Plato believed that rhetoric was the opposite of philosophy and saw it as the art of persuasion, while philosophy was the pursuit of truth. He discussed rhetoric in four books, including Gorgias, Ion, Phaedrus, and The Republic. Plato believed that poetry and rhetoric were equal and interchangeable. He criticized rhetoric as being built on false knowledge and intentional deception. In The Republic, he described rhetoric as akin to myth-making and considered it a form of miseducation.
Plato and rhetoric are related because Plato, a Greek philosopher, was one of the first people to discuss rhetoric in detail. Not presented in a single book, as with Aristotle’s Rhetoric, Plato makes observations on rhetoric and alludes to it in four books: Gorgias, Ion, Phaedrus, and The Republic. He saw rhetoric as the opposite of philosophy and hence many of his thoughts are criticisms of rhetoric. In short, he believed that rhetoric was the art of persuasion and philosophy was the pursuit of truth.
Some details need to be kept in mind when discussing Plato and rhetoric. First, Plato and Socrates must be regarded equally because their discussions reflect the philosophies of both men. Second, Plato believed that poetry and rhetoric are equal and of the same kind; therefore, the two must be considered interchangeable. This means that many of his discussions of poetry can also be attributed to his feelings about rhetoric.
In Gorgias, the rhetorician Gorgias is asked to define rhetoric, but is unable to do so to Plato’s satisfaction. Socrates thus describes rhetoric as speech that promotes or condemns a person or an idea, while philosophy seeks answers. Another difference between a philosopher like Plato and rhetoric, as espoused by Gorgias, is that the philosopher is open to being proven wrong. The rhetorician, on the other hand, uses words as tools to gain power over the people. Plato believed that rhetoric has the power to shape human beliefs.
Ion is an interpreter of poetry and a self-confessed explainer of the Greek poet Homer. In Ion, Socrates and Plato test Ion’s claims. From this, the two philosophers decide that a good rhetorician should be able to spot a bad one.
Socrates defines a good rhetorician or poet as someone who understands the subject he is talking about. He asks Ione if he or Homer understands the art of war to judge the philosophical truth of the Iliad. Socrates concludes that a rhetorician should either confess to his human failings or claim to be purely inspirational and, therefore, divine.
Phaedrus repeats the proposition that poetry and rhetoric are acts of inspiration. Plato’s dialogue calls rhetoric shameful because it is often built on false knowledge. Sophistry is worse, in Plato’s mind, because it is rhetoric built on intentional deception. To avoid shame, the rhetorician should understand the subject he is talking about. The successful rhetorician, shameful or otherwise, achieves success by understanding the human soul.
Plato’s Republic is a dialogue examining the perfect city. According to Plato, justice comes from the people, but only if the people are properly educated. This education, he believes, must be built on philosophical foundations. Plato and rhetoric reach an explosive point when the latter is described by the former and by Socrates as akin to myth-making. Parables, poetry and false rhetoric are considered forms of miseducation.
The theme of Plato and rhetoric has confused many philosophers because Plato never satisfactorily explains why poetry and rhetoric are related. From his writings it appears that poetry and rhetoric are both considered arts of persuasion. They are both designed to stimulate the human soul and to ferment beliefs and opinions about a person. Socrates admits that such is their power that even the most philosophical people can’t help but be drawn to the power of rhetoric.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
