Samantha Weiss 21W.747 Rhetoric Aden Evens A1D The Relationship between Rhetoric and Truth Plato tells us that “oratory is the art of enchanting the soul” (Phaedrus). In his piece, Phaedrus, the character Sophocles manipulates Phaedrus into believing first that a non-lover is preferable to a lover, and then that a lover is more desirable. Both of Sophocles’s 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. 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 is evidence that neither contention is entirely true. Though he is using true statements to achieve strong arguments, the nature of the holistic argument may or may not be accurate. Rhetoric is the art of manipulating truths and accepted beliefs to draw conclusions that have only a coincidental relationship with truth. 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”2 (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. Sophocles refers to that inequity when he makes the claim that younger men will “of course” avoid offending the elder by shifting the balance of power. Because effective rhetoric attends “to an audience’s values, experiences, beliefs, social status, and aspirations” (Herrick 9), Sophocles’ comments are especially persuasive. Phaedrus, clearly youthful compared to Sophocles, 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 Sophocles seeks to induce; the lover seems undesirable. Thus Sophocles accurately evaluates the dynamics of his society and in such a way as to make “loving” seem detrimental. After a few moments, Sophocles 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). The ease with which Sophocles 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 of his claims would reveal flaws in his logic. That he tries to classify every lover relationship as oppressive is absurd; the nature of a lovers’ relationship varies amongst individuals.3 For his next argument, Sophocles 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, Sophocles 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 Sophocles refers to correspond to those of his time era. 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. Sophocles’ second argument is compelling, just as the first is, yet it is too simplistic. Love cannot be always wonderful, because as Sophocles pointed out, love is not always wonderful. It can be degrading, too. Rhetoric may manipulate truths for the purpose of persuasion, but the relationship between an argument’s conclusion and truth is coincidence. Rhetoric is a cunning art, designed to convince an audience of something that may or may not be truth. Rhetoric is meant to induce a specific response from the 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. Having4 proceeded thus far in his analysis, he will next divide speeches into their different classes” (Phaedrus). In other words, effectual rhetoric is manipulated to suit a specific audience. It is refined, premeditated, and ultimately manipulative. Sophocles, in both of his arguments, drew from truths and beliefs that were relevant to Phaedrus. In the first argument, he drew from truths that were relevant to Phaedrus’s social status and age; in the second, Sophocles used arguments that were conducive to the religious beliefs of the time era. Neither conclusion was entirely correct or complete. Ultimately, rhetoric can use truths to construct a conclusion, but the conclusions are not always the entire truth.5 Works Cited Herrick, James A. The History and Rhetoric: An Introduction. Boston, MA: