CampbellRevision

Cover Letter at the Bottom

CampbellProposal

CampbellRevision

Cover Letter at the bottom of the document.

Plato’s Development of Rhetoric4

Zach Campbell

MAJ Garriot: ERH-201WX

Plato’s Development of Rhetoric

Words are a source of power. The power to manipulate opinions and influence others is something words have the ability to do. Over generations, language as we know it has changed. However, the influence that our words have and how we portray them remains a source of authenticity to ourselves and to our history. For the words to be powerful, they have to be able to evoke emotion from the audience, ultimately influencing their decision or action. Whenever we argue with someone else with the goal of persuasion, we are engaging rhetorical methods. The source of this powerful skill dates back to fourth century BCE when rhetoric played a big part in Athenian life. The skill in itself was an asset to have during this time in Athens. For example, during the rise of rhetoric, the way to personal success and public influence was no longer only class but the skills of speaking and rhetorical articulation. The way to better one’s skill is to get taught by the masters of rhetoric, the Sophists. These men were the masters in the “techne of logos,” the art of making an argument work for the rhetor (Herrick 31). On the other end of the spectrum sits Plato, known for being a large critic to rhetorical methods taught by the Sophists. Written extensively in pieces such as Gorgias and Phaedrus, Plato shows the pitfalls in rhetoric and is able to contribute to the world some of the first critiques on rhetoric. He also develops his own idea of rhetoric and what it should appeal to. Plato’s criticism of the Sophists and their teachings was based on the idea that the art of persuasion should not be taught to the common people because it was posed a threat to his hierarchy. Unlike the Sophists, Plato believed the sense of security and morality in Athens was under attack by the introduction of rhetoric. However, Plato valued rhetoric in its purest form having to be acceptable to a higher power.

The introduction of rhetoric in Athens was due to the group of foreigners who had claimed their argumentative skill could persuade anyone. The Sophists came to Ancient Greece and believed that their abilities could be taught. Their goal was to teach rhetoric and oratory skill in order to persuade others to believe what they did. When it came to living in the polis and dealing with the judicial system, being able to defend one’s self was a key part of the decision process. In the courtroom it comes down to who has the better delivery of diction to manipulate the doxa, or public opinion. In the courtroom they emphasized the power of argument and persuasion. In the search for truths, it boiled down to who could best present their opinion in a way that makes sense to everyone else. In many cases, both sides have their own truths—however it came down to the best argument. Some of the defendants would have to hire the sophists as professional speechwriters or logographers to write up something for them. The Sophists were living well in Athens. They were the professionals of persuasion who were able to sell their skills for money. Many of the people who they taught belonged to the class or mass referred to as the demos, or common people. Ancient Greece and its polis were broken up into a hierarchy based on social status and class. Often, higher education was reserved primarily for the people on top. The Sophists were one of the first to offer their type of skill and knowledge to someone outside of the upper class. They also claimed to be able to instruct their students in arête, the Greek term referring to civic virtue and capacity for leadership and success. For an outsider to come in and profess that they could teach something Greeks were only able to be given through birthright gave rise to some suspicion.

Plato raises some red flags about the negative consequences that rhetoric can have on the judicial system and how true justice can suffer. In this justice system it seems the logographers seem to want to win the case with the best debate. The person in the courtroom who is the best orator tended to win the case. Plato points out that this could be problematic for true justice to be served. A person can be innocent but be a terrible speaker and end up losing a case. Also, a poor person who cannot afford a Sophist to write a rhetorically sound address ends up being at a disadvantage. These are the sufferings that the justice system undertook during this period. In Gorgias, Plato describes the persuasiveness of rhetoric of having some major consequences on society. For example, if we allow a purely persuasive speech win over a just argument, the justice system does nothing for society. There is no longer a pursuit of an objective truth when people on both sides are only arguing to make their case look better. In an attempt to only find a more right, relative truth, there is a lack of guidance and a deviation away from the established law. A society that relies on relative truths for a verdict isn’t establishing true justice. True justice is based on the factual evidence and not rhetorical skill. Decisions made without real justice in mind is important to keep in mind because it ultimately leads to an unjust society. Plato emphasizes that what the Sophists are doing to the justice system is detrimental. The Sophists’ influence on doxa is a primary concern of Plato. Creating this false sense of justice for a crowd of people that aren’t knowledgeable on the subject is what Plato brings to light in his criticism of rhetoric. Arguing subjective truths poses a lack of authenticity and credibility in the mind of Plato. Persuasion and better arguments should not overtake logic and reason when it comes to justice. The win of an argument becomes so important that platforms begin to be based on lies. The “professional persuaders” were constantly under suspicion by Plato. He saw through their living made by persuading audiences. Pure persuasiveness doesn’t concern justice but only hinders the justice system from doing its job. Plato looks out for the better of what he has come to know and identify with as his society and culture. He sees the sophists as intruders coming in to dismantle the current system by using their craft to “prey on the unsuspecting” demos. The reason for Plato’s criticism is to protect a culture where justice exists and knowledge outweighs pure argument and persuasion. This is important for the development of ethics within the use of rhetoric. It preserves the goodness of society and keeps deceitfulness out of the justice system.

What we teach the younger generations is what they will internalize and believe. How they perceive their eventual place in society is dependent on how they are brought up. The Sophists come to Greece in order to teach people of this thing called rhetoric. They claimed that they could teach rhetoric to anyone and were able to spread their education to levels of society that had not been open up to such opportunity. Rhetorical scholar Robert Scott describes rhetorical processes as “epistemic, that is, knowledge-building” (Herrick 34). This process of building knowledge takes form in every day interaction. Just as in science, as we discover new things, we forget the old, already accepted theories. Rhetoric acts in the same methodical sense. We forget old ideas and willingly accept other ones when we are persuaded to believe otherwise. Plato hated this wanted the complete opposite. The fact that foreigners started to influence the masses of Athens and put new thoughts into their heads made him uneasy. There was this looming threat to the order of society. The sophists claimed that they could teach a purely Athenian civic virtue as well. Arête is something that cannot be taught—it is a birthright to have this. It was as well thought to be reserved for a higher social status in the polis. So, one could only inherit this virtue through heredity and not be taught it. To teach the masses an ideology normally reserved for someone of higher stature society would disrupt the balance of the hierarchy and class structure. The more people became educated, the more people would get up and second-guess what they should be doing with their life. For Plato’s defense, he was a proponent for the class system because it kept the talent at the top. This is where the most talented and intellectual citizens of the polis make decisions. Talent and ability along with arête are natural characteristics that you are born into because of where you come from. Sophists cannot teach something they have no birthright access to these virtues. It is about keeping the peace in society. Allowing the masses to think that they could have a say in the Polis would disrupt the order. Social disruption causes chaos, destroying the system that Plato has come to love. Unlike the Sophists, Plato wants to preserve the current culture and attitudes of the people. A threat such as the Sophists causes change and affects how people view their situation in life.

Plato is known for his criticism towards the Sophists and rhetoric in general. However, in Phaedrus, his feelings start to allow more openness towards the thought of rhetoric and its higher purpose. The context in this conversation between Socrates and Phaedrus pertains to the soul. Socrates starts out the conversation by saying that “Oratory is the art of enchanting the soul.” So, Plato starts to delve into this other side of the argument. In Phaedrus, Plato starts to shape his own rhetoric. Plato uses Socrates’ dialogue to bring to light how rhetoric should be if it were a true art. In addition to explaining that knowledge of souls is the key to the art itself, he sees it as a higher purpose. “Within the limits of human power” the orator has to be able to assess these situations since rhetoric is so subjective. The artful part of this is being able to observe the person, soul and all, and apply an argument tailored to that specific moment in time. Plato believed that these argumentative methods have the ability to find an objective truth. Truth cannot be relative if it is to be the most correct thing. There has to be some sort of standard that has to be met. What the language has to do is appeal the highest source of truth, God. Words can be very powerful especially when you have the appeal of a deity behind them. In order for society to benefit from rhetoric, it has to appeal to religion. For society, it is important to have laws based off of objective and higher truths. It is the most ethical and moral way that laws and decisions can be made from. In order to preserve the current state in Athens, Plato shows this side of rhetoric. Rhetoric has to be used to find these higher truths that the Sophists could not. The sense of security in Athens is under attack by the introduction of rhetoric. Plato’s society that he has come to know is now being persuaded to fall victim to the Sophists and their mastery of debasing the demos’ understanding of what real truth can be. Plato contributed this new way of thinking about rhetorical analysis and the good it can do. Societies based off of objective truths have a higher level of understanding of morality and ethics. Appealing to the highest truth preserves Plato’s society and develops rhetoric into something more than just a means to win an argument.

When used properly, rhetoric is able to flourish into something great and honorable. Plato is known for being very critical of the Sophists. He still wasn’t too keen on rhetoric in general either. Rhetoric has to be able to used ethically and without putting any detriment on society. In the justice system, Sophists would write speeches for those who so wished to pay the money for them. The Sophists were excellent at speechwriting and the art of persuasion. This was dangerous in a courtroom setting. Winning cases became an act of persuasion and argument based on the skill level of the person speaking. The best orator would inevitably be the victor. The problem with this is the cost that it puts on justice. The win is so important that they start to base their arguments on lies. The more lying, the more harm it puts on society. It forms a society based on lies as its defense. Plato helps the development of rhetoric by pointing out these kinds of faults that it potentially could have on society. How the sophists taught was another key aspect to Plato’s despise of the Sophists. What they fought for threatened the current social and cultural makeup of the polis. They began teaching the masses ideas thought to be reserved for Athenian nobility. Giving the demos access to this kind of “education” is an easy cause for disruption in society. He also uses Socrates in dialogue with Phaedrus to construct his own ideas of rhetoric. He thinks that rhetoric in its purest form is a true art and skill. Masters have to be able to pick up on certain cues and body language in order to apply an argument to their pupils. Also, in order for these words to be acceptable by society, they first have to be acceptable by God. The orator is then speaking on behalf of the deity, the highest form of Truth there is. Plato’s juxtaposition of these ideas allow for a powerful impact on rhetoric. He develops rhetoric into serving a higher purpose, inevitably altering its course. Without Plato, there would haven’t been anyone to point out the faults that the Sophists’ teachings presented and the impact it could have on society. Voicing concerns while explicating the source of real truth in rhetoric has allowed Plato to help his society and many other societies develop rhetoric into something great.