Isocrates and Plato
First Plato, I really liked the Plato "graphic novel." Even though I've read all that stuff, except the Laws, before, having everything pulled together like that served as a nice review. And while I'm still irritated that he sent us into the 2500 year walkabout intellectually speaking, it does put his work in perspective from his point of view. He was just trying to figure out a way to create a just world and he thought making a strong case for having wise people be rulers was the way to go. Honestly, I don't disagree with him on that; I'm just not keen on his methodology.
And who knew that every Western thinker for the next 2500 years would feel the need to respond to Plato either directly or indirectly and discuss his stand on Truth and its knowableness. And even now, we've got to take a stand on truth. We've decided, pretty much, that unknowable truth is moot and that truth is pretty much what we, as a group, decide, but we're still discussing truth. Some people still can't let go of the idea of platonic forms. Those people call the forms reality--just like Plato. Perhaps they conceive of reality a little differently than Plato conceived of forms, but like Plato reality is the gold standard for discourse, the thing that gives meaning to language. I, of course, prefer to think of it as just discursive and non-discursive realities reflexively re-inventing one another.
And, it's also pretty cool that he founded a college that managed to survive 1000 years until religious intolerance caused it to be shut down. Is the oldest university currently in operation that old? It's quite an acheivement.
My other thought in this regard though is that perhaps Plato and Aristotle weren't great thinkers so much as popular. Really, perhaps they are essentially the Mike Markel and John Lannon of the classical era and we get so much of their texts because lots of people made copies, not because they were really good--good, but in a middle of the road kind of way. And the fact that Plato's Academy lasted so long and undoubtedly reproduced his texts during that time must have also resulted in promulgation of his ideas even after the Academy shut down just because there were so many copies in circulation.
Just something to think about.
Isocrates
Clearly he seems to be quite worried about the immorality charge leveled at rhetoric that we still haven't really solved. What happens when immoral people develop good rhetoric skills? What about those people that promise to teach good rhetoric skills to whoever can pay? It's a little like someone advertising to teach whoever to build a nuclear bomb as long as the price is right. Regardless, Isocrates definitely engaged in a debate that still rages today. How do we teach the youth so that they can participate productively in the world?
Kendall
1 comment:
Nice points. Yes, the graphic novel is a review, but does a pretty good job as a review goes. Does a surprising job at the end with contemporary connections, and I wish more pages could have been devoted to that.
Not everyone has decided that the unknowable truth is unknowable. Talk to some poets. Many believe they can tap into the sublime--sort of a romantic epistemic. And, arguably, they can. But, who knows. And, of course, many people who have strong religious convictions will tell you the truth is there.
Yes, the Academy was the longest running university in history until Justinian. A 1000 years. Amazing, indeed. It is no longer in operation. I have some pictures on the Web site where scholars think it was. East Athens I believe.
I'd say they were great thinkers. Sure, their ideas are products of their time, as are Markel and Lannon--popular, but there are notions of time and classification, for instance, that are brilliant. No one before them thought of them, few between them and St. Augustine (and then Kant) could fully realize their ideas. But, yes, popularity was a big part of it. And, Athens was a relatively small town--the Academy for a long time was the only game in town. A Harvard when there were only polytechnics in Boston.
Good questions about what happens when immoral people develop rhetorical savvy. We have Hitler, for instance. We have Stalin. What morality is seems relative, of course, as what we find "good" today is a lot different than different cultures and time periods. It was good (presumed moral) to disregard the law if one could get away with it in Athens. It's not seen as ethical if one can get away with it here. Of course, it happens.
Now, is rhetoric separate from how rhetoric is used?
Post a Comment