06.26.06 - Truth Decay

This week (as well as last week) we looked at True and False Rhetoric. What is it, according to Plato and Isocrates, and how have you seen it in your program? Do not disclose anything that might get you into trouble. But, what is the value of true and false rhetoric in our programs?

According to Plato, true rhetoric is discourse prompted by the love of wisdom/philosophy, as opposed to speeches based merely on delivering content. (form vs. content). Also, true rhetoric is the art of communicating the truth
(277e5-278b4). True rhetoric benefits both the speaker and the individual for whom the speech is intended. False rhetoric includes persuasive speech that benefits the speaker but not the audience (although they are lead to believe that it will). Actually, that (belief) is a major point in Plato’s true/false rhetoric. If it leads one to believe something, it is false. True rhetoric produces knowledge.

For Isocrates, true rhetoric would be practical rhetoric, which helps determine the best course of action in a given situation. Also, it should not be self-serving, but rather should benefit the community/society. In this way, false rhetoric is self-serving and is generally manipulative. While I do attribute these points to Isocrates, I doubt Plato would disagree with these aspects of Isocrates’ concept of true/false rhetoric.

I am not sure if the question above refers to our TTU Ph.D. program or the programs in which we teach. However, I’ll note a few general points that could be applied to either “program” and TC programs, in general.

Following Plato’s concept of true rhetoric, I’d like to think that many/most instructors are motivated by a love of wisdom and philosophy (perhaps I am just the eternal optimist). In this way, instructors would strive to deliver knowledge to their students. However, too often I image instructors are teaching merely to satisfy a requirement of their position (thought would rather be performing their own research), and so merely deliver content without regard for real engaging discourse with students. In this scenario, the discourse is not of huge benefit to either speaker or audience.