forte-fievre:

Orthos Rhetoricos and Phaedrus

“The rhetorical art is a certain influencing of the soul by means of words, not in law courts only and in other such public meetings, but also in private gatherings, the same concerning both small and great matters, and no more esteemed when done right concerning serious things than concerning trivial things.”(261a-b2)

"Only when all of these things — names, definitions, and visual and other perceptions — have been rubbed against one another and tested, pupil and teacher asking and answering questions in good will and without envy — only then, when reason and knowledge are at the very extremity of human effort, can they illuminate the nature of any object."  (344b)

A recurring mistake made by commentators on Plato’s Phaedrus and Aristotle’s Rhetorica is the conflation of the messages found in both texts. While Plato and Aristotle share the same contempt for Sophistic school of oratory, their methodology in studying and demonstrating the nature and purpose of rhetoric differs greatly. Aristotle’s Rhetorica can be understood as technē that reads like a handbook against Sophism. Technē, with its intimate link to episteme, indicates a set of approaches containing the capacity to unlock, unveil and signify the production-manifestation of a truth. It essentially concerns itself with the poiesis – the formation of a thing. By this definition of technē, Plato’s Phaedrus, nestled in a more idyllic setting surrounded by the resplendency of metaphors and myths, is not entirely a manual guide on the interplay of speeches, texts and words, but it does illuminate the techniques that ideal rhetoric ought to adopt. The dominant method in Phaedrus to improve rhetoric concerns itself with two approaches that function optimally together: dialectic (dialogue) and psychology (soul). In this paper, I will specify the techniques employed in the Platonic theory of rhetoric.

The key component that can be derived from Phaedrus is Plato’s firm insistence that rhetoric works as a mechanism to analyze the soul by exactitude. This can be understood as the primary philosophical project of Phaedrus. He begins with drawing the mode with which one can collect and divide compartments of the audience to make an appeal to them through speech, thereby rendering communication into a systematic guide of understanding the soul. Plato believes in engagement as opposed to eristic contact based on disputation. The dialogue itself is a demonstration of the dialectical mode of engagement: It follows a hypothesis in the form of Lysias’s speech that declares that it is preferable for a young boy to cede to one who is not a lover than to an actual lover. The interlocutor is provided in this first hypothesis, albeit unreliable in its basis. Antithetical to the proposed hypothesis, Socrates rejects the hypothesis by stating that it is based on assumption (“love is desire”). This is ambiguous until the third part of the speech: Socrates follows up with a thorough explanation concerning the nature of love (eros in this case) and its placement in the Universal and the Divine.  The third speech is what constitutes as the Socratic dialectic as it gives the three speeches an organic conclusion. This allows us to see the dialectic nature of Plato’s rhetoric that follows the trajectory of a hypothesis, antithesis and synthesis, and serves as a cautionary message against dead text and speech.

Against Sophism

The arguments made against the sophists in Phaedrus have arguably changed the course of philosophy, rhetoric and general Western thought. In the Platonic theory of rhetoric, words that become ensnared in power and manipulation are words that jeopardize their relationship to truth. It is because of this dynamic which creates a sense and role of responsibility that Plato orients himself against sophism, which is oration for the sake of oration. Plato alleges that sophists are reckless with justice and cause more harm to doxa (public opinion) and episteme (truthful knowledge).

Against Inexactitude

Wholesome rhetoric, according to Plato, is one that provides no room or potential for ambiguity and hence,  rescues us from the loss of understanding. The character of good rhetoric, we learn by reading Phaedrus, is located in its practical and political maxims and embodiment of social justice. It is, however, amusing to witness Plato employ (with much rigor) the same irony he advocates against in his own speech. It is the most frequently appearing contradiction in his work: His personal predilection for sinuous myths and lissome metaphors – non-philosophical expressions like prayer – in an almost polemical text against the aforementioned.

Against Inanimate Text

The written word receives criticism in Phaedrus. It is referred as “dead text” and depicts the dilemma where it is prone to endless and frustrated misinterpretation by the reader. In contrast, dialogue is seen as replete with the possibility of yielding memorable and generative comprehension among readers; it is its dramatic and evocative content that is far less perilous than the dead content of speech or inanimate text. It is subsequently argued that good rhetoric is rhetoric that continues, goes on and perseveres, and for that reason, dialogue between two or three speakers is often the method with which truth reveals itself.

Systematic Analysis

One of the main rhetorical techniques employed in Phaedrus is the implementation of several systematic analytical approaches to a subject. To determine the nature of a subject, one must determine its essence firstly. Is it simple or is it complex? If it is complex, enumerate its varying forms or states. Determine its natural power and its tendencies. By adopting this method of dissection, one can grasp the germ of the soul of the audience, after all the principal purpose of rhetoric and its rhetorician is to produce conviction in the soul, to persuade the audience to accept or reject an idea, to employ one’s faculty in yielding an alliance from the addressed. Good rhetoric, therefore, will be able to win respectability and exert influence into action.

Ideal Rhetoric

Derrida’s Dissemination allows us to look further into the nature of rhetoric by claiming that the central contention of language is its haunted status, not a duel between philosophy and literature as most critical thought assumes. Language is flooded with the danger of un-meaning, loss, harrowing absence, lack of clarity, dispersal and inevitable disorder. This must not be confused for rhetoric containing an inherent malice within it but that rhetoric contains what Plato callspharmakon. i.e. it is either remedy or poison depending on its employment and close proximity to the ideal state. Thus, ideal rhetoric is the kind that knows several facts and acts upon them without hesitation. Bertolt Brecht uncovers this stumbling block in Writing the Truth: Five Difficulties by discussing how good rhetoric will have the courage to write the truth and honor labor. It will also recognize truth and manipulate it against hegemony. Furthermore, good rhetoric will operate on the basis of iuxta propria principia i.e. it will explain the nature of things according to their own principles without deviation. It will have sound judgment of selecting those who will disseminate the content. Above all, good rhetoric will know how to seed itself into the masses, spread like a fire that propels urgency and valor.

We learn that the Platonic theory of rhetoric dictates that sound rhetoric knows truth. Against deceit and fraud, the truly orthos rhetoricos is knowledgeable about the concerned subject it speaks of and does not shy away from tension and contradiction (as sophism does) but rather takes on conflict and attempts to resolve it. Secondly, it understands the nature of souls and how each soul is different than the other. This is executed through audience analysis (as we witnessed in Phaedrus) by the rhetorician who makes a sincere effort to comprehend the targeted audience’s soul. Essentially, ideal rhetoric – one of the fundamental projects of Phaedrus – understands the variety of speeches and genres, and possesses the talent to maneuver through each without succumbing to platitudinous classification. It is masterful of the art of speaking to souls appropriately and can win their favor through style, content and most importantly, dedication to fairness and justice. Most importantly and perhaps most routinely overlooked by scholars of language, ideal rhetoric in Platonic theory understands the vitality of timing: it will know when to speak and when to be silent.

Alright let’s have sex now. I’m tired after getting this done in 36 minutes.