Plato’s Development of Rhetoric
Words are a source of power. 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. This idea is just a small portion of what rhetoric is all about. Whenever we express our feelings to someone else with the goal of influence, we are engaging rhetorical methods. The source of the popularity of this 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 class but 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, Plato shows the pitfalls in rhetoric and is able to contribute to the world some of the first critiques on rhetoric. Plato did not like the Sophists as Teachers nor did he approve of their teaching of the art of persuasion. The Sophists proved early on that mastery in the art of language can be both profitable and powerful. The ethics behind their teachings however pose some ethical questions. In this essay I will talk about how the Sophists taught their rhetoric, using Plato’s Gorgias to show the real intentions of these “masters of fraud” (Herrick 35). I will talk about the contributions Plato made to the culture while fighting rhetoric and its deceitfulness.
When it came to life in the polis and 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. Some of the defendants would have to hire professional speechwriters or logographers to write up something for them. The Sophists were living well in Athens. Although they were considered outsiders because they were not from Athens, they did really well for themselves. They taught and sold their skills for money. In the business sense they were doing well, however ethically Plato found their influence overwhelmingly harmful. Plato raises some real 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 debate. Plato points out that this could be problematic for true justice to be served. A person can be innocent but be a terrible speaker. Also, just because he is poor and cannot afford a Sophist to write a rhetorically sound address doesn’t mean that he should lose the case. 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 fails. This will 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 the development of rhetoric. There are many ways to influence people using rhetoric. However, persuasion and better arguments should not overtake logic and reason when it comes to justice. The win becomes so important that argumetns begin to be based on lies. The “professional persuaders” were constantly under suspicion by Plato. He saw through their living made by persuading audiences. In his eyes, little respect is due to those who can win an argument without logic to back it up. 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 his 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 is entirely the younger generations will internalize and believe. How they lead in the future is dependent on how they were brought up. Plato criticized the Sophists for teaching something that is from his perspective, deceptive. However, there are many scholars on the opposite side of the spectrum who would have to disagree with Plato. Rhetorical scholar Robert Scott describes rhetorical processes as “epistemic, that is, knowledge-building” (Herrick 34). The importance of this is that it shows that there are more opinions than just Plato’s. 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. In society, we are constantly tested in ethical dilemmas in which way to respond to some sort of situation. As time has progressed, so have the standards for ethical and moral issues. Rhetoric allows us to beg the question and evoke new thoughts. Rhetoric has always played a role in the justice system. Although methods have changed since Ancient Greece, there are still instances in modern day society where people go to court in order to fight already existing laws. Through rhetorical interaction, we are able to test ideas. These ideas are tested by society before they are to be considered as “known” (Herrick 19). What becomes the doxa or culturally identified norms influence society as a whole. In contrast to Plato’s arguments against rhetoric, Herrick shows that there are more parts to rhetoric than being deceptive. One method of teaching includes the art of presenting both sides, dissoi logoi. Showing both sides to the same argument is not only fair, but can make your argument stronger. For Plato, he doesn’t start to see any sort of benefits or aesthetic value in the verbal and mental agility of rhetoricians until Phaedrus.
Plato is known for his large criticism towards the Sophists and rhetoric in general. However, in Phaedrus, his feelings start to allow more openness towards the thought of rhetoric. 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 right here. Although his thoughts mostly lean towards the critical side of the debate, he starts to give hints at in what his opinion rhetoric best be used for. Socrates goes on to explain the complexity of understanding the pupil in order to “enchant” the soul. The pupil and master must be close enough to understand one another and how they react when subjected to certain criteria. This is critical to understanding how to apply the argument to a pupil. The pupil must also be emotionally capable of reacting to what the master is arguing. Everyone is different. Rhetoric is all about how you can evoke a certain emotional response from the demos. This is where the idea of rhetoric as an art form starts to show itself in Plato’s dialogue in Phaedrus. The skill level is high for those that are able to adapt their argument for each pupil. A deeper look in to this is that the orator has to be able to know his audience’s souls. Being able to apply certain arguments the senses being given off by someone is an art. In Phaedrus, it is fair to say Plato starts to shape his own rhetoric. Later on in the passage, 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. But what Plato eventually gets to is that however subjective these are to each person, they are all supposed to appeal to God. As an art, words should be acceptable in the eyes of the highest power there is. So, Plato is seen here refraining from his criticism of the sophists and starts to see rhetoric as a powerful art. If the words are those acceptable by the highest power there is, then they should be closest to the words actually spoken by God. The words are acting on behalf of a deity. In a sense, this is pretty what religion and words of a bible are. Plato shows this side of rhetoric because while developing his own rhetoric. He even uses similar tools as the Sophists did. By showing his opinions on both sides of the argument, he is acting out of the instrument of dissoi logoi in all its worth. Plato is setting up a pro and con list for everyone throughout history to read. The reason for Plato coming out, criticizing rhetoric, and giving his opinion on the matter serves a higher purpose. Plato wants to preserve what he has come to love. The sense of security in Athens is under attack by the introduction of rhetoric. His society that he has come to know is now being persuaded to fall victim to the sophist and their mastery of debasing the demos’s understanding of truth. Plato contributed this new way of thinking about rhetorical analysis and the art of applying an argument to a person based on the perceived knowledge of their soul. This deeper understanding allows rhetoric to flourish and permeate years of history and books, still influencing and persuading us today.
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. He also uses Socrates in dialogue with Phaedrus to construct his own 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. In a sense, the orator is speaking on behalf of the deity, the highest form of Truth there is. Plato’s juxtaposition of these ideas allow for the right understanding of rhetoric. Voicing concerns while presenting his own art of rhetoric has allowed his society and many other societies develop rhetoric into something great.