The relationship between Plato and rhetoric, and Plato's own distinction between 'true' and 'false' rhetoric has shaped our contemporary ideas on the topic more than we know. 'False rhetoric is precisely that of the sophists, rhetoric that relies on karios or the situation in order to determine provisional truth or probable knowledge' (28) Through discourse in Gorgias, Plato leads readers to believe a Sophist employ false rhetoric to intentionally mislead their audience. Plato's own views against these thinkers is also rooted in their beliefs. As John Poulakos points out, 'Without Sophism, Plato's rhetoric would have been very different' (28) This is an intriguing idea to me, where would modern rhetoric be without the important thinkers on both sides? If the sophist had nothing for Plato to oppose, would Plato adopt and morph sophist thought as his own?
Plato's representation of rhetorical truth through discourse in both Gorgias and Phaedrus is notably effective. Through back and forth questioning, Plato is able to engage his readers in seemingly realistic discussions while at the same time employing his own rhetorical strategies. Additionally, Plato's rhetorical strategy carries the implicature that rational thinking alone (logos), won't yield absolute truth without the ethical and pathetical components of any real conversation. To solidify these claims, Plato pits his own claims with the 'appeal of Socrates' advanced age and reputed wisdom'(30). Bizzell and Herzberg conclude their introduction with an interesting statement: ‘Irony cannot operate undetected in speech, for a nuance can always be questioned; but what is it to prevent the written text from deceiving?'(30) I would argue nothing. As a reader and rhetorical thinker, recognizing Plato's own rhetorical genius is breathtaking.
No comments:
Post a Comment