06.19.06 - The Plato Fun Factory
List out as many things about Plato that you know. What does he suggest about finding the Truth, about oral persuasion, about writing, about the value of rhetoric?
Finding the Truth
Plato noted that a philosopher must be disinterested seeker of moral truth. He thought that truth lies in the alternative world, and that on the attainment of the knowledge of real truth, it could not fully be shared, as real knowledge is ineffable. He thought that truth could only go to those with a propensity for understanding it.
Much of his belief about truths was based in his theory of forms. Essentially, all particular items, such all dogs, are representatives of a larger, universal form that is the essence of dog. This is largely what his allegory of the cave was about – people see a misleading display of shadows and copies, but do not see the original form(s).
Oral persuasion
Plato felt only the aristocracy should be taught to argue and debate with skill. He considered true philosophy to be the collective search for wisdom, not the teaching of smart and persuasive linguistic trick to ambitious young men. This opinion was another point of contempt toward the sophists. In other words, he attacked the sophists’ techniques of oral persuasion because they focused on skill of truth/ethics.
Writing
Plato did not like writing; he thought it was an approximation of orality (and that orality was an approximation of thinking). He considered writing an unnatural method of recording knowledge. Additionally, he thought that writing would bring forgetfulness (kill memory) – it was a recipe for reminder, not for memory.
“If men learn this, it will implant forgetfulness in their souls; they will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks. What you have discovered is a recipe not for memory, but for reminder. And it is no true wisdom that you offer your disciples, but only its semblance, for by telling them of many things without teaching them you will make them seem to know much, while for the most part they know nothing, and as men filled, not with wisdom, but with the conceit of wisdom, they will be a burden to their fellows.” (Phaedrus 275 a-b)
Therefore, it is ironic that Plato defined himself in his writing.
Value of Rhetoric
Plato was hostile to the Sophists, thinking they were a threat to the old world order. He discounted virtually all sophists (not Isocrates) and their rhetoric as inferior, since they practiced rhetoric for money. Plato believed there is a great link between rhetoric and poetry, which are both in opposition to philosophy. Additionally, he thought true rhetoric is without context, but that true rhetoric could be transcended through dialectic.
- Interesting note here: he considered much of his writings to be dialectics, which somehow justified them as being in written form. In other words, he did not consider his writings to be writings, thus remaining against writing.
Plato’s definition of rhetoric from Gorgias: "Rhetoric is the art of persuading an ignorant multitude about the justice or injustice of a matter, without imparting any real instruction."
Plato’s definition of rhetoric from Phaedrus: "Rhetoric is an art which leads the soul by means of words, not only in the law courts, but in private companies as well."
Plato's true art of rhetoric, or ideal rhetoric: (http://spot.colorado.edu/~hauserg/Gkrhetoric.htm)
- know truth
be knowledgeable in subject
result of dialectic = discovers agon, tension - know nature of souls and how each type acts
audience analysis - know various sorts of speeches
genres - know relationship of speeches to souls (so you can speak in fashion appropriate to soul)
- know relationship of speeches to situations so that "rhetor will know when to speak and when to be silent, when to say some things and not others"
1-5 = true art of rhetoric, based on dialectic
Important – Plato doesn't restrict rhetoric to public or formal situations. The defining factor is instead the WAY words are used. Rhetoric is concerned with the orientation of the communicator toward the use of words.
posted by Time @ 2:01 AM
5 comments
5 Comments:
And by disinterested he meant not having a personal gain. In a way, there's nothing wrong with that. Of course, man succumbs to all sorts of attributes that lessen his disinterestedness. Knowledge, itself, being the Fall of mankind, can mitigate altruism.
I think the idea with the aristocracy being the philosophers makes sense in a different way; that is, those who don't have to worry about money and making ends meet, in theory, have nothing to gain. Of course, they have power to gain. And that's why, ultimately, Plato's philosophy was not an uber-philosophy to the whole. And, of course, it's exclusionary. Good links to Plato's ideas about writing being a tertiary act. It's clear that you have a strong understanding of Plato.
Have you read Robinson/Groves yet?
Time,
First of all, what are you doing up at 2:01 am to write this post about Plato?
What do you think about Plato's idea that if people know better, they will do better? This idea that "Goodness was a kind of knowledge somehow encoded into the structure of the universe itself--there were natural moral facts. Once these were known, it would be impossible for anyone to do bad things. This means that a wicked man is merely one who is ignorant" (25). I'm having a hard time reconciling that with Plato's rather narrow inclusion of those who are capable of "knowing." Doesn't offer much hope for a moral society, does it?
You do seem to have Plato down--I'm still trying to understand what he must have sounded like to his 5th c BCE friends (and enemies).
Alison
Ever see Eminem's "Without Me" video? Plays with comic book genres. Do a search on MSNBC for it.
Rich,
True, if you have some personal interest or goal in your truth quest, you risk directing your quest and manufacturing a truth or at least tainting the reality a bit. So, this begs the question are there personal truths/perspectives? In most cases, I think, yes. So, I think that youa re right that in some ways there is nothing wrong with that.
Knowledge can mitigate altruism. Hmnnn, I had to ponder that one a bit. My first question is, "Was there an altrustic intent originally?" Perhaps that is thinking about it in to much of a specific-case-basis. However, I'm thinking that the quest for knowledge can certainly mitigate altruism, since it is a rather personal and self-involved process. However, possession of knowledge might increase altruistic actions, since one might be more inclined to share and offer such knowledge (I'll acknowledge the "there are no altrustic acts" agument and note that the presenter desires a feeling of self-satisfaction @ the least).
I have not read Robinson/Groves. For my Phaedrus presentation, I read the Skully version (as well as the B/H one). I am thinking I might get some of G. Kennedy's work - he seems to be one of the most cited scholars in my research.
I have seen the Eminem video. It is humorouds and does make effective use of the comic genre. Admittedly, I am trying to decipher why you mentioned it. Was it maybe Alex to who your thought was intended (doing his bit on comic books/graphic novels or Buffy)? orrrr am I not recalling one of our conversations?
Alison,
I seem to do most of my real work between about 1am and 6am. The downfall to this is that I still get up at a regular time.
Regarding the thought that if people know better they will do better: I can't wholly buy it. I mean, we are well-aware of the dangers of smoking. Despite this point, smokers gain this knowledge and continue to smoke for pleasure? from addiction? for rebellion?
However, that example is pesonal; we can continue with smoking and look to the tobacco companies; they too have the knowledge of the dangers of smoking, but are they acting morally? One would like to think so, since they do put warning labels on cig. packs and publish certain results reports. However, if you ever get a chance to read one of those reports, it can be frightening, based on the terminology used, such as noting "the number of units lost" in reference to the number of smokers who have died. I'm pretty sure Sam (Dragga) wrote a pice on this - I read it a year or 2 ago. This topic also screams of Katz' "Ethic of Expediency."
Perhaps this example is a bit off-base to your point.
Essentially, my take is that just because I know what is right does not mean that I will bring that knowledge to action. A wicked man is not one who is merely ignorant; he is one who has the moral knowledge and chooses not to follow it. In fact, I would give quite a bit more slack to the man who is genuinely ignorant. While "ignorance of the law is no excuse," if the situation at hand does not present a clear, common sense moral path, to act "badly" due to ignorance can be forgivable or at least does lend itself to a bit more leniency than does the blatant disregard for what is "right."
Post a Comment
<< Home