I'm not totally sure, but I believe we were supposed to answer these two questions for Wed's class:
What bothered Plato (or Socrates) about rhetoric?
When you hear "rhetoric," what does it mean?
What seemed to bother Socrates the most about rhetoric was the end goal. To Socrates, the goal should always be about finding the "truth." It should be about imparting knowledge and improving "the souls" of our fellow citizens. But Socrates believed that rhetoric's end goal was not about finding the truth, but about gaining power or imparting pleasure, neither of which he would equate with the concept of "good."
I could go on and on, as Socrates did, about justice vs. injustice, judging good vs. evil, and flattery and cookery. But I think what it really boiled down to for Socrates was the fact that the end goal of rhetoric was persuasion not truth, not advancing the virtue of man but merely placating man with good feelings.
When I hear that, or mention of rhetoric in general, I think of things like patriotism, or at least the politicization of patriotism that I have experienced in the last decade or so. Much of patriotism is designed to create feelings of unity, of strength and an unwavering cohesiveness of the ideology of the policies of a given government. It doesn't provide much in the way of truth. It is generally 100% positive and ignores, for example, all the negative things that have occurred or continue to occur in that country. An easy example is the fact that so many Americans would consider themselves patriots. They swell with emotion when they see the American flag or hear the national anthem. They are proud of all the good that has come out of America. But at the same time they ignore the atrocities that have been committed and continue to be committed in the name of that same flag. The "truth" of the rhetoric surrounding patriotism is only a carefully selected version of a country's truth.
BUT one thing I wonder, and what so much of our society would probably point to as an answer to Socrates and his sacred "truth" is that there are many truths. To someone who believes in abortion, for example, the truth might be that a woman has the right to choose. But to a right to life'r, the truth might be that abortion is murder of the defenseless. In our country, the laws of the land are created by politicians. The "truth" of right and wrong, which determines whether someone is just or unjust, and will be free or imprisoned, is in the hands of these powerful men and women. In order to advance their position or, in Socrates's terms, impart the wisdom of truth on their fellow citizens, the right to choose camp would try to persuade as many people as possible to vote for another right to choose'r so that their version of the truth is written into law. Perhaps that's where the argument falls short for me. I suppose Socrates would say that it wouldn't matter if you went to prison if you broke society's laws because you would be being true to yourself. But who ultimately decides right and wrong? Zeus's judges? God? Allah? I'm sure Socrates would have an answer to the abortion issue, but he's not exactly around anymore now, is he? And like I pointed out above, we don't all agree on what the "truth" is on things as important as life and death of an unborn child. So we can't simply hold our own version of "truth" in our heads and walk around society doing what we think is "true."
It seems to me that morality must always be tempered by the society in which you live, which often is dictated by the few powerful people in the "arts" which Socrates cites. I don't know, anyone else having trouble buying the whole of his argument? I like these ideas as a way to live your life. Pain is sometimes good (think runner's high). Pleasure is sometimes bad in large quantities (think of a kegger that gets out of control).
When I hear "rhetoric" I think it means finding that balance between your convictions and the end goal. The end goal isn't always the immediate goal. The immediate goal might be to establish a relationship with a person in your class group. The end goal is to get a better grade on the group project. The logic is that having a close working relationship with your group members will earn you a better grade. Is befriending your peer in the group dishonest because it's not the truth of why you want to establish the relationship? What if you become lifelong friends? Does that change things? What if you never see that person again after class is over? Does that make it false?
Still confused. Someone please enlighten me!
I think you hit the nail on the head when you said, "But I think what it really boiled down to for Socrates was the fact that the end goal of rhetoric was persuasion not truth, not advancing the virtue of man but merely placating man with good feelings."
ReplyDeleteWell said. I took a lot out of this post, it left me thinking. I wish I could enlighten you, but I think you gave me more questions to think about myself then answer. (thats a good thing!)
On the the series of questions you brought up in your last paragraph. To me befriending your peer because you need a good grade isn't immoral or dishonest, its just what you need to do. And i would hope the two partners look past the objective for a good grade and look at the possibilites of a new friend or at least quality time getting to know someone outside their comfort zone. Whether or not you become friends or not shouldn't change things.
Thanks Sam. I just think it comes down to goals, which are guided by beliefs. We can certainly twist anything into an argument, much like Socrates does (is he not engaging in some of the very things that he reviles?)
DeleteUsing the cookery example, Socrates would have us eat nothing but parsley. Don't get me wrong, I love a good tabbouleh. But just because something is good for us doesn't mean we should always eat it. Moderation is the key to healthy eating. And knowing what we know now, as the things that are "good" for us seem to change daily, eating a balance of foods seems even more important. You never know if a cup of coffee a day or a peach every week might save you from prostate cancer.
The point is that truth, like science, is constantly evolving. As our understanding of our world changes, so do the fundamental truths that underlie our humanity. As a father I know that sometimes you have to promise the cookie in order to get a child to swallow the broccoli. And that's ok. Where you fail is offering the cookie INSTEAD of the broccoli. We know that vegetables are better for us than sweets. That's common sense. And I think a lot of rhetoric is just that.
We know when we are putting spin into rhetoric. We do it when saying what we want to say isn't what the audience wants to hear. In order to tell the truth we have to assume that the audience wants to hear the truth. Obama and Romney would have to say "I'm going to balance the budget and eliminate the deficit by raising your taxes and cutting spending over the next 5 decades." But the audience doesn't want to hear that. So the politicians give them what they want to hear. My question is this: is it wrong when we all are wrong? If there is no truth left in politics then is our system really broken? And is rhetoric both our way out and also our demise?
I think I've been reading too much Cormac McCarthy.
I don't see McCarthy in this - not enough blood yet -
ReplyDeleteI really like these reflections - they are detailed and curious and willing to move in all sorts of productive directions. I think that you get at some of the problems with the hard line that Socrates takes in his piece - it's fine to privilege the search for truth, but human societies have to have a way, as well, to make decisions about how to act and on what bases, and that's never a matter of searching for the ultimate truth (or at least not if anything is going to get done).
I think that question about rhetoric as a way out and as our demise is pretty cogent; it suggests the complexity of these matters, and even the complexity of the idea of being "wrong" at all. The Pragmatic school of philosophers (folks like William James, John Dewey, etc.) saw truth as something that actions and words created - kind of like conditions that came as a result of particular circumstances, and wanted to ask carefully about what sort of truths would come about if we did x? In other words, they were interested in what happens here - or what happened.
But you're working with a more fluid sense of truth than Socrates. He would tell you that there is a truth about brocolli or peaches, even if we don't know it yet, and that what we think we know isn't very helpful. Aristotle is much more engaged with what might be, with what is probable, which he sees as the domain of rhetoric. But the Sophists really believed that truth was a sort of communal creation, which does end up giving the rhetorician a great deal of power...