Do you know
someone who just hates to lose? Meet my dad. I remember even as a five-year old
being trumped by my dad in a game of checkers every single time (unlike my mom, who probably did the “appropriate,
grown-up” thing and let me and my siblings win). Not until I was a few years
older did I realize that my dad would often change or “define” the rules,
coincidentally winning the game shortly after. These experiences taught me an
important concept very early on in life: whoever controls the rules of the game
controls the outcome as well.
In Phaedrus by Plato, we encounter two very
different rhetorical approaches given by the characters Lysias and Socrates.
One difference between the two accounts that immediately stood out to me was
the absence/presence of key definitions. Lysias begins by “cutting to the chase,”
arguing why one should “favor” a nonlover over a lover; in contrast, Socrates
commences by carefully setting some semantic groundwork: “let us first agree on
a definition of love” (pg 144). Whether playing checkers or studying rhetoric,
we must realize that, as I stated earlier, “whoever controls the rules of the
game controls the outcome as well.” The game is the rhetorical discourse, the
goal is successful persuasion (of some kind), and the rules are definitions of
words. Definitions set the premises for your argument. If you can convince
someone to agree with a definition, then they must “play by the rules” and
accept the logical outcome, assuming you have a well-laid argument stemming
from the definition in the first place. We find this very idea hinted at by “Socrates”
himself: “what the subject is, about which we are to take counsel, has been said
and defined, and now let us continue, keeping our attention fixed upon that
definition…” (pg 145). If we find ourselves arguing the outcome of a game, we’re
already too late; the score is fixed. We must rather be alert and challenge
questionable rules from the very onset.
Sadie,
ReplyDeleteI know exactly what you mean about your dad always winning games. Mine was the same way about chess, and the sense of inferiority mixed with the unabashed admiration I felt continued long after the game was over. You can almost see the same kind of relationship at work with Socrates and Phaedrus. I guess the question that your post raised for me was if there one absolute definition of love (or other truths), and if so, how do we obtain such a thing? Or could the rhetorician, in an effort to "define his own rules", create his own definition as per whatever fit his argument best? I'm sure the Sophists would agree that it is much more contextual than Socrates, or Plato, would care to admit.
Great post- really got me thinking!
Molly
"If we find ourselves arguing the outcome of a game, we're already too late; the score is fixed" is such a great line, because it's so true. Rather than focusing on the outcome, one should focus on the current affairs. Rhetoric is so important here, and I think your example with the checkers is good. It makes rhetoric much more tangible; being such an abstract and fluid construct is infinitely difficult to understand. I appreciate your example because it helps me get a further grasp on how to approach rhetoric, so thank you.
ReplyDeleteI love the checkers metaphor you used here and I agree. Socrates is able to use his knowledge of rhetoric and Phaedrus to bend the rules. The quote, "in order to break the rules you must first master them", is especially fitting here. Socrates has mastered the rules of rhetoric (at least as much as anyone can) which allows him to change and break them to fit his needs. Great post made me think differently.
ReplyDelete