Rhetoric, Paideia and the Phaedrus Essay

The fight to do what is right is not an easy path to traverse, but is one which demands a noble and enduring character. Defending principles of justice with logic and reason in the face of political opposition, is a difficult task to take, but the elusive Socrates boldly undertook this endeavor. In Plato’s Apology, he recalls the daring defence of the principles of truth that Socrates took against all odds. Plato’s recollections, much like the trial of Socrates at the time, has sparked numerous debates amongst scholars who seek to understand the events of the trial more deeply. One such debate has centered on what Socrates meant when he said his speech was nothing more than words spoken at random. Brumbaugh and Oldfather, in their scholarly analysis, contend that Socrates’s speech is riddled with fine polish and organization suggesting that his speech was not random. As will be discussed, there are several examples of organization in Socrates’s speech such as when he provides his jurors with an outline of his speech. Additionally, masterfully woven throughout his defence, Socrates employed many diverse modes of argumentation in a logical and consistent manner lending credence to the notion that he planned his speech beforehand. This skillful use of these modes in Socrates’s argument, all vindicate an intentional design and premeditation. Despite Socrates’s humble assertions

1. The Four Texts On Socrates by Plato and Aristophanes looks at Plato’s works, Euthyphro, Apology, and Crito. Plato’s works fall under the genre of philosophical dialogue presented in a context similar to that of dramatic monologues. Although Plato’s works are based in historical context, the works are less historical fiction, and more of a dramatic tragedy or comedy.

In evaluating Socrates ' success in arguing against Thrasymachus ' account, it is imperative to begin by appreciating Socrates ' intentions and the place of Thrasymachus ' account within that goal. As the literary director of Republic, Plato is well-positioned to articulate any arguments contained in Republic to his advantage, and I suggest that he very much does. Further, although Socrates is but Plato 's literary vehicle in Republic, for the sake of clarity I shall attribute and refer to arguments and views expressed throughout as belonging to Socrates.

Through several dialogues Plato gives readers accounts of Socrates’ interactions with other Athenians. While some may think of him as a teacher of sorts, Socrates is adamant in rejecting any such claim (Plato, Apology 33a-b). He insists that he is not a teacher because he is not transferring any knowledge from himself to others, but rather assisting those he interacts with in reaching the truth. This assistance is the reason Socrates walks around Athens, engaging in conversation with anyone that he can convince to converse with him. An assertion he makes at his trial in Plato’s Apology is at the center of what drives Socrates in his abnormal ways, “the unexamined life is not worth living for a human being” (38a). Socrates, through aporia, looks to lead an examined life to perfect his soul and live as the best person he can be. This paper looks to examine the ‘unexamined life’ and the implications rooted in living a life like Socrates’.

Socrates sees love as something that is in between being beautiful and ugly and believes that love is a search for beauty and wisdom. Much like Diotima, Socrates presses Agathon to have him admit that love is not beautiful as it desires beauty, and one does not desire what one already has therefore it is not beautiful. Socrates view contrasts with that of Aristophanes from the benefits of love to the nature of love, as Socrates sees no benefits in something that is not beautiful. Love is seen as primarily a relational property by Socrates that holds between things rather than a desire or a need for another person. Love is not itself beautiful or good or anything specific as much as it is a relation that holds between the beautiful, the good, and those who

In Phaedrus, Plato expands on the social implication that those who wield rhetoric ought to be just and act justly when utilizing it. This recurring theme is clearly portrayed through his analysis of love, the soul, and rhetoric itself. Phaedrus is written as a dialogue, with Phaedrus and Socrates discussing their views on rhetoric. Plato structures his writing so that Socrates is the one bestowing knowledge upon Phaedrus, his young and playful pupil, by asking pointed questions to which Phaedrus replies. The relationship between Phaedrus and Socrates is both one of a student and teacher but also one of lovers, made clear by Socrates’ soft attitude and affection towards Phaedrus.

In Aristophanes' Clouds and in Plato's Apology we see extensive fictional representations of the historical figure, Socrates, who left us no literary works under his own name. When comparing these two representations, readers often assume, as a result of the nature of the comedic genre, that Aristophanes' portrayal of Socrates is exaggerated and fallacious. On the other hand, Plato's account is often taken more seriously as a result of the philosophical genre and the respected reputation Plato has as wildly influential thinker in Western culture. Nevertheless, there are more congruencies between the two representations than one would initially think. I'll discuss some similarities between the two works that

Purposely difficult and intentionally obsessive, Plato’s Phaedrus is an exceedingly difficult read that defies all conventional logic as a piece of discourse. The text is extremely subjective, open to interpretation and individual creativity as to what or whom the narrative is about. Written by Plato, a close disciple of Socrates, this text is set along the Illissus river where Phaedrus and Socrates meet for a day of speech, debate, rhetoric and okay…flirting. Phaedrus leads of the day and recites a speech by his close friend Lysias, who Phaedrus considers to be a top speechmaker. Socrates then, after chiding by Phaedrus unleashes two speeches of his own that overshadow and refute Lysias claim so boldly that Phaedrus is so taken by the

Socrates’s image in the two works differ firstly in his attitude towards knowledge and towards himself. A typical statement of Socrates, both in the Euthyphro and in other Plato’s works, is that he has no clear knowledge. He is different from the public because he knows that he does not know. Neither does he claim to teach or corrupt the young (Euthyphro, p.2

Many people fear the unknown even if it is the truth that will destroy them. In Oedipus Rex by Sophocles, Oedipus is puzzled when the plague returns to Thebes; he discovers it will remain in the city until they “drive out a pollution from our land… By banishing a man…” (Kennedy 1166-67). Oedipus is unaware of his involvement in the king’s death as he searches for the murderer. As the play progresses, the audience witnesses Oedipus’s downfall he gains knowledge and realizes what he has done.

Plato was an Ancient Greek philosopher who lived between 428-432 B.C. He wrote mainly in dialogues, to stay true to how Socrates communicated philosophy. Plato displayed what is considered Socrates’ philosophy throughout the dialogue The Apology. In The Republic, Socrates is mainly used as a mouthpiece to communicate Plato’s philosophy. Socrates follows a philosophy best explained as “I do not know”, whereas Plato tries to find the ultimate solution to philosophical problems. In this essay, I will argue how Socrates has the best philosophical approach compared to that of Plato.

In Plato’s Symposium, he constructed a dialogue between peers at a drinking party regarding the art of love. After hearing speeches of others in attendance, Socrates presented the thoughts of his former teacher, Diotima, by recounting the speech she had delivered years ago. Diotima first dissected two manifestations of the phenomenon: acquisitive desire, which is a longing to acquire something of beauty, and procreative desire, which is the longing to reproduce in the presence of beauty, either in body or in soul. She then described the ascent of eros, discussing forms of love in terms of their nobility. Throughout her speech, Diotima reflected and expanded on notions brought up in previous speeches, particularly those by Phaedrus and Pausanias,

Socrates, always depicted as searching for the answer of the good, uses dialectic to probe for knowledge and virtue. Through the use of questioning, Socrates disturbs the citizens into thought and the pursuit of the good. Like a gadfly, although annoying,

In Plato’s work Symposium, Phaedrus, Pausania, Eryximachus, Aristophane and Agathon, each of them presents a speech to either praise or definite Love. Phaedrus first points out that Love is the primordial god; Pausanias brings the theme of “virtue” into the discussion and categorizes Love into “good” one or “bad” one; Eryximachus introduces the thought of “moderation’ and thinks that Love governs such fields as medicine and music; Aristophanes draws attention to the origin and purposes

The tale of Oedipus and his prophecy has intrigued not only the citizens of Greece in the ancient times, but also people all over the world for several generations. Most notable about the play was its peculiar structure, causing the audience to think analytically about the outcomes of Oedipus’ actions and how it compares with Aristotle’s beliefs. Another way that the people have examined the drama is by looking at the paradoxes (such as the confrontation of Tiresias and Oedipus), symbols (such as the Sphinx), and morals that has affected their perceptions by the end of the play. Nonetheless, the most important aspect is how relevant the story is and how it has influenced modern ideas like that of Freud and other people of today.