1. I’ve learned:

• The rise of rhetoric in the classical period was due to the change in government. This left room for people like the sophist to come and teach “out of the ordinary”.
• Plato thoughts on rhetoric compared to Aristotle
• Who the sophist were and what they did

2. What I’ve learned contradicted my prior knowledge and experience in the following ways:

• Mere belief and true belief
• Arguing for or against something you know is not true or right

3. Here are connections I see amoung the ideas so far:

• Lawyers argue for and against something they don’t always believe to be right or true. They just prove to the courts by providing evidence and the use of persuassion.

4. Based off these observations, I’d like to know:

• What happens when a person provided evidence proving someone is “guilty” in court during the classical period, however they still believed and were persuased by the speech of the sophist