I have never shared the vitriol in Plato's dialogues for rhetoric. I understand why he goes after people for holding what he considers to be untenable positions, particularly if they are teachers or otherwise influencers of others. But only insofar as they hold beliefs which don't accord with his own or if they appear to have a methodology or agenda that is antithetical to the Truth.
In the first part of the Gorgias, Plato's Socrates undertakes to do something unusual: rather than disabuse someone of the idea that they know X or Y, he tries to show that an entire sphere of human endeavor - persuasive speech - is morally bankrupt. If practiced in the wrong way, that is. I believe he is wildly off the mark here and in puzzling through this, I came to a better understanding of why I disagree with Plato on this point.
Socrates' position is something like this:
* The Art of Rhetoric does not require you to know about the subject matter about which you speak (or write)
* In that sense it is not really an 'art' as art (in the sense of 'craft') requires one to have knowledge of the subject matter in question
* Having knowledge is a prerequisite for virtue
* Rhetoric is instead really a talent for persuading people not by arguing from knowledge or truth but by telling them what they want to hear
* Telling people what they want to hear instead of the truth does not improve them aka make them virtuous
* Rhetoricians are not virtuous in what they do both in view of their lack of knowledge and the outcome of their actions
There are some nuances in his argument and it twists and turns, but I think this is a fair representation of his complaint. Gorgias, for his part, does a terrible job defending himself. I found myself yelling at my text numerous times while reading. Plato, in order to create a (no pun intended) rhetorical structure that fits Socrates' normal discourse structures the discussion as one around the aim or nature of rhetoric. And Gorgias replies in typical fashion, failing to parry Socrates' thrusts and ultimately helping to put the rhetoricians in an untenable position.
Socrates seems to be concerned here with a very specific problem and incorrectly generalizes from a specific type of case to a broader set of cases. The case he has in mind is one where someone who knows is up against someone who doesn't know. The latter is a rhetorician and presumably there is some issue of public or an individual's interest at stake about which they are debating. If the rhetorician wins the public or individual will be poorer for it.
A common example used in the dialogue is that of the physician. The physician knows what is best for the body but if faced with someone with greater powers of persuasion, may lose influence over someone's health, even if that other person had no knowledge of bodily health. We must imagine (and Socrates says as much at one point) that the physician is prescribing exercise, fish, nuts and dark greens and rest. The rhetorician, appealing to what the individual wants to hear, prescribes a paleo diet, moderation in indulgences and medication to ameliorate the effects of lifestyle. [We must put aside our current use of "physician" which describes someone who knows almost nothing about health or nutrition and instead treats disease guided by pharmaceutical companies.]
I think we can all agree that this would be a use case in which the rhetorician would be considered as lacking virtue in the sense that Socrates means. But the example is not particularly nuanced and it conflates rhetoric with something else - fraud. Rhetoric as a persuasive tool is about getting people's desires aligned with a specific action, idea, opinion, object or whatever - regardless of the truth or merit of the thing. The problem is with the way rhetoric is employed, not with rhetoric itself.
A few requirements need to be laid out to be fair to Socrates' worldview:
- The debate cannot be between two people that know. In the Platonic world, knowledge is singular and aligns with virtue. Two physicians would not have dissenting opinions and so would not disagree. Nor would one advocate something against what s/he knew was correct aka good.
- People, whether in general or in most cases, desire what they perceive to be good rather than the actual good. That is because they don't know (ignorance), not because they know but prefer otherwise (see above - knowledge aligns with virtue).
So the issue hinges on how you deal with ignorance: do you play to it or try and bring someone out of it? In other words, do you flatter or do you educate? And Socrates' position is that rhetoric = flattery = persuasion from a position of not-knowing. There is something else [anti-rhetoric] = education = persuasion from a position of knowing. Rhetoric convinces but leaves people ignorant. [Anti-rhetoric] convinces and leads people to knowledge.
Let us assume in the example above that the individual in question is ignorant of the correct course for bodily health. Let us also assume that s/he listens to the physician. We must say that they were convinced by the arguments, reasons and evidence provided by the physician. [Whether they gain knowledge or simply 'recover' it like the slave boy in Meno is immaterial here.] Somehow the individual was motivated to listen to the one with knowledge; was disposed to be educated.
The implication that rhetoric is flattery, appealing to what the individual wants v. what is good, cannot mean that rhetoric is simply temptation, appealing to desire without arguments, reasons and evidence. Rhetoric and education employ the same methods. What matters is the outcome, idea, action or object at stake. Whether it is true or good, or not.
Now suppose that the rhetorician believes that what s/he is arguing for is true. S/he is wrong, but believes it nonetheless. We assume that the physician knows that his/her object is true. In this case, it would be hard to say the rhetorician was acting immorally. If two people are acting in the same way towards two different ends, both believing they are right but only one is, we are less inclined to say that the one that is wrong lacks virtue.
I'm not sure Socrates can allow of this kind of case. He assumes that the rhetorician acts from a lack of knowledge and knows as much. This - acting as if you know when you are aware that you don't - is fraud, dis-ingenuousness, misrepresentation or some other act of bad faith. And this is really what he is after, people who influence others but do so out of bad faith. Rhetoric, as persuasive speech, is not the problem. Bad people are the problem.
I'm not sure if this poses a problem for his greater thesis about the connection between knowledge and virtue. The individual in the example above does what is bad for their bodily health out of ignorance. But their ignorance is twofold: both of the good and that they know that they don't know the good. The ignorance of the rhetorician is first order only. His/her duplicity requires awareness of the lack of knowledge while conversely, knowing means that you know that you know.
Rhetoric as persuasive speech is unobjectionable. Educators are orators are rhetoricians as well as those Sophists Plato hates so much. What Plato in the form of Socrates really dislikes is ignorance of the truth, but not the ignorance of the mob. That is ignorance that as well as ignorance of. Plato is after those who are ignorant of and know they are. Simply put, he hates those that know better. He could have said as much without dragging the noble art of persuasion through the mud.
--seth
My understanding is a little different from yours in Plato’s argument with the Sophists. The Sophists valued probabilities over the truth. In addition, I think this is easily an argument for today with the use of statistical analysis when trying to quantify a human person and the dangers it presents. There is a good essay by D.G. Spatharas, “Patterns of Argumentation in Gorgias” that demonstrates when probabilities are not lining-up with empirical facts an argument is flawed and/or not interested in truth.
In contemporary terms regarding the use of “Big Data” Jules Polonetsky also investigates the future of privacy and individual rights. That is to say, although quantitative data is a great tool for market efficiency, human beings are not products and therefore there’s a danger utilizing statistical analysis in trying to measure human beings for economic efficiency—violating human rights.
I agree with you that calling all rhetoric bad or plain flattery is not correct. I think that during the podcast you had a great example along the lines of: sometimes the experts (or those that know the good) are not the best at articulating it, and need assistance — to motivate someone for example — and that makes perfect sense.
In my opinion, however, although Plato’s examples fall somewhat outside the scope (doctors, bakers, candlestick-makers, etc), this is misleading, and what he is attacking is primarily rhetoricians used in politics — and not a more general persuasive speech which can be utilized for other good purposes. And, in my opinion, I agree more with his conclusion – that rhetoric used for political purposes is bad or at least very dangerous.
If you want to convince the uneducated mob that your slimy, unhealthy, nutrient-deprived dollar-menu slop is OK for them to eat from time to time — well more power to you. If someone is smart enough to know, but ignorant enough to actually pay for that – then they might deserve what they get (I had a bad McNugget experience the other day). And if they’re not smart enough to know, well a few visits probably aren’t going to add to their already unhealthy lifestyle. However, decisions that could affect the life or death of the civilization as a whole: sending people to war, spending insanely large amounts of money on pork-barrel projects, funding scientific advancements, the rights of the minority, etc – rhetoric at this level is extremely dangerous and quite frankly probably eating away at our society in the US.
I just keep thinking of the faux news, the lobbyists, the military-industrial complex, and examples like this. I’m sorry, at the this level of the game and in our world of mass information available at your fingertips — ignorance becomes more inexcusable. Even if this senator believes in Creationism over Evolution, if he’s going to publically lambaste evolution he should at least understand the concept. We should be able to understand that, even if they have a right to do so — faux news organizations that pump out nothing but blind rhetoric to one side, even if they are completely ignorant of the good or knowledge (which I doubt) – are unhealthy and untenable for a society.
In my opinion, these rhetoricians are acting immoral, even if ignorant, because at their level (we’re talking Ivy League educated people?) and with the weight of their actions — they have a moral obligation to not be ignorant of the good. So, for your example with the physician — maybe that’s ok if the rhetorician convinces them to eat some McNuggets every once in a while. But in politics, if the rhetorician convinces a country to go to war, or launch a nuke, or violate the rights of a minority — well this is, I think, a lot more egregious offense.
I’d like to amend what Aaron Watson said above. He is right that the original post does not account for the importance of politics in Gorgias but, I think, both he and the author of the post miss something essential. Neither take into account the nature of the Platonic dialogue.
The rhetoric Scorates warns against is a part of the image of politics — you can find this line of thought in roughly 463d1 thru 466a of Gorgias. Whenever one confuses image for reality one is in error (in contemporary language “makes a category mistake” or a has come down with a “Wittgensteinian philosophical disease” that requires therapy), and when one makes such an error about politics, which is the craft, according to Plato, that has as its subject the good of the soul or happiness, then one is in real trouble. Who wants to me wrong about what needs to be done to be happy?
The real audience for Socrates’ display in Gorgias is Polus, and through him those of us open enough to still be truly curious about what’s admirable about world and the actors the within it. Socrates lets Gorgias off the hook because the old rhetorician is a decent enough guy, but by end does a pretty good job humiliating the shinier Callicles, who praises vice (mostly intemperance), and proposes to deploy rhetoric to gain tyrannical power in the city, which in turn is to be used as a means to feed the proverbial Platonic multiheaded hydra of inflamed desire.
The real question of the Gorgias, then, is something like “Who do you want to be?” Clearly there is a complicated relationship between that kind of question and things like rhetoric (and pastry baking). The article and comments would right to object to Plato if he proposing some theory of rhetoric. But he is not. He is creating a dialogue that mimics the world and in doing so let’s parts of it stand out more clearly for those of us trying to make our way within it. While philosophic and filled with arguments, Plato’s works are also outrageous, funny and ironic. While this is probably too crude, it does not hurt to think of Plato in some analogy with the Stewarts, Colberts and SNLs of the world. There’s often a serious point there, but you can’t say it’s not “pastry” either.
If I may say, I just think it’s great that thoughtful people are writing thoughtful things about Plato. Thanks!!
“But the example is not particularly nuanced and it conflates rhetoric with something else – fraud.”
I think the dialogue is aimed at a much deeper question then simply whether or not those who employ rhetoric are bad people. I think here Plato really is concerned with whether or not using rhetoric implies by definition that you are misleading–whether it is in fact necessarily the same thing as fraus.
Letting Plato’s concern with art in the Republic inform how we view its inclusion in the Gorgias, it seems that Plato is proposing a paradox about how we get from ignorance to knowing. Lots of beliefs are being traded back and forth all the time in his dialogues, but the question of how one gets beyond simple beliefs toward actual knowledge remains unresolved. People are naturally more responsive to art and rhetoric, but how do you actually “teach” them when art and rhetoric are predicated on the very parts of us, our senses and passions, which so often mislead us? Zero Dark Thirty might be the best way to get people interested in an important part of recent American history, but how do you stop them from being completely misled by it?
I think even Plato would admit that the sophists “know” at least a little more than the average member of the upper class populace they’ll be teaching (or the average citizen their students will eventually be called on to persaude). So while there’s the question of how one ignorant person can teach another (which, if taken to its logical conclusion, precludes the possibilty of Socrates having anything to actually teach us as readers), I think the more nuanced and interesting question of the Gorgias is how one person who is more “knowing” than another can actually teach them.
How do you go back into the cave and tell the people down there what you have seen up on the surface? For the sophists, this doesn’t pose much of a problem. For them, reason and belief, rhetoric and artifice, are all their is. Speech occurs in a kind of state of nature where the strong rule by having the more “persuasive case.” After all, the only thing that seperates the methods of Callicles from the methods of Socrates is that while Callicles will compel through resorting to whatever will convince his audience, Socrates will compel by virture of “the good” and “the true.” Socrates is concerned with a kind of logical necessity which is for him binding. Not so for Callicles who must be left wondering who will enforce submission to this logical necessity if not with swords and spears.
This isn’t a problem for Socrates, who seems happy to die (and who will when his logical necessity, the force of his “truer” and more enlightened reason, fails him in court). But I think Plato is seriously troubled by the apparent incongruity between material conditions in the polis, and the immaterial prescriptions of the ideal forms. Which takes the original question further: not only how do you enlighten those back down in the cave, but how do you stop them from trying to murder you when you do?
To repeat the initial question that I think the Gorgias is maingly dealing with: how do you move someone beyond belief and to actual knowledge?
I might believe that drugs are bad for me, or that I would be happier and healthier if I work out more, but if that’s the case then why do I still drink alcohol and coffee and spend so much time playing video games and sitting on my arse reading books? I have the proper belief, but belief by itself isn’t enough. Without knowledge, their’s nothing that compells me to act on that belief.
I belive that their is great injustice in the world. Economic inequality and misery isn’t something I can fix, but I could certainly do more to alleviate it in my own way. To the extent that I think this belief about the nature of those things is correct, why don’t I do more to work toward that end?
And I think this is what really troubles Plato; not that our beliefs about the world are so often mistaken–but that even when they are correct they are so uncompelling. And in so far as certain beliefs are compelling it is because they flatter us or reinforce certain kinds of self-interest. So I’ll donate my money and time when people are watching, but not when I have nothing extra to gain from it (see Thrasymachus in the Republic). Which means that because they rhetoric’s capacity for not just convincing us of a belief, but its ability to motivate us to act on that belief, is predicated on selfish desire and base passions, there is a real question of whether rhetoric can ever be put in the service of the good; whether it can be a neutral tool rather than ruled by narrow technological determinism.
The reason this strikes us untrue, now — and the reason why you have to accept the dialogue on its own merits, and as a product of its own time, or not — is because we (21st century folk) generally agree that every communicative act has some element of rhetoric in it (using the elements identified as early as Aristotle’s treatise), i.e., communicative tactics that are designed to persuade the listener of something, even if its only the truth of the statement itself. The virtuous physician in the dialogue is persuasive for any number of reasons other than the “truth” of his argument: the physician’s position, past relationship with the patient, authority … all contribute to the persuasive act — trying to get patient to take medicine — but none depend on the “truth” of his argument. Someone who uses rhetoric without knowledge may be reprehensible, but that doesn’t mean folks with knowledge don’t use rhetoric … or could even speak of the truth without using rhetoric.
Perhaps I’m oversimplifying it, but I took Plato’s argument to be something like this.
It’s “bad” when either ignorant or deceitful people can convince and individual, city, or nation to to something in conflict of “the good”.
This is made possible by a combination 1) those smooth-talking Rhetorician and 2) ignorance of the good by the people targeted for persuasion.
While this discussion focuses on denouncing rhetorical crafts as enabling #1, you could argue that Plato is attempting to at least improve #2 by his teachings and writings.
To argue that it’s the miss-use of Rhetoric that is the problem is almost a truism for any human tool or skill.
It’s basically making the argument that Rhetoric doesn’t kill people, people kill people, to risk a politically sensitive analogy. Which is both true and trite, but doesn’t offer much solace for those who would prefer that the the city be run (or health prescriptions made, or military decisions made) by those with actual expertise in the subject matter rather than marketers who figure out how to use subliminal messages advertisements.
Being convinced that something is true is not the same thing as knowing it is true, even if that something is true. Being convinced by a rhetorician is just a more sophisticated form of taking someone’s word on a matter; and as such, it is a form of turning one’s own responsibility for knowing the truth over to another person. People susceptible to rhetoricians are irresponsible, and rhetoricians are irresponsible in enabling this.
Of course, as with everything, irresponsibility is a matter of degree and sometimes one’s responsibility outweighs their capabilities to be responsible, so they have to take other people’s word for it. One may not have the time and ability to understand the arguments for or against climate change and yet one, in a democracy, is responsible for taking a stance on the issue. This is the case with a lot of political issues in a democracy where every citizen is responsible for policy decisions.
So, I have to disagree that there is anything noble about rhetoric. It’s a necessary evil because people are irresponsible as well as not having the means to be completely responsible. But effective rhetoric is effective only by being better rhetoric then the opposition; and the most effective rhetoric is that which convinces the public to trust the rhetorician and turn over responsibility for knowing the truth to them. That is, the most effective rhetoric engenders irresponsibility. It’s a catch 22 for politicians, they can’t afford the opposition to out-rhetoric them or they lose. If someone could wave a magic wand and make the whole populace deeply distrustful of rhetoric, this would go a long way toward solving the problem but that is never going to happen. This is why politics is a slimy, but necessary, business and we should all be thankful when good people are willing to engage in it.
Edit: I notice this was submitted as a reply to festivus, actually it is meant as a reply to the blog post.
After thinking about this a little more, I have a new theory.
I’ll submit that Plato was just as clever as we are in being able to distinguish between the good and bad uses of rhetoric as a tool of persuasion. That is, I think Plato agrees with Seth’s initial post.
But his condemnation of Rhetoric in general, is just a rhetorical tactic of his own. Better to paint all Rhetoricians in a bad light, than to rely on the people to be able to tell the difference.
Near the end of the dialog Plato says (via Socrates), that he is one of the few Athenians to practice the “true politics”. One that aims for what’s best rather than most pleasing.
It’s basically a version of the Noble Lie and/or a smear campaign against his rivals. If you can paint all the lobbyists, lawyers, and PR staff (to use a modern example) as wicked deceivers, then your arguments have a better chance at influencing the city.
He clearly believes that he’s the most qualified for politics, and doesn’t have qualms about bending the truth for the greater good.
It’s striking to me how it points out issues that are rampant in modern politics.
“They are not to be commended who, in their anxiety to increase their store of truths, neglect the necessary art of expressing them.” — Erasmus
I was really enjoying this episode until Seth decides, almost at the end of the episode, to unburden himself of some bile about psychiatry and the DSM, and more specifically about a move that he had heard about to reclassify normal grieving into the spectrum of depression. Although I personally would agree that normal grieving is distinct from depression, the distinction they’re getting at is grief (which most people recover from) vs clinical depression (which many people, especially older people, fall into after the death of a loved one), which is useful in clinical practice.
Furthermore, although I do not intend to defend the drug industry and the tightness of its relationship with psychiatry, I feel like you represented a false dichotomy between the noble Freudian psychoanalysts of old and the lazy, harried drug pushers of today. In reality Freudian psychoanalysis was and remains almost totally powerless in addressing serious, organic mental illnesses like bipolar disorder or schizophrenia. I hasten to point out that I’m not a psychiatrist and have no interest in any of the internecine conflicts surrounding the DSM, but I would say that giving people antidepressants and antipsychotics, if those drugs works, is more humane and effective than any of the nightmarish treatments to which psychiatric patients were often subject to.
In short, I feel like this part of this one episode has damaged your credibility for me, especially as the rest of the cast lets the subsequent rant about all science being in the pocket of “giant corporations, or by the government or the military or whatever” pass unchallenged.
Hi, Fisher,
It’s funny that you pick on this screed which some other commenters here specifically applauded.
I feel like there have been several instances in our history where someone gives a fairly humorous rant, probably towards the end of an episode, and the rest of us mostly just laugh it off, and someone writes in to tell us how disgusted he is with all of us now for letting such a thing pass. Personally, I think such bile should be reserved for, like, if someone said something totally racist and we all just let it pass (in practice, I’d just edit it out). In this case, I thought that Seth’s comment was a bit of a non sequitur to what I had in mind (e.g. eschewing philosophical metaphysics in favor of strictly scientific cosmology a la Hawking’s recommendation), but the topic itself is so vague (the value of doing philosophy and not just science) that Seth’s point was on-point enough: that philosophical wariness is needed when given any allegedly scientific claims. Pursuing his specific point in the conversation would have just been a sidetrack, and I’m sure we’ll have some more discussion of this general philosophy/science conflict in many future episodes.
Mark,
You’re quite right of course; I probably should have just had a beer and gone for a walk rather than insisting that someone on the internet listen to my opinion. I have to agree with your broader point; philosophical and often very literal wariness and distrust is needed when evaluating new scientific claims.
I suppose what I was trying to say is that, many times, psychiatric drugs can take people who would otherwise lead unlivable lives and let them at least let them get by in society, and it felt wrong somehow to tar that with a broad brush and say that the drug business is all a scam. Large parts of it might be a scam, but the part where some of the drugs actually work and are helpful to individuals with mental illness and to society, is not a scam. Of course it was a tangential comment at the end of the episode and doesn’t really relate to the rest of the work you guys did, but for whatever reason it got under my skin. And of course that should be my problem rather than your problem.
However, as I said I really enjoyed the rest of the episode, and I applaud you guys for your continued good work.
Fine argument you put forth here, and indeed, your ultimate conclusion makes a lot of sense. I gather from some of your comments that you recognize the danger inherent in rhetoric when used for ignoble purposes—to mislead others or use people for one’s own gain or, perhaps, using the art of persuasion simply to make oneself look good. What you find outrageous, though, is Plato’s complete rejection of the art of persuasion and what it can accomplish—throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. When I first came across this, I wondered how far Socrates would go. I mean, it’s become common practice in school to debate in favor of a subject we may not agree with. Socrates (or Plato) might wonder what the point of such an exercise would be, i.e. what could be learned from it other than how to support an argument you don’t believe in. That WOULD be ridiculous, I thought, because it teaches one how to look at an opposing viewpoint, and that’s obviously important. But then I wondered if that’s really the kind of thing they had a problem with. I mean, even though Socrates generally rejected rhetoric, there were sophists that he respected. Considering that Socrates prized knowledge and truth above all else, it’s not surprising that he’d disagree with a system of oration designed to bedazzle one’s listener regardless of truth or the speaker’s knowledge of the subject. In that sense, I can understand how Socrates felt, especially considering how many false philosophers at the time were using rhetoric as a means to make a living or enhance their own prestige. When viewed in that light, do you think Socrates may have had a point? At least partially? It does lead one to wonder, also, what the point of rhetoric is when it is NOT used for ignoble purposes. If it’s to persuade others toward a point of view that we think is good, then wouldn’t it make sense to know as much about our topic as possible? And further, if it’s something we truly believe in, then wouldn’t our personal ardor contribute to the persuasiveness of our argument? If the answer is yes to both, then when it comes down to it, why do we need a clever system of oration to make our point? If we’re fully versed in our subject and it’s backed by a firm personal belief, then certainly that’s enough to persuade thinking people? And if we need to trick them into believing us with nice-sounding phrases, then how solid could our argument be in the first place? In fact, isn’t the art of persuasion only useful when trying to make others do what we want for our own gain? And isn’t that exactly what Socrates and Plato were against?
Hello, after finding this on the web today I would like to add my opinion after having studied this and HUBRIS, NARCISSISM and NEMESIS (Greek tragedies) recently before having to face an unjust court appearance in which I had to front *FALSE POLICE CHARGES OF DISORDERLY CONDUCT and THEIR RHETORIC EMPOWERED LIES AND FABRICATION OF PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE DESIGNED TO CREATE A ***MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE FOR ME (REVENGE-LIKE, FROM ***HUBRISTIC, NEMESIS INVOKED REACTIONS TO ME CALLING THEM AN IDIOT, after they were HARRASSING ME FALSELY, THINKING I WAS A DRUG DEALER OR SOMETHING INSULTING LIKE THAT, POLICE ACTED OUTSIDE OF THE LAW TOTALLY, USING A BOGUS INVENTED REASON TO INTRUDE INTO MY PRIVACY RIGHTS, POLICE USING THE LAW OF SUSPICIAN AND A ***LIE THAT WAS NOT SUSPICION IN TRUTH OF WHAT I WAS DOING ON THE DAY PRECEEDING ARREST, AND REPRESENTED ***PREJUDICE BECAUSE OF THE POOR *UNKEMPT APPEARANCE I HAD THIS DAY – VERY ANGRY I STILL AM, AT LEAST I WON.)
Because of my study of HUBRIS, trying to understand the ABUSE OF POWER the police officers acted on, I stumbled upon ancient Greek rhetoric discourses on the web. Given the fact I have studied mental disorders, psychology and philosophy for the last ***fourteen years (albeit away from tertiary accreditation)meant I was able to ***VERBALLY prove to the judge my poor *SOCRATES-LIKE appearance did not mean I am an automatic felon. I easily defeated the *conspiring to pervert the course of justice police *rightly in court, representing myself. After facing this IMMORAL POLICE ***RHETORIC all for real in the court system just last week, I have maybe a fresh take on rhetoric, if anybody is interested to discuss it, and starts off like this.
Rhetoric is *NOT a great or honourable “tool” for any form of converse or discourse to become involved in, and should ONLY BE USED, AS I CORRECTLY AND POSITIVELY USED IT TO GREAT EFFECT IN COURT RECENTLY, as a ***LAST RESORT OPTION, as said in ancient texts, when the integrity of others in the picture disappears, and ***DIALECTIC is never going to be a two way street for discourse, sometimes, an honest and *innocent man cannot use the power of truth the way truth really ought to hold the balance of power/outcome in debate, but rarely does -WHY? The concept being CLOSED MINDED IS WHY. Being closed minded is not the best thing for any persons mental health – it is the sole thing that traps negative thoughts and bad memories in the sub consciousness, creating ALL the various ***organic (UNNATURAL, DEVELOPED DURING THE COURSE OF OUR LIFE – NOT BORN WITH OR ARISING FROM PHYSICAL INJURY) mental disorders IN SOCIETY.
Socrates is totally correct, albeit does not elaborate perhaps as is needed for greater clarification of his valid point. I do not really know why the likes of Aristotle became so engrossed in the subject, having written so much about rhetoric as well. (The art of rhetoric I read, by Aristotle.) However true for me, it is great for us to have these dialogues to discuss and ***USE for our own ***LEGAL, social UNDERSTANDING and *psychological benefit. (Helping me to defeat the evil people who try to use it when the truth of a matter opposes the ability for them to use truth/dialectic discourse to win their dishonourable intentions of trying to ruin my life with a false charge sticking to my LIFE RECORD/police clearance.)
TO CLARIFY: Who as yet has properly captured the simplest true reality of what rhetoric is? Rhetoric represents nothing to do with having an *OPEN MINDED psychological and forwards moving/evolving and mentally growing discussion about what is the true reality or true nature of something, and instead represents something far darker and sinister.
RHETORIC REPRESENTS A CLOSED MINDED ATTEMPT TO EXCITE, INFLUENCE, CONVINCE OR ***CONVERT OTHERS TO YOUR WAY OF THINKING, and that will always have a serious immoral impact on events, because as clearly stated by one of the smartest men ever lived, the loss of virtue, honesty and truthfulness comes with this type of action and thinking. The best example is religion, converting people to your way of thinking is what a control freak wants to do, and that is the poverty of the soul by itself.
Converting others via rhetoric is what Adolf Hitler did best, so if you believe in rhetoric, perhaps you think hitler was a great person? sorry, library closing, have to wrap it up for now. drop me a mail.
There are no Truths. It’s all Rhetoric. That the problem.
I’m a bit late to the party, but hey – the stuff you’re discussing has been out for thousands of years, so it’s not like it’s irrelevant four years later, right?
Anyways, I enjoyed the exploration and like most of your points, but there are a couple of things that I’d dispute in your closing statement. You claim that Plato/Socrates actually hates knowledgeable deception, but in my mind his dispute with the Sophists was specifically the opposite – they claimed that you couldn’t “know” if something was right or wrong, while he developed the Socratic Method and believed in absolute truth. For Socrates, there’s no nuance – those who understand the issue have one conclusion, and all other conclusions come from ignorance.
This could easily be applied to America’s current political situation. Unlike other leaders who KNOW that their rhetoric is false (most notably my own Putin), Trump and some of his cabinet seem to be honestly surprised when proved wrong. i.e., “Who knew healthcare could be so complicated?”
It’s impossible to know for sure what the actual man would’ve thought, Derrida says, but in his writings we see a clear disdain for “untruth” of any sort (remember that he conflates “truth” with “knowledge”). Wouldn’t it make sense that the wrong he sees in Gorgias’ contemporaries is willful ignorance, and the readiness to argue without knowing the “truth,” just as much as deception?