Plato's arguments against the rhetoric of either sophist strain seem based upon the fact that neither considers truth as a goal worth pursuing. He rightly recognized both Gorgian and Protagoran rhetoric as a tool without a compass, usable for the promotion of any idea, or the argument of any side of an issue. However, what he fails to recognize is that his own preferred method of arriving at truth, dialectic, is equally a tool that can be used to further any argument the interlocutor desires. In fact, the limited gamesmanship of dialectic, narrowing options to either A or B, or, in rare cases, A, B, or C seems to create false dichotomies that are just as manipulative and potentially damaging as anything the Gorgians or Protagorans might have done. Of course the noble philosopher kings would not have done so, but then again, would not the noble, enlightened philosopher kings have used rhetoric to pursue and promote truth and the good life as well? I fail to see the difference.
Furthermore, as one moves along to Aristotle a further irony captured my attention. Granted I am applying Aristotle's definition of rhetoric and thus already distancing myself from Plato as Aristotle recognizes rhetoric as a tool that is not inherently im- or amoral, but nevertheless.... Aristotle defines rhetoric as perceiving all the available means of persuasion. As Plato admirably demonstrates in dialogue after dialogue, the skilled use of dialectic is a powerful means of persuasion. This would seem to place dialectic firmly in the rhetorical realm as a powerful rhetorical maneuver (if you can get your victim - er, opponent to play along). And yet the text and our featured thinkers seem to continue to distinguish between them. Is there a difference that I am not catching? (Granted dialectic requires two people, an interlocutor and someone to respond, but doesn't any act of persuasion require at least two people in similar roles?) It seems that to some extent, in distinguishing between the two so stringently we are splitting hairs in a great big match of my tool is better than yours.
To call Plato an elitist is still an understatement. Intellectual snobbery is not a new thing at all.
ReplyDeleteIn my reading between dialectic and rhetoric I do see some differences--though perhaps not as great as Conley indicates. In both interactions, two parties are involved. In rhetoric, persuasion is the stated end, and the orator expects his audience to buy into his position with relatively little input. In dialectic there is more of a give and take of perspectives which implies the possibility of true consensus rather than a unilateral position based on the orator's perspectives. Perhaps dialetic allows for
a lessening of the oppositional regard between the persons speaking/listening? In the context in which all of this developed, it is highly unlikely that the "common man" would be engaged in this sort of discussion. It would be an exchange between the expert manipulators otherwise called philosophers--a neverending verbal chess game in which winning and persuasion were the same idea. In fact, in Plato's ideal society, discussion of these theories outside of the inner circle of philosopher kings would have been deemed a waste of time, if not a true danger. We see this opinion stated on page nine of Conley, when Plato's Socrates claims that the attempts of Gorgias to teach the art of Rhetoric as dangerous and confused. Who would Gorgias be teaching this skill to? Probably not the philosopher kings because they would need no such instruction.
The interlocutor has such power to shape a dialectic, especially with its limited possible responses (yes, or no, never both, never in the middle, never yes but, or no but) and the potential shaping power of leading questions that dialectic has the possibility of being as one sided as Gorgian rhetoric if used by a person determined to manipulate/control the discussion. makes it hard for me to see it as truly equal give and take by definition.
ReplyDeleteRhetoric does improve one's understanding of the field of debate relating to a topic but it can serve to deviate from truth as much as it can bring one to truth. Dialectic is thus superior, as uniformity to truth is the ultimate end. Though it is often best to use both techniques.
ReplyDelete