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)

1. know truth
   be knowledgeable in subject
   result of dialectic = discovers agon, tension
   
2. know nature of souls and how each type acts
   audience analysis
   
3. know various sorts of speeches
   genres
   
4. know relationship of speeches to souls (so you can speak in fashion appropriate to soul)
   
5. 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.

5364 Final Paper

What are you thinking about for your 20-page paper/project thus far?

In regard to my paper, I have not solidified a topic as of yet. However, in keeping with my larger research interest of podcasting (sorry already to those who are getting tired of this topic), I am currently thinking about either looking at:
• The 5th century “isegoria” right of citizens to have their voice compared to the egalitarian nature of podcasting, blogging, websites; or
• A more applicable paper, discussing the podcast process according to the five canons of rhetoric. This one would be more applicable in that I would layout a sort of heuristic of creating a podcast or blog (probably just the former) based on the theory.

Again, I have not particularly decided what the topic will be. I am not set on either of the two mentioned above, but they are both under consideration.

06.12.06 - Gorgias' Emphasis in the Encomium of Helen

What does Gorgias emphasize? Why is this significant to both classical rhetoric and contemporary teaching?

In considering what Gorgias emphasized in the “Encomium of Helen,” there are two ways that I can interpret the question: what he is emphasizing in content (meaning) and what he is emphasizing in style. I will address both of these points, individually.

What Gorgias seems to be emphasizing in his message is that truth is not always (or never) one-sided. This is to say that there are perceived truths. Specific to the story of Helen, she was blamed for beginning the Trojan War by leaving her husband, King Menalaus, to be with Paris, Prince of Troy. Gorgias’ argument is that she is not solely to blame for this action; Paris may have forced her or persuaded her, she was wooed by love, even the gods had a part in making her go to Paris … errr Troy, With Paris.

The significance of Gorgias’ argument in contemporary teaching is in the message, almost a moral: to not immediately take a given truth as the ultimate truth. “There are two sides to every story,” is the phrase that comes to mind. While one should speak the truth, there can be different versions of the truth from different people involved in a situation, especially when there is blame involved (as in the tale of Helen).

Quick example: if I say my car is in the garage and it has since been stolen, I am not lying. Admittedly, there IS a more ultimate truth that my car is not in the garage. However, when one enters blame into the argument, such as I am to blame for my car being stolen, since I left the keys in it or I left the garage open, there could be certain other truths that are being denied. The thief might have used tools that allowed entry into the car/garage, I may have had all locked but the thief had a forged key from some previous interaction with me (neighbor, mechanic, friend?). Also, there should be something said about the expectation of safety of ownership when it is my car in my garage. Perhaps I am stretching with this on-the-fly analogy, as I already see flaws in it; but, I hope the point of my example is understood.

Gorgias, who compared the power of language to that of magic and drugs (B/H 43), puts this idea into action in the Encomium of Helen. What Gorgias emphasizes in style is a very flowing poetic language. He entrances and even intoxicates the reader by his use of such poetic captivating prose. Consider the following lines:
• … it is an equal error and mistake to blame the praisable and praise the blamable. (Line 1)
• Who it was and how and why he sailed away, taking Helen as his love, I cannot say. To tell the knowing what they know shows it is right but brings no delight. (Line 5)
• … or by force reduced or by words seduced (or by love possessed}

These lines, so flowing, poetic, and beautiful (pathos) are also very strong and insightful in meaning (logos). Throughout the Encomuim, Gorgias seems to largely be emphasizing the power of language to persuade. There is an interesting duality of this point in the Encomuim, as he is using highly persuasive language to show that Helen was strongly persuaded.

The power of language to persuade is generally one of the points attributed to rhetoric. In this way, it is an important concept to apply to teaching. Doing so will help students learn to shape their own arguments to capture and direct the power of their language.

Couldn’t resist a little Gorgiasian closure:
From Time to the wise and sure, Gorgias’ , you truly impart a sword to us. And to the naysayers, critics, and bettors, we 5364 sophists are Rhetors. So, we graciously accept your gift sword and acknowledge that “Speech is a powerful lord.”

06.05.06 - Classical Rhetoric in the Contomporary World

What is the value of classical rhetoric in today's contemporary world? In your profession?

In considering the value of classical rhetoric in the contemporary world, there are a number ways in which we can see such value. One valuable, contemporary use of rhetoric is in academia. The fact that we are in a classical rhetoric course suggests that there is still value in learning and discussing this topic. Such classical theories form the foundation of more current philosophical and rhetorical theories (as I’m sure we will learn this semester).

Additionally, classical theories on rhetoric can help us to understand the rhetoric that we experience (and use) daily. We witness and experience rhetoric daily in the news, advertising, and in interactions with coworkers, peers, family members, et cetera. To whatever extent these individuals are aware of the rhetoric that they are using, there is a style and, generally, a rhetorical method to the way in which they are communication information.

Although such theories are deemed “ancient” does not mean that they hold no value today for shaping our own rhetorical abilities. We get into discussions and debates, we compose oral and written arguments as letters or articles, and we even resolve disputes. Of course, there are various roles in our society, such as attorney or politician (no large change from classical rhetoric there) that perform these tasks more than others. But knowing how to effectively construct an argument toward any of these goals is a benefit to anyone. This is so because, in building an effective argument, it is still essential to find the best language, style, and approach to suit a given situation.

Therefore, the final value I will note here is that classical rhetorical theories are still relevant to provide us with heuristic models that we can apply to building our arguments. For example, the application of the five basic canons of rhetoric: invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery, is a fully valid and excellent way to structure the building process of a presentation, article, report, etc.

The value of classical rhetoric in my profession essentially mirrors the points I have raised above. As a collegiate instructor, a detailed understating of classical rhetoric would place me in an excellent position to use those theories within a technical communication course or as a stand-alone course on rhetoric. Additionally, the study of classical rhetoric can assist me in understanding the rhetoric in the world around me and use insights there in my class(es). Finally, I can follow more applicable guides (such as the five cannons of rhetoric) to build my own presentations within a course.

The points I have addressed above do seem to merely brush the surface of contemporary applications. As I read additional texts of classical rhetoric, I continually associate point made there to current/recent events in the news, in my own life, or in other areas, such as advertising. I am thoroughly looking forward to the rest of this semester and to further reading of the texts on our list.

On June 26, I will be presenting on Plato’s Phaedrus.