I have only read a few things involving dialect with Socrates. The first time was during my CLS class. I had heard of Plato, but had never taken the time to read any of his work. While reading this, the wording and style of speech came to no surprise. I find that Socrates could very easily talk his way out of any situation, and convince an innocent man of guilt. What really impresses me about Socrates, he was known for not writing things down. All of what he says comes from ‘shooting off the hip’. He isn’t using note cards in any form, just using his intellect and ability of persuasion.
One question that does come to mind is: since Socrates didn’t write things down, is it possible that Plato may have embellished how good Socrates was in speech? After all Plato was his student, and looked up to him.
I did like the section of when Gorgias explains to Socrates that a teacher of rhetoric can not be blamed if the student uses it for ‘evil’. But then it becomes an issue of morals, not a battle of good rhetoric versus bad rhetoric.
After reading this, I don’t think there is a clear cut answer to what is good or bad rhetoric. Morals differ from person to person, so it would be easier to measure: effective rhetoric versus non-effective rhetoric.
I kind of had the same issue while reading this. I know that this is supposed to be based on reality, but I approached it as a mostly fictionalized document. And so, of course Socrates is going to win the argument, and of course Gorgias and the others are going to have a difficult time disputing him, because Plato is writing their responses. I kind of understood, though, that Plato is using these characters in order to provide a simple devil's advocate so that Socrates can dispute them. The entire thing just seems a little larger than life to me, though.
ReplyDeleteInteresting point Kevin, I had never thought about that. Since plato was his student why wouldn't he embellish Socrates skills? Going off Meghans point, I also approached this as a piece of fiction. How well could plato transcribe their conversation without favoring one or the other?
ReplyDeletePlato wrote down what he remebered from the discussion...not necessarily what happened. As humans we remember things as how we would want them to happen...not truly of what actually happened.
DeleteWhat a wonderful question, it also made wonder if not only we should question if Plato may have "embellished how good Socrates was in speech" but perhaps if he skewed or possibly even removed any of the content to bend in his favor as well. As writers, we tend to edit out alot!
ReplyDeleteAristotle would revise his writings all the time, and Plato was his teacher...so it makes sense that Plato would have very easily edited out alot of the 'fluff' that came from Socrates. Socrates was a real man, but Plato was truly the man behind the magic curtain.
DeleteI was under the impression that Socrates was a real person, and he was Plato's teacher, but when Plato began work on his own, he fictionalized the character of Socrates in order to embody his philosophies while seeming to be removed from his work. Seriously, no one is that eloquent.
ReplyDeleteIt is possible that Plato did embellish the words of Socrates, but I would say that most of what Plato wrote would be Socrates actual words. The argument for effective and ineffective rhetoric is made throughout the dialoge in terms of good vs. bad. The problem is that Socrates explains it in terms of temperance, virtue, and power. At least this is how I viewed it...
ReplyDeleteGreat question! I would find it totally possible that Plato embellishes Socrates and his sayings. I also find it hard to believe that without any recording devices Plato could remember such lengthy conversations. And the fact the Socrates was Plato's mentor encourages the idea that he would want to present Socrates in the best light possible, wanting him to appear flawless.
ReplyDeleteCertainly the distinction between effective and ineffective rhetoric is important, but if we remove it from a moral framework I think we concede too much - it's too much, I think, to use the reasoning that morals change from person to person, at least that is not a compelling reason for me to accept all varieties of moral perspectives. But, learning about rhetoric makes those moral perspectives hard to emphasize. I hope I can keep them in mind throughout the semester.
ReplyDelete