Final Reflection  –Final Word count: 1,402

Campbell Final Essay peer review

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.

Plato’s Development of Rhetoric3

(third draft)

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 the development 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. Little respect is due to those who can win an argument without objective logic to back it up. 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 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 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. 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. Social disruption causes chaos in the masses and would destroy this system that Plato has come to love.

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 right here. 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 and applying an argument tailored to that specific moment in time. Plato however 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 to God, the highest source of truth. 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. It is important to have a society based off of the highest power possible. It keeps language based off of objective truths because it is it 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 comprehend. 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’ understanding of what real truth is. 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.

Plato’s Development of Rhetoric2

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. 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 the development 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. Little respect is due to those who can win an argument without objective logic to back it up. 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 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 the younger generations is what they will internalize and believe. How they perceive their place in society is dependent on how they were brought up. The Sophists come to Greece in order to teach their 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. 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 the hierarchy and class structure. The more people became educated, the more people would 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 domos’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.

Plato_Rhetoric

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.

Rhetoric_Soul

We often think of the soul being some sort of life-force, giving us life. In the eyes of Plato, there is so much to this description. In Phaedrus, Plato uses Socrates in dialogue with Phaedrus in order to hint at the real art of using rhetoric. His dialogue actually hints at the idea of rhetoric being used for individual development. However, the most important part of this passage has to do with Plato’s metaphor about the human soul. In Phaedrus, Socrates explains the myth of the charioteer with wings. Picture a team consisting of winged horses led by a charioteer. This is what the soul looks like: a charioteer leading two winged horses in love with some sort of characteristic. The charioteer is led by the pursuit and love of wisdom. This is the governing body of the philosopher. One of the winged horses is led by the love of honor and nobility. A military-type of person who has a service-over-self mentality would be led by this part of the soul. The other winged horse is led by the appetite or lust loving part. People led by this tend to be never have any sort of peace of mind and constantly pursuing pleasure.

Human nature is likely fall into one or two of these categories. Naturally we would like to be the charioteer, wise and in charge of our emotions. It is a balancing act that makes us human. We sacrifice one or two parts of the soul in pursuit of only one. However, if someone wants to gain a better position in this battle, rhetoric is a possible answer. In Herrick, there is a specific section regarding rhetoric as soulcraft. Herrick describes the act of speech-making a developmental process of the soul. A speech must adapt to the complexity of the soul, reacting almost to the audience in the emotional sense.

Natural Talent

Not only in the Classical Period does the discussion of natural talent arise for discussion. It is a debate on whether or not natural talent outweighs the actual learning of something. Of course, in the context of teaching rhetorical methods to your peers, some but not all are going to pick up on the styles and techniques. Natural talent for someone in the context of rhetoric can be considered a good asset to have. In the days of the Classical Period, your self-worth was based on your rhetorical skill and debate. The easier it was for someone to pick up rhetoric means a higher achievable skill level in the eyes of the Sophists. In their minds, a student who is already very observant and adaptable in many situations (like someone who is naturally gifted) is more likely to succeed and improve the realm of rhetoric and teaching. I think natural talent was highlighted back then due to the fact that rhetoric might not work as easily to persuade those types of people. They tend to be wiser, more adaptable, and conscious of the situation. They are also able to master the art of rhetoric faster than those who have to study long hours the art in order to improve.

In today’s society, we don’t refer to many smart kids in the classroom as having natural talent. There has been an increasing number of naturally-talented kids in sports, however. Education today is obviously not as it was in the Classical period. Back then, educational level was based on natural talent and skill level. In Ancient Greece, only the smartest and most naturally talented kids got to move up to a higher education level. In today’s society, there isn’t such a thing as rigid class systems that leave a child behind for not being naturally talented. If the minimum requirements are met, then they move on to the next grade level. In my mind, the word talent has changed just as the educational systems have changed.