c). It is clear that Plato does not think of
Sophists with the highest regard, because this type of man is next to last in
Socrates’ list of occupations. A philosopher, however, comes first because he
would be closest to the truth.
After exploring this quest of truth and the implications of
love, Socrates admits “the writing of speeches is not, in itself, shameful”.
However, “to write not beautifully” is not where one should venture (258d). If
true knowledge comes from within as Socrates alludes to towards the end of the
dialogue, does writing have a place in this pursuit of what is true? Plato
cannot fully believe that writing has no merit, because he is writing this
dialogue. This paradox sets a tone for the entire piece, which is why I felt
like I hadn’t reached a real conclusion at the end of the work.
This paradox reminded me of an article I read during
undergrad about the rise of new media and the web entitled, “Is Google Making
Us Stupid?” and interestingly enough, Phaedrus
is referenced towards the end. (I honestly forgot that was in there until I
skimmed back over it.) In the article, Nicholas Carr puts forth the idea that
our constant use of the Internet is hurting the brain and thought development more
than it’s helping. He offers examples for why people are not reading the way
they used to because of the immediacy the web provides. Carr is wary of the
influence of Google and the wealth of information provided through online
search engines, yet he, like Plato, forms a paradox. This article was published
online for The Atlantic, yet it is a
cautionary piece about the Internet.
Just like Plato could not get his ideas across without writing, Carr decides to
succumb to what is current and publish his work on the web. It would be
fascinating if Plato and Carr could discuss these methods of communication. I don’t think they would reach a concrete
conclusion, but it seems like Plato is used to not reaching a complete answer.
Link to article:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.