Rhetoric in Phaedrus

Love, not rhetoric, seems to be the main topic of discussion in Plato’s Phaedrus. Since there is much to say regarding this text, I will keep it brief. Although we do not hear any specific details pertaining to rhetoric at this point in Phaedrus, several examples of rhetoric are displayed within: the dialogue between Socrates and Phaedrus, Lysias’ speech delivered by Phaedrus, and the two-part speech of Socrates. In this case, I’ll approach rhetoric as expressed by Aristotle, "the available means of persuasion (Aristotle)."

Within Phaedrus (p.138-147), the language slowly builds and shifts. Within the speech by Lysias, it expresses a simple form of persuasion to illustrate love. "Love", in this case, is represented between a boy and an old man. The description is such that the speech seems to completely convince Phaedrus that it is fantastic. The content in this case, does not matter (plus, I don’t want to expound on pedophilia), what matters is the rhetorical form. Phaedrus, as well as Socrates, express their opinions of the artwork within Lysias’ speech. Phaedrus believes it is “wonderful, especially in diction (p.142, column 2),” while Socrates on the other hand, found it redundant (p.143, column 1). Lysias’ speech displays an area within the rhetorical situation that determines the effectiveness of rhetoric, the audience­­—Phaedrus loved the choice of words, Socrates did not.

In response to Phaedrus, Socrates gives his own version of "love". Within this speech, he expresses that “lovers taHere, Socrates uses love in a religious sense, exclaiming that the two speeches are sin—a powerful method to retract his statements. Assuming that Phaedrus contains the same beliefs, he would most likely retract his views with Socrates. Socrates also states that "they were saying nothing sound or true," quickly expressing that the only reason his discourse was impressive, in any sense, is due to the rhetorical delivery.ke up violent enmity … [which is] harmful to the beloved (p.147, column 2).” Socrates’ response caused a couple questions to arise: what aids or constraints are involved and what is Socrates’ motivation (besides his being compelled by Phaedrus to respond). One notable constraint within his response is his known involvement in pederasty. Is Socrates’ response based on the rhetorical diction or his personal experiences surrounding the topic? His motivation could also be based off of the constraint. Whatever the true motivation, it seems to portray itself within Socrates’ response.

The most notable illustration of rhetoric, I believe, is within the dialogue. After Socrates delivers his speech to Phaedrus, he begins to retract his statements:

If Love is, as indeed he is, a god or something divine, he can be nothing evil; but the two speeches just now said that he was evil. So then they sinned against Love; but their foolishness was really very funny besides, for while they were saying nothing sound or true, they put on airs as though they amounted to something (p. 147, column 1).

Here, Socrates uses love in a religious sense, exclaiming that the two speeches are sin —a powerful method to retract his statements. Assuming that Phaedrus contains the same beliefs, he would most likely retract his views with him. Socrates also states "they were saying nothing sound or true," quickly expressing that the only reason his discourse was impressive, in any sense, is due to the rhetorical delivery.