Plato believed that transcendent truth exists and is
accessible to human beings, making false rhetoric the views of the Sophists and
“rhetoric that relies on kairos or the situation in order to determine
provisional truth or probable knowledge” (p.28). True rhetoric “becomes the
method whereby the philosopher and his pupil free themselves from conventional
beliefs and all worldly encumbrances in the pursuit and eventual attainment of
transcendent absolute truth” (p.29)
After I read Phaedrus and looked back on Plato: True and
False Rhetoric the definition of true rhetoric, from Plato’s perspective,
seemed quite appropriate. The dialogue between Phaedrus and Socrates, and the
topic of love in Lysias’ speech, and Socrates’ speech, are ways for Phaedrus
and Socrates to attain absolute truth. On page 143, 1st column when
Socrates is telling Phaedrus that he has heard these words, those of Lysias,
from other men and women it leads Phaedrus to wanting Socrates “to make another
speech better than that in the book and no shorter and quite different” (p.
143, 1st column). To me, this was Phaedrus’ challenge to Socrates to
see if he could come to some absolute truth regarding love. As Socrates makes
his points regarding love and brings his speech to a close, Phaedrus is not
sastisfied: “But I thought you were in the middle of it, and would say as much
about the nonlover as you have said about the lover, to set forth all his good
points and show the he ought to be favored” (p. 146, 2nd column).
For Phaedrus, there is still much for the philosopher and pupil to discuss and
understand before attaining absolute truth, and so far, in what we have read
there has been no absolute truth regarding nonlovers and lovers, however I am
sure as we continue reading some kind of “answer” will emerge.
Jennie, I’m glad you wrote about true rhetoric. Your post prompted me to re-read that section of the introduction, and it made more sense to me after I read tomorrow’s section of Phaedrus! I wanted to respond to your post because you mentioned a passage that I also wrote about (143, first column, about the words of other men), though you made a different connection. I like that you tied that section of dialogue into the search for absolute truth. I also think that Phaedrus challenged Socrates to see if he could push him toward an absolute truth. Here, Plato uses the second, methodological form of true rhetoric. As the introduction says, “This process might be likened to clearing away the conventional underbrush so that the truth can be seen” (29). So, Socrates is able to work toward the truth by “clearing the underbrush,” aka accepting Phaedrus’ challenge and composing a lengthy speech that he will eventually discount as he moves toward the truth.
ReplyDeleteThis post resonated with me, for my thoughts in beginning Phaedrus were equally occupied by Plato’s juxtaposition of absolute truth and love. It struck me as an ambitious place to begin to say the least, and left me feeling ultimately (or, I should say, 'so far') rather frustrated.
ReplyDeleteLike Nathan brought up in his post, the dialogues so far in Phaedrus ring more with generalizations than anything that could glow with what might even dimly be called 'absolute truth'.
That said: Kerry, I really feel your description about Plato's "clearing the underbrush" is spot-on, and in looking back I am seeing how all of the (at times seemingly frustrating or inane) generalizations or tangled pieces are in fact nothing more than a vessel, or cocoon, which must be elaborately constructed from the outside in to house a single nugget of truth. It would seem once that truth has been reached, the whole of the outer 'shell' of a discourse might be easily stripped away, yet perhaps we each as readers need that framework in order to grasp the truth beneath.
As this is, at this point, merely a hypothesis, I'm eager to keep bushwhacking through the dialog to see what Plato uncovers with it. It may be I end up as disgusted as Nathan, but, for now at least, I'm giving Plato the benefit of the doubt.
I'm so happy to see all of these minds pondering the same topics as me. Mostly, I love Ian's imagery of "bushwhacking" our way through this text. It sure feels like it at times, doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteAs with all of you, I find myself questioning this idea of absolute truth and love presented to us through Plato in Phaedrus. I have a difficult time considering what it must have meant to these men, because I have such a different view myself. Then, I find myself questioning what the women thought. (Because, honestly, how cool would it be to see the wives and mistresses of these philosophers totally schooling them at the dinner table on the ideas of absolute love?)
For me, love and truth are relative. When confronted of these ideas of absolutism, I struggle. Jennie, I appreciated how you pointed out Phaedrus's dissatisfaction with the answers he was receiving. I, too, felt that he was disgruntled with Socrates's way of side-stepping the answers. I am looking forward to seeing, as we read, if they have any idea at all how to come to a conclusion on the absolute truth of love. Because, honestly, the idea still confuses me. Maybe they are just as confused as I am? Let's hope so!