English 505
Rhetorical Theory
Session Three Notes
Goals/Objectives:
1) To begin to understand Plato’s basic understanding of Rhetoric
2) To begin to examine the nature of Dialectic
3) To begin to understand the nature of Plato’s Tripartite Soul
4) To begin the examination of the concept of Logos, and its relationship to Truth
5) To begin to examine how the Ancients viewed Facts and Opinions
Plato
Questions/Main Ideas
(Please write these down as
Plato favors a “scientific approach” to the study of rhetoric.
you think of them)
From our modern perspective, what does the “scientific approach” entail?
Plato
Born into a wealthy and politically active family in Athens
Early student of Socrates
Plato vigorously opposed the teaching and views of the Sophists
Plato
After Socrates death, Plato traveled to Italy and Sicily for a period of time, facing
persecution from the leaders of these governments
When he returned to Athens, he started a school known as The Academy
Plato
Socrates’ death fuelled Plato’s skepticism of both democracy and rhetoric
Plato believed that truth was absolute
Feared that Greek citizens would use rhetoric to mislead and deceive
Plato
Consequently, he had a generally negative viewpoint of oratory
Plato’s writings are in the form of dialogues between characters
Known as Dialectics
Plato
His most critical thoughts on rhetoric are contained in Gorgias
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/gorgias.html
He later softens his stance toward rhetoric in Phaedrus
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/phaedrus.html
Plato
Plato refused to call rhetoric an art
Instead, he called it a “knack”
The Sophists in Gorgias struggle to establish rhetoric as a distinct art, whereas Plato argues
that it is not a true art
Plato
Rather it is a false art aimed at pleasure
Plato believed that anyone could use dialectic to discover the good and true
But only those who already possess truth could (or should) use rhetoric
Plato
Rhetoric was, therefore, inferior to dialectic and was not directly connected to truth or
morality
In Phaedrus, Plato backs up a little bit and says that rhetoric is an art, but one that closely
follows a prescription
Plato
He thus favors a “scientific” approach to rhetoric
The student of rhetoric must first know the truth about every single subject
He or she must also know the soul of the audience
Plato
Rhetoric should be arranged and adorned with style
Rhetors should therefore receive instruction in justice as well as speech making
“A true rhetorician must first be a just man”
Plato
1. Know the Truth about a subject
2. Know the Soul of the audience
3. Rhetoric should be arranged and adorned with Style
4. Rhetors should received instruction in Justice
Plato
Dialectic
In Socratic dialogues, Socrates typically argues by cross-examining someone’s claims in
order to draw out contradictions among them
Plato
Dialectic can thus be defined as “a rigorous interaction between ideas to determine
truth”
A series of questions are asked and answered about a subject until the true nature of the
topic being discussed is apparent
Plato
It typically involves two speakers at any one time, with one leading the discussion and the
other agreeing to certain assumptions put forward for his acceptance or rejection
Plato
The best way to “win” is to make the opponent contradict themselves in some way that
proves the inquirer’s own point
Plato formalized the Socratic debate in prose, with Socrates as one of the principle
interlocutors
Plato
For example, in Euthyphro, Socrates asks Euthryphro to provide a definition of piety
E replies that the pious is that which is loved by the gods
But S also has E agreeing that the gods are quarrelsome
Plato
And their quarrels, like human quarrels, concern objects of love and hatred
Therefore, Socrates reasons, at least one thing exists which certain gods love but other gods
hate
Again, E agrees
Plato
Socrates concludes that it E’s definition of piety is acceptable, then there must exist at least
one thing which is both pious and impious (as it is both loved and hated by the gods)
Which E admits is absurd
Plato
Thus, E is brought to a realization by this dialectical method, that his definition of piety
cannot be correct
Plato
Plato also believed in the Tripartite Soul
3 souls – thus we feel the tug of contrary impulses
Rational Soul (Mind or Intellect) – the thinking portion within us
Plato
Spirited Soul (Will or Volition) – the active portion – its function is to carry out the dictates
of reason in practical life
Plato
Appetitive Soul (Emotion or Desire) – wants and feels many things; needs to be deferred in
the face of rational pursuits
Plato
We need moderation or self-control
The Rational Soul (Intellect) was considered the charioteer who controlled the other two
Do these three-parts remind you of anything?
Questions?
Do these three-parts remind you of anything?
Logos
In today’s society, we seem to highly value ‘facts.’ Why do you think this is?
On the other hand, we don’t seem to value ‘opinions’ quite as highly. Why do you think this
is?
Logos
Early Greek thinkers were skeptical about the status of “phenomena”
The name they gave to the facts of the physical world
Stuff like trees, rocks, honey, cold wind, etc.
Logos
They argued about whether such things existed at all
Or whether they existed only when perceived by the human senses
Most agreed that human perception of the facts of the physical world involved distortion
Logos
In other words, human thoughts and perceptions and language are obviously not the same
things as physical objects
Protagoras: “Humans are the measure of all things”
Logos
By this he apparently meant that anything which exists does so by virtue of its being known
or discussed by human beings
Because human knowledge originates with human knowers, and not from somewhere
outside of them, there is no absolute truth that exists separately
Logos
Moreover, contradictory truths will appear, since everyone’s knowledge differs slightly
from everyone else’s
Depending on their perspective and their language
Thus, P taught that at least two opposing and contradictory logoi exist in every experience
Logos
Gorgias adopts this view:
“For that by which we reveal is logos (words), but logos is not substances and existing
things. Therefore, we do not reveal existing things to our neighbors, but logos, which is
something other than substances.”
Logos
In other words, language is not things, and language does not communicate things.
Language is not the same thing as a rock
Nor is it the same thing as thoughts or feelings or perceptions
Logos
Gorgias argues that language is a different medium altogether
What language communicates is itself
Thus, philosophers are mistaken when they argue that justice or reality exist
Logos
Isocrates argued that language was the ground of community, since it enabled people to live
together
He pointed out that language makes it possible for people to conceive of differences and
make distinctions such as man/woman or good/bad
Logos
He felt that it allowed people to conceive of abstractions such as justice or reality
Plato seems to take a very different viewpoint
The earliest surviving linguistic debate is found in Cratylus on “the correctness of names”
Logos
A dialogue about the origins of language and the nature of meaning
First between Socrates and Hermogenes, then Socrates and Cratylus
H holds the view that language originated as a product of convention
Logos
So the relationship between words and things are arbitrary
“For nothing has its name by nature, but only by usage and custom”
C holds the opposite view, that language came into being naturally
Logos
Therefore, an intrinsic relationship exists between words and things
“There is a correctness of name existing by nature for everything: a name is not simply that
which a number of people jointly agree to call a thing”
Logos
The debate is continued at length, with no firm conclusion reached
The later position, however, is more fully presented
Divine origin is invoked in support:
Logos
“A power greater than that of man assigned the first name to things, so that they must of
necessity be in a correct state”
Facts
Ancients did not value factual proof very highly
Logos
Ancient teachers preferred to use arguments that they generated from language itself and
from community beliefs
A modern assumption about facts: if facts are on your side, you can’t be wrong and you can’t
be refuted
Logos
Facts are statements that someone has substantiated through experience or proved through
research
Or they are events that really happened, events that someone will attest to as factual
Facts can be looked up
Logos
We can check relevant and reliable sources
Or facts can be verified through experience by means of testimony
But ancients would have seen everything as being filtered through the senses
Logos
Senses, to them, would be neither reliable nor conclusive
Opinions
Ancient rhetoricians valued opinions as a source of knowledge
But they thought of “opinions” not as something held by individuals
Logos
But held by entire communities
This difference has to do with another assumption they made
A person’s character (and hence, his opinions) were constructed by the community in which
he lived
Logos
And since they believed that communities were the source and reason for rhetoric, opinions
were for them the very stuff of argument
Ancient rhetoricians taught their students that opinions are shared by many members of a
community
Logos
The Greek word for common or popular opinions was doxa (as in orthodoxy, paradox)
Opinions developed because people live in communities
Politics, morality, and sociality depend on our relations with other sentient beings
Logos
If we locate opinions outside individuals and within communities, opinions assume much
greater importance
If a significant number of individuals within a community share an opinion, it becomes
difficult to dismiss it as unimportant
Logos
Opinions, then, become “a way of knowing”
Summary/Minute Paper: