We all have morals and values that we hold true to ourselves, but what happens when we realize our persuasion can gain us an advantage at the expense of others? There are unwritten rules that one must follow when using persuasion that makes it ethical in nature and eliminates any unfair advantage or gain for the speaker. In Plato's Phaedrus, Plato looks at not only the responsibilities of the speaker when using persuasion, but also that of the audience to create a fair and ethical platform for persuasion. Insert info on Plato’s background
Speakers often exude a power that must be used within the restraints of their ethical obligation to the audience. In Plato’s Phaedrus, Socrates believes that people of power, in this case politicians, aren’t …show more content…
But first, Socrates remarks that he himself does not possess any art of speaking, for his speeches contain an example of deception notwithstanding knowledge of truth. That said, the two proceed to examine how Lysias writes artlessly. Socrates begins by establishing two points. (1) Some words like “iron” are clear; others like “just” are more ambiguous. Audiences are more likely deceived—and rhetoric has greater power—with the ambiguous words or subjects. (2) The artful speaker must know the “class to which whatever he is about to discuss belongs” (263c).
Phaedrus has been influenced by the sophistic view of rhetoric, in which persuasion is valued over truth. Socrates challenges this sophistic argument with a social argument that expresses the importance of philosophic reasoning. If an orator speaks falsely but convincingly, his speech could lead people or a whole city down a dangerous path. Even if the orator harbors no negative intentions, it is dangerous to practice rhetoric without knowing the truth. Socrates claims, therefore, that sophistic rhetoric is “not an art but an artless …show more content…
In law courts, after all, people only care about what is convincing. An effective rhetorician, following this path, need only address what is “likely” and pursue his argument from there. Here, Socrates invokes Tisias’s book on rhetoric, in which “the likely” is associated with the crowd’s opinion. By Tisias’s art of rhetoric, the following situation could well occur: if a weak but spirited man were taken to court for robbing a strong but cowardly man, neither man would tell the truth if the main criterion were effectiveness in persuasion. The spirited man would protest: “How could a man like me attack a man like him?” and the cowardly man, unwilling to admit his cowardice, would be forced to cover for himself by inventing some sort of lie
Speakers often exude a power that must be used within the restraints of their ethical obligation to the audience. In Plato’s Phaedrus, Socrates believes that people of power, in this case politicians, aren’t …show more content…
But first, Socrates remarks that he himself does not possess any art of speaking, for his speeches contain an example of deception notwithstanding knowledge of truth. That said, the two proceed to examine how Lysias writes artlessly. Socrates begins by establishing two points. (1) Some words like “iron” are clear; others like “just” are more ambiguous. Audiences are more likely deceived—and rhetoric has greater power—with the ambiguous words or subjects. (2) The artful speaker must know the “class to which whatever he is about to discuss belongs” (263c).
Phaedrus has been influenced by the sophistic view of rhetoric, in which persuasion is valued over truth. Socrates challenges this sophistic argument with a social argument that expresses the importance of philosophic reasoning. If an orator speaks falsely but convincingly, his speech could lead people or a whole city down a dangerous path. Even if the orator harbors no negative intentions, it is dangerous to practice rhetoric without knowing the truth. Socrates claims, therefore, that sophistic rhetoric is “not an art but an artless …show more content…
In law courts, after all, people only care about what is convincing. An effective rhetorician, following this path, need only address what is “likely” and pursue his argument from there. Here, Socrates invokes Tisias’s book on rhetoric, in which “the likely” is associated with the crowd’s opinion. By Tisias’s art of rhetoric, the following situation could well occur: if a weak but spirited man were taken to court for robbing a strong but cowardly man, neither man would tell the truth if the main criterion were effectiveness in persuasion. The spirited man would protest: “How could a man like me attack a man like him?” and the cowardly man, unwilling to admit his cowardice, would be forced to cover for himself by inventing some sort of lie