This post is meant to simply anchor responses to this week's readings, given that some people have had trouble initiating posts. So please "launch" by commenting from here if you wish--or do a "new post." Either will work. I recommend signing in to blogger BEFORE you try to comment, as this seems to make things a little simpler. Go to blogger.com and you'll get a prompt. And be sure to compose off line so that you don't lose your good observations via instability on the blogger site.
Topics:
--How the Phadrus advances our understanding of Plato's interest in rhetoric.
--What Poster has to say about how to study the dialogues and how not to study them.
4 comments:
A quick overview of the Phaedrus, courtesy of Thomas S. Frentz, Department of Communication, University of Arkansas.
“Socrates and Phaedrus leave Athens for a stroll in the country, where Phaedrus wants Socrates to hear a speech on love recently given by the sophist, Lysias. Phaedrus recites the speech, Socrates listens, but then says that he can craft a better one on the spot. And he does. But Socrates is displeased with is own effort because it presents a false view of love and lovers. So he recants his first speech, and offers up a magnificent address on love, divine madness, memory, the cosmos, and the soul. After Socrates’ second speech, the dialogue slows down, shifts gears, and lapses into a careful, measured, dialectical investigation of the three speeches, all within the context of rhetoric. After this dialectical interlude, the text changes again. Here Socrates recites a myth that compares two modes of communication—speech and writing—with Socrates’ point being that speech is preferable to writing because among other things, it preserves the ‘living memory’ of the speaker.”
Socrates said, "Oratory is the art of enchanting the soul." Speech communicates more directly to the audience than does the written word. Socrates points out that "he who would be an orator has to learn the differences in human souls - they are so many and of such a nature, and from them come the differences between man and man." He continues, saying that "the orator is a perfect master of his art" when he knows when and when not to speak and to use "pithy sayings, pathetic appeals, sensational effects." The written word cannot show the nuances, timing, loudness or softness, speed of the delivery, and emotion in quite the same way as oratory. For example, a pregnant pause before an uttered phrase can give that phrase more weight, more drama than a reading of that same phrase.
Despite the power of oratory, Socrates is also saying speechmaking is not to be equated with truth. He points out that "in courts of law men literally care nothing about truth." Socrates also says that a man will not attain the skill of rhetoric "without a great deal of trouble, which a good man ought to undergo, not for the sake of speaking and acting before men, but in order that he may be able to say what is acceptable to God and always to act acceptably to Him."
The dialogue ends with Plato's Socrates prophesying that Isocrates "has a genius which soars above the orations of Lysias, and that his character is cast in a finer mould."
The final lines are especially interesting to me, for Socrates prays for "beauty in the inward soul; and may the outward and inward man be at one." When Phaedrus requests that Socrates ask the same for him because "friends should have all things in common," Socrates' answer is simply "Let us go." I am thinking that Socrates does not believe that Phaedrus is seriously interested in those qualities. I also believe that Socrates wants nothing in common with Phaedrus.
I agree that the spoken word is more persuasive than written text, given all the nuances that can be added with tone, pacing, etc. Thus I can also agree that speechmaking cannot be automatically equated with the truth because of its power to manipulate words.
I was interested in Helen’s observation that Socrates seemed concerned with keeping the rhetor good and truthful, and Phaedrus seemed concerned with the rhetor being successful regardless of how the truth was twisted. (Is this what you were saying?) It is a great observation that seems to hit at the heart of much of the argument of the time. I can see this contrast being one created by Plato. Poster would say that a person should not make the statement that “Plato says…” in this situation, or “Socrates says…” or “Phaedrus says…” but I don’t think that the lack of certainty on the part of the characters diminishes the validity of the observation or the argument. This is definitely a situation where a broader view would benefit, but the smaller view is needed first to identify the issues.
Helen, since you believe that Socrates is really critical of Phaedrus, then all the little terms of endearment that Socrates applies to him must be read as pure irony...I am not certain about that. Granted, Socrates on many occasions in the dialogue assumes a patronizing attitude to Phaedrus. But if Socrates is feigning friendship toward Phaedrus, then isn't he violating his own principle of the good associating with the good?
Post a Comment