Over the course of the last few weeks, I have composed a selection of reading responses and reflective tags in order to both summarize and draw scholarly questions from the materials we, as a class, have reviewed.

From my first reading response entry regarding influential Sophists, our discussions and assignments following this response have only further strengthened my critical opinion of Gorgias’ methods of influence. By this, I mean using melodic and superfluous speech, as opposed to reason, is a deceitful and unjust method of approaching rhetoric. However, given the prompt of COL McDonald, I have reconsidered some of my claims in regards to how we think of poetic rhetoric in contemporary times. My previous assertion was that rhetoric based on sweet words would be ridiculed by modern rhetors who value logic and facts. However, there are different modes through which we see and hear rhetoric. For example, a jingle after a commercial on television such as the ice cream company Klondike’s “What Would You Do For a Klondike Bar?” creates a catchy rhythm that is designed to persuade shoppers into remembering the product it sings of. Despite the fact that there is no better reason to buy the Klondike Bar ice cream over another similar ice cream brand, the memorable jingle appeals to the audience and persuades them. In this way, rhetoric that simply appeals to the ear (not necessarily based on logic) is still present in contemporary society.

My second reading response and reflective tag dealt with Plato’s cross-examination of Sophists and their opinions on rhetoric in Gorgias. In this reflective tag, I essentially took the side of Plato blindly and convinced myself blindly that there was no true place for rhetoric as a techne because it was a self-serving form of coercion built on hollow words. After reading Plato’s Phaedrus, I have definitely changed my mind. In this dialogue, Plato manages to salvage the reputation of rhetoric as an art and present it in a new light. Looking back on my original opinion of rhetoric (post-Gorgias), I now see that there are two methods of approaching rhetoric: One founded in love of wisdom and knowledge of justice and one founded on serving one’s personal interests and swaying an ignorant public. I now believe that if rhetoric is approached with diligent study in justice and is aimed at bettering society, it can truly make a positive impact and qualify as a techne.

To be quite honest, I believe that Plato employed rhetoric when he wrote both Gorgias and Phaedrus. If the two conversations were read in the aforementioned order, then it is hard not to be swept up in the socratic method of argument that Plato shows. For instance, in Gorgias, Plato associates the Sophistic method of rhetoric with self-servitude and injustice. The philosopher breaks down what the Sophists claim to be the discipline of rhetoric to its bare bones: persuasive speech. This conversation leaves the audience feeling wary and skeptical of the true nature of  rhetoric (while also gaining a new cynical view of Sophists). However in Phaedrus, Plato takes the decimated use of rhetoric that the Sophists employed and rebuilds the method of speech in a new light. Plato teaches the audience that with a love of knowledge and a study of justice (as well as good intentions), rhetoric can benefit mankind. Through this sequence of logic, I believe Plato purposefully and effectively engaged in a rhetoric of his own throughout these two conversations.