My Discussion Flyer

As a matter of record I thought (with Prof. Gleason's insistence) that posting my discussion flyer from September 23rd might be of interest and use for your own "teaching practice" endeavors.

On Phaedrus

The editor’s introduction to Plato asserts that “Plato believes that transcendent truth exists and is accessible to human beings,” that it is “the philosopher’s task as aiding others …to bring forth those true ideas hidden in its secret places…. This process of inquiry takes place through verbal exchange, the definition of rhetoric’s proper province” (55). However, the author maintains that Plato’s rhetoric should be “discourse that is more analytic, objective, and dialectical” (56). What the author argues is that Plato’s Socrates seeks to respond “flexibly to kairos (time)…. Responsiveness impossible for a fixed, written text” (56). Although, in the very next thought, the author claims that to Plato the “relative merits of oral and written philosophy seem less clear” (56).

Nonetheless, there is no doubt that in the selection from Phaedrus it is affirmed that rhetoric, the oral tradition, is superior to that of writing. On the one hand the editor is stating, without equivocation, that Plato, through Socrates, is professing that written speeches, writing in general, is less able to support the understanding that is the basis of true knowledge than is the practice of rhetoric, discourse on an individual basis, leading to greater understanding and subsequently to a form of knowledge that grows and is not static, as is the written word.

Briefly, in Phaedrus, Socrates tells the allegorical Egyptian tale of King Thamus and Theuth who reveals to the king an invention that, “’will make the Egyptians wiser’” (140). The invention was letters. Of course, Plato’s Socrates slowly begins to render the judgment that the benefit of letters is greatly overestimated. He declares that reading (of writing) without a guide will fill the mind with facts without the ability to process and assimilate them as wisdom. It would be “the appearance of wisdom, not true wisdom” (140). The problem, as described by Plato’s Socrates, is that written words can not respond to questions while dialectical conversation can. Written words ignore the unspoken aspects of body language, voice tone, etc., that constitute a major portion of communication. Plato contends that writing will only contribute to the dumbing down of one’s audience. One must adapt one’s discourse to “understand the nature of the soul, [and must] find out the class of speech adapted to each nature, and must arrange and adorn his discourse accordingly” (142). That would be the only way to “sway people’s minds.” Finally, Plato’s Socrates states that “the epithet ‘wise’ is too great and befits God alone; but the name ‘philosopher,’ that is, ‘lover of wisdom,’ …would be more fitting’ (142). Essentially, he who makes his arguments discursive is guaranteed to actually create a climate that will, in some small fashion, create an atmosphere for wisdom, asserting the moral imperative of the rhetorical tradition.

Questions:
1. Plato establishes a well-founded argument for rhetoric, the one-on-one discursive distribution of the perceived wisdom of the world. This contention is cited in Phaedrus in no uncertain terms. At the same time, Plato was a prolific writer who was able to leave shelves brimming with his works. If you concede his belief that wisdom must be seeded and nurtured by dialogue, how can one explain the dichotomy that is presented in the obvious contradiction that his prolific efforts in creating this legacy demonstrate?

2. To create a civilization, we learn and grow from our history and its imperatives. This experience is passed from generation to generation, creating a people’s journey, becoming their story, culture and ultimately their myth, the ineffable. That may be the function of rhetoric. This oral tradition, if shared one on one, becomes a discourse, a dialogue, with the recipient a willing collaborator in the exchange. One’s responsibility is to question in order to understand. Without the ability to question the rhetorician does the written supposition or premise remove growth in both intellect and wisdom?
Please accept my apologies for changing the questions, but after reviewing (with Prof. Gleason) the decision was there may have been too many questions offered to create a focused short discussion. Thanks.

Work Cited
“Plato” (55-56). and “Phaedrus” (140-143). The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings
from Classical Rhetoric to the Present. Bizzell, Eds. Patricia and
Bruce Herzberg. Boston:Bedford Books of St. Martin’s Press, 1990. Print.