Phaedrus

Why is Plato concerned about the difference between mere belief and true knowledge? Socrates gives a speech, known as a Great Speech, which then leads to a conversation about writing and rhetoric. Phaedrus was influenced by a different view of rhetoric which claims that persuasion outshines truth in the art of rhetoric. Socrates disputes this particular argument by revealing some damaging influences about speaking without knowing the truth. Rhetoric has the power to persuade. But on the other hand, the type of audience needs to be taken into consideration, and speak accordingly. Knowledge can be defined as, “A clear perception of a truth or fact, erudition; skill from practice. To perceive with certainty, to understand clearly, to have experience of”. However, belief is defined as, “Assent to anything proposed or declared, and its acceptance as fact by reason from where it proceeds, apart from personal knowledge”. I think the difference between these two definitions is that belief is like a memory or thought that exists in ones’ own mind. Unlike knowledge, it is learned and justified. In Gorgias, Socrates talks about knowledge with certainty and without certainty. Wouldn’t we consider knowledge without certainty a belief? Today in class we read and discussed the Debate between Clinton and Trump. We saw in Clinton’s speech how her beliefs (in family and as a grandmother) played a role in creating an emotional connection with her and the audience. As well, she used words such as, us, you, we to make the listeners feel like they actually matter and play a role in decisions that need to be made. But at the same time, her beliefs that may be steering her campaign and having an influence on her decisions, may not be the same beliefs the next person may have. If you look at the definitions, knowledge is “fact” and belief is “trust, a feeling.” For belief to be considered knowledge it must be justified and true. I think Plato was concerned because knowledge can be influenced by belief. What you know and what you believe can be two very different things. But what you believe can have an impact on what you want to know. That being said, there is some truth to knowledge, but how do we know that that knowledge hasn’t been influenced by someone’s belief? That would be problematic because that would mean without belief, we would not have knowledge.

 

Plato- Gorgias

Gorgias is a conversation between Socrates and four other citizens. In our previous class discussion it was based on the guiding question, what is the essential nature of rhetoric. Is it the study of words? Is personal freedom, mastery over others, order of social and political systems outcomes because of rhetoric? Socrates questions Gorgias about the extent and nature of rhetoric. Which then leads to questions about true vs false arts. In class, connections were made between art and rhetoric. Art is complex and filled with emotion. It’s a creation formed by thoughts, imagination and skill. It is a form of expression. On the other hand, would a piece of art work have the same meaning to you as it did to the artist. Are you able to see the vision, the story the artist had when creating an art piece. Perception was a subject we discussed in class that can be connected to Gorgias and Rhetoric. Just like the saying, If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Did it really happen, does it really exist? If you never knew what defines rhetoric, can rhetoric really be art, or music, or emotions and thoughts? Would there be justice if you didn’t have knowledge of the laws. In Gorgias, they bring up points like right vs wrong, true essence of power, good existing vs pleasant. Of course you can go back and forth and make a case for each side. But is it really going to matter, or exist in your world if you don’t perceive the other side of the argument the way someone else does. Perception is reality.