Thanks, again, Chris, for arranging for me to post entries. I encourage students from both of our classes to post in response.
In today's class, we discussed more of Socrates' claims about the nature of philosophical rhetoric. Among the many criteria that he mentions for good rhetoric, we talked about two in class: first, that the artful rhetorician understands the nature of soul, whether it is one or has parts, and knows how to lead it; and second, that the artful rhetorician possesses knowledge, rather than only having probable opinion, about where the soul ought to be led.
This led to several questions: Do we see contemporary political or media speeches concerned with the whole of the soul, or only some of its parts? Advertising seemed to be a case where often speeches are oriented toward one part of the soul (usually the appetites, or spirit/honor-seeking part) but not the whole person. What might a speech that addressed the whole of the soul: intellect, spirit, and appetites, look like?
We also discussed the claim that speeches are better when the rhetorician grounds them in an understanding of the soul as naturally that which seeks knowledge of the forms. For example, would a good speech on war attend to the nature of justice itself, rather than only to specific goals to be accomplished in a particular scenario? In determining whether to go to war, only to discuss whether to invade on strategic grounds might be like the person who knows how to raise or lower a fever, without knowing whether this patient would benefit (268b) while the Socratic ideal would be to understand something of justice--such as whether and when war is a just response to injustice.
But is such knowledge of the nature of souls, or of justice possible, and can this ideal guide our contemporary political speeches?
In today's class, we discussed more of Socrates' claims about the nature of philosophical rhetoric. Among the many criteria that he mentions for good rhetoric, we talked about two in class: first, that the artful rhetorician understands the nature of soul, whether it is one or has parts, and knows how to lead it; and second, that the artful rhetorician possesses knowledge, rather than only having probable opinion, about where the soul ought to be led.
This led to several questions: Do we see contemporary political or media speeches concerned with the whole of the soul, or only some of its parts? Advertising seemed to be a case where often speeches are oriented toward one part of the soul (usually the appetites, or spirit/honor-seeking part) but not the whole person. What might a speech that addressed the whole of the soul: intellect, spirit, and appetites, look like?
We also discussed the claim that speeches are better when the rhetorician grounds them in an understanding of the soul as naturally that which seeks knowledge of the forms. For example, would a good speech on war attend to the nature of justice itself, rather than only to specific goals to be accomplished in a particular scenario? In determining whether to go to war, only to discuss whether to invade on strategic grounds might be like the person who knows how to raise or lower a fever, without knowing whether this patient would benefit (268b) while the Socratic ideal would be to understand something of justice--such as whether and when war is a just response to injustice.
But is such knowledge of the nature of souls, or of justice possible, and can this ideal guide our contemporary political speeches?
