DOC PREVIEW
MIT 21W 747 - Conclusions are only Partial Truths

This preview shows page 1-2 out of 6 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 6 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 6 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 6 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

Samantha Weiss 21W.747 Rhetoric Aden Evens A1R Conclusions are only Partial Truths Plato tells us that “oratory is the art of enchanting the soul” (Phaedrus). In his piece, Phaedrus, the character Socrates manipulates Phaedrus into believing first that a non-lover is preferable to a lover, and then that a lover is more desirable. Both of Socrates’ arguments could be deemed compelling and draw from truths, be they information pertinent to the time period, accepted beliefs, or universal human themes. The dialogue reveals something about the nature of rhetoric. Effective rhetoric strings together truths and beliefs to achieve persuasion. Yet, because someone well acquainted with the art of rhetoric can “make the same thing appear to the same persons to be one time just, another time, if he is so inclined to be unjust” (Phaedrus), rhetoric has been called “‘empty talk,’ or even ‘deception’” (Herrick 1). Socrates’ ability to effectively argue two opposing view points supports this attitude towards rhetoric, and is evidence that neither contention (that the lover or non-lover is better) is entirely true. The conclusion of each argument represents a partial truth, a truth that fails to fully explore the argument. Rhetoric is the art of manipulating truths and accepted beliefs to draw conclusions that have only an incidental relationship with truth; even when all of the premises for an argument are true, the conclusion can be only a partial truth.2 Plato begins with the claim that, “He who is the victim of his passion and the slave of pleasure will of course desire to make his beloved as agreeable to himself as possible” (Phaedrus), and therefore, “to him who has a mind discased anything is agreeable which is not opposed to him, but that which is equal or superior is hateful to him, and therefore the lover will not brook any superiority or equality on the part of his beloved; he is always employed in reducing him to inferiority” (Phaedrus). Truth: such was the Greek culture that older men took younger men as their lovers. The age difference produced unequal power dynamics between the lovers, in favor of the elder. Socrates refers to that inequity when he makes the claim that younger men will be submissive and “of course” avoid offending the elder. Because effective rhetoric attends “to an audience’s values, experiences, beliefs, social status, and aspirations” (Herrick 9), Socrates’ comments are especially persuasive. Phaedrus, clearly youthful compared to Socrates, would likely be familiar with the nuances of being the younger lover. Words like “reduce,” synonymous with “degrade,” and “inferiority,” and its negative connotation, provoke the response Socrates seeks to induce; the lover seems undesirable. Thus Socrates accurately evaluates the dynamics of his society and in such a way as to make “loving” seem detrimental. To reach the conclusion that a non-lover is preferable, Socrates appeals specifically to truths that are relevant to his audience and support his argument. After a few moments, Socrates announces, “I told a lie when I said that the beloved ought to accept the non-lover when he might have the lover,” and enthusiastically begins his new campaign, arguing that love is madness, a type of madness that is a “divine gift, and the source of the cheifest blessings granted to men” (Phaedrus). Again he draws from truths. The ease with which Socrates takes on the opposing viewpoint is significant; the obvious conclusion is that his previous argument can not be the complete and total truth. A more critical evaluation of3 his first argument would reveal flaws in his logic. That Socrates tries to classify every lover relationship as oppressive is absurd; the nature of a lovers’ relationship varies amongst individuals. The conclusion to his first argument, though based on truths, fails to be complete. For his next argument, Socrates explains that there is “true knowledge” (Phaedrus) amongst the Gods. He uses imagery of chariots and horses, claiming that each person has a chariot with two horses, one with wings and one without. The chariots circle in the heavens, trying to fly high enough to reach the Gods and their divine truth. Being in love, Socrates claims, is to be reminded of the divine knowledge: “The divine intelligence, being nurtured upon mind and pure knowledge, and the intelligence of every which is capable of receiving the proper food to it, rejoices at beholding reality, and once more upon gazing upon truth, is replenished and made glad” (Phaedrus). The argument is all the more effective because the beliefs Socrates refers to correspond to those of his time. But even a non believer might appreciate his argument because it touches upon a greater universal human truth. As Joseph Campbell explains, “I think what we’re seeking is an experience of being alive, so that our life experiences on the purely physical plane will have resonances within our innermost being and reality, so that we actually feel the rapture of being alive” (Moyers 1). Being in love can be a form of achieving what Campbell refers to, and it could be argued that the “true knowledge” and “resonances within our innermost being and reality” are more or less the same ideas. Socrates’ second argument is compelling, just as the first is, yet it is too simplistic. Love cannot be always wonderful, because as Socrates pointed out, love is not always wonderful. It can be degrading, too. Rhetoric may manipulate truths for the purpose of persuasion, but an argument’s conclusion is only partially true.4 Rhetoric is refined and premeditated, making use of only the facts and beliefs that support a claim. Rhetoric is also persuasive; it is designed to evoke a specific response from an audience. Plato claims that, “he who would be an orator has to learn the differences of human souls--they are so many and of nature, and from them come the differences between man and man. Having proceeded thus far in his analysis, he will next divide speeches into their different classes” (Phaedrus). In addition to employing only truths that support an argument, effectual rhetoric draws solely from truths that are relevant to a specific audience. These two limitations drastically limit the likeliness that the conclusions drawn will be accurate. Socrates, in both of his arguments, drew


View Full Document
Download Conclusions are only Partial Truths
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Conclusions are only Partial Truths and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Conclusions are only Partial Truths 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?