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? Let’s find out…
For Isocrates true and false rhetoric demonstrated the going back and forth between the different sides of the issue. He wasn't a sophist like Gorgias who believed that every issue had two sides that were more or less equal, but he did believe in a dialectic. Plato, on the other hand, really believes in Truth and that many sophists use rhetoric to propogate the false beliefs. That's why he demonstrates in his dialogues the weaknesses of rhetoric. Plato, obviously, believes in dialectic, but it's a way to get to the Truth, not an attempt to uncover the two sides to an issue.
[Note: Reading these dialogues reminds me of why I find Plato so annoying. First, to our modern sensibilities, it's obvious he's just setting up straw men in his dialogues, so they don't really demonstrate much except that Plato has some pathological need to demonstrate that there's a right side and he's on it. Or that he only talked to idiots.]
I think the concept that every issue has several sides and that a dialectic helps to uncover those sides is valuable. Also the dialogues demonstrate effectively that framing an issue determines the outcome of the issue even as Plato uses this rhetorical framing technique to prove that rhetoric is ridiculous. Once again, it's a little odd that Plato apparently denigrates rhetoric even as he uses rhetoric to prove his point. If a modern text were structured in such a way, I would clearly recognize it as sarcasm. Because it's Plato, I guess he's just demonstrating his pathological need to hold onto his ideas about the forms and Truth even if he's got to use the techniques he despises to do it.
I know this will sound like blasphemy, but I think we read Plato for history exclusively. I don't think Plato has much valuable to tell us that we don't get elsewhere and better. Reading him helps us to understand where we've come from and why it's taken so long to get where we are, but not much that's very useful now. Gorgias, Isocrates, Aristotle on the other hand, those guys wrote/said some useful things.
And finally I just don't understand what you're driving at about the value of true and false rhetoric in our programs. Could you clarify a bit?
Kendall
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Bingo! Another one for the "Love/Hate" club of Plato. I think your straw man observation is right on. Although this is a contemporary concept, he perfected the process rather nicely.
Okay, I'll have to disagree a bit with you on the usefulness of Plato in the historical context. I believe his work speaks moreover to philosophy than to the ideals of rhetoric. What we find "useful" seems to moreover come from Aristotle. What we find impractical moreover comes from Plato. At least that's how I see it.
True--Isocrates was not a sophist, even though Plato considered Isocrates one. For Plato there are two ways to get to Truth; through focused dialectical exchange by people who have the propensity for such dialectic, and through the philosopher king who can tap directly into it. I agree--this is why most people don't agree with Plato. Access to Knowledge and Understanding is blocked.
The question about the value of true and false rhetoric in our programs is a question that asks the importance of seeking Truth through either tapping into it through the sublime or directly, OR through dialectic. By programs I mean that ambiguously--either TCR at TTU or the program you teach in.
Post a Comment