The introduction to classical rhetoric in The Rhetorical Tradition tells the reader that Plato was a believer in absolute truth and thought that rhetoric should be used "as a means to uncover absolute truth, not merely to induce belief in probable truth or received wisdom" (Bizzell and Herzberg 28). In "Phaedrus," the reader is given a written representation of a collaborative discussion in which truth is sought as Socrates and Phaedrus discuss the nature of love. According to Plato, there should be an absolute, undeniable truth to be found. However, all I have noticed so far are the grossest of simplifications and generalizations. That, for me, is what makes Plato's theory on truth irreconcilable to experience.
In order to argue that absolute truth exists, it is impossible not to begin with simplifications just as Socrates does when he originally defines love as something akin to desire (Plato 144). How could Socrates/Plato come to this conclusion without breaking down love to what he sees as its barest components, and what of the argument that love can exist outside of desire? At this point, other arguments about love must be ignored because they get in the way of truth. When speaking of the qualities of the lover versus the nonlover, Socrates must generalize and suggest that all lovers possess the same qualities and all nonlovers possess opposing qualities. Populations, though, are never homogenous; they are made up of many different people, all with different traits. How, then, can Socrates/Plato justify grouping people together as though each group shares a single consciousness, a sort of hive mind? It may be because there is comfort in affirming one's views and considering those with other perspectives to be ignorant and unenlightened. So far, though, I remain unimpressed by such standardizations.
No comments:
Post a Comment