One of the things Professor Bobonich mentioned in his lecture on Tuesday was how Phaedrus is a critique of writing and speeches. Plato brings up through Socrates’ discussions all the limitations of written words and set speeches. One of his main complaints is that the written word says the same thing every time. (275D) It may appear to be alive when you first read it, and it has the appearance of speaking to you, but if you ask it any question, it can’t respond. Just like a broken record, it will only say the exact same thing over and over again. No elaboration, no specification. Similarly, the written word also cannot distinguish to whom it is speaking. (275E) It could be speaking to someone who knows nothing about the subject, or to someone who is a professional in that field. Either way, it has no way of adjusting or tailoring the presentation to fit the audience. These same criticisms also apply to speeches, which involve no interaction, but are simply monologues. All in all, the written word “is incapable of either defending or helping itself.” (275E5)
If this is Plato’s view on writing and speeches, then why did he write so much? Plato was quite prolific in his publications, and we are still reading his ideas thousands of years later. Clearly, he is not around to help clarify, defend, or rationalize his points. Did he mean for his works and theories to be so well-known? Or did he not expect this to happen, and would he think we can’t truly understand his arguments without proper interaction and discussion? Similarly, in the Phaedrus, there are three rather long-winded speeches. Socrates obviously expects his ideas to be considered, but does he expect them to go unquestioned? Especially since he has two contradicting speeches that clearly cannot both be believed. Are these speeches subject to the same criticisms? If so, why did Plato have speeches in his stories, instead of the more interactive dialogues?
Perhaps Plato considers his own speeches and writings to be like the ones he describes in 276a6. That is, “written together with knowledge in the soul of the learner.” If so, then this just returns to the argument of rhetoric versus the science of speaking. Plato’s work, because it contains what he knows to be true, is worthy to be shared with others and can stand up for itself, even generations later. On the other hand, maybe Plato’s work does not stand up for itself as well as we think it does. After all, we are here debating – as people have for centuries – what exactly Plato’s words mean since he’s not here to tell us himself.
ReplyDeletePerhaps Plato hopes that his words will act like his/Socrates' metaphors. While he recognizes the limitations of speeches and writing, he acknowledges that the exploration of ideas must begin somewhere, and some of the easiest ways to begin this process are through images and written words. He provokes discussion through his words; as he suggests that earthly beauty is a starting point for true beauty and imagery leads eventually to reason, so, too, he could believe that written words will begin dialogues, which in turn will guide the seeker to true knowledge. Through Socrates' speeches, Plato offers bases upon which readers will be able to build, using logic and reason, while continually warning the reader to discuss, rather than be blindly persuaded by, rhetoric. Perhaps Plato hopes that by the time one has finished reading one of his dialogues, one will be just as ready to question Plato's words as those of his characters.
ReplyDeleteSocrates believes there are multiple problems related to writing. Among them, the constant support of ideas from the writer, because as stated previously, word in itself cannot show its true argument or respond to criticisms. Plato, however, writes because there is a notion that makes it seem that writing can somehow embody a particular form of language without requiring a 'father'. Depending on the type of writing, I believe Plato himself is able to write prolifically, because he believes his audience can overcome the dangers that writing can create. Then the question becomes, does the audience that Plato himself directed his writings to was a bored audience trying to find amusement or for a largely philosophical audience trying to understand reason? Despite criticizing writing, I believe underneath, Plato believes writing can be safe and even effective if shared correctly.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sally in thinking that Plato regards what he has written as the absolute truth. It is eternal, and therefore does not need to adjust or tailor itself to the modern audience. However, as Professor Bobonich said today, Plato does not see the existence of the one, correct truth as an impediment to dialogue and debate. This is the reason he presents "Phaedrus" in a conversational format instead of just as one long speech -- the reader is able to follow along with the two characters' thought evolution as they work through their philosophical problems and gradually come closer to the higher level of understanding that Plato so values.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it is strange that Plato would practice something he opposes so strongly, I think it is important to remember the time period he lived in. Ironically, the only way Plato could express that he believed writing and speeches to be bad was to write and speak about it. As a philosopher he most likely wanted to make his ideas heard, and was confined to do the thing that he was so against. But also it could be argued that Plato's complaints about writing and speeches do not necessarily apply to his own writing. He states that speeches and writing are bad because they can not adjust to the audience, but adjusting to the audience is a rhetorical device used to persuade people and I don't believe Plato was trying to persuade anyone of anything. He believes his ideas to be complete truth, and therefore does not have to convince people. So it may be that the intentions of the writing and speech making he criticized are different from the intentions of his own writing.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is true that the written word cannot respond or evolve, it is the only way for ideas to withstand time. A conversation allows two or more individuals to exchange thoughts and challenge each other. However, unless recorded, the words float up into the air and disappear the instant that they have left the speaker's lips. Plato understands this and believes that, although imperfect, the written word is the only way to record ideas. He wisely chooses to incorporate discussion into his work as a means to address possible questions and concerns that could be posed in response. He also writes clearly and logically, demonstrating a concrete progression of ideas to prove his point. Plato uses these tactics to help lessen the disadvantages of the written word. However, there are certain advantages to recording thoughts and ideas in words. It allows people hundreds of years later to benefit from the knowledge of a brilliant author and to engage in understanding and grappling with different viewpoints. People can also ask questions based off the text and attempt to find the answers by looking within themselves or by interacting with others. The written word essentially allows discussion to continue and evolve for eternity, keeping the words of the author relevant and alive.
ReplyDeleteI believe the only reason Plato chose to write such long texts was because it was the only way he could ensure his ideas would live on without him. Some have their doubts about this because Plato seems to constantly contradict himself however I am sure Plato knew his findings would stay around for so long. At least he intended for them to. I was puzzled as to why Plato would say such things about writings and words only to write his findings but its not as if he could've made a video to carry on his interpretations.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the other questions I do think Socrates thought his ideas would later be questioned but he had no way to defend himself. Yes he could've included more interactive text, for example having questions included and he responding to them but people would still question him as they are right now.
Although Phaedrus is in the form of a dialogue, much of Phaedrus's responses to Socrates are approving or slightly questioning. Even within the narrative, Socrates is not truly conversing. But just as Lysias's speech, although denounced by Socrates, was useful as a conversation topic, so may Plato wish his to be a conversation topic for the next person. His writing is inherently flawed because of its one-sidedness, but I believe Plato recognizes that others will not fully understand him and thus introduces the concept of the dumb writing. The platonic thoughts and images he may have can, though put through the medium of writing, still reach the audience to some extent. He may believe in the reason of his arguments, but he should recognize himself as a human soul just like the rest.
ReplyDeleteA major reason, as some of you have already mentioned here, is of course that writing allows the words to survive longer than the writer. Seeing that Socrates often refers to other philosophers, it also seems that Plato recognizes writing and reading as important tools in order to reason properly.
ReplyDeleteOn a different note, the fact that the text is a 'transcript' of a conversation makes a lot of sense when we consider Socrates' usual method and especially the way Plato presented them. A good portion of the dialogues consist of Socrates talking to regular people and trying to correct their wrong beliefs through his very deliberate method. Although that method is not directly used in Phaedrus, the structure is similar.
This could indicate that Plato sees his work as carrying a general educational value and that his writing is a vehicle for proper reasoning, despite the fact that words, by nature, are passive. Since Plato's texts contain a hint of what he would consider to be absolute truth, they carry a lasting value that would benefit any reader at any point in time. It seems unlikely that Plato had that in mind when he wrote them, but the fact that we can discuss them today indicates that his words can still help us reach at least a slightly higher level of understanding.
I think that Miles's comment deserves more credit than it was given--the fact that the works are presented as dialogs add a second dimension to the works. They are presented as discussions, and it becomes clear with the multiple times Plato talks about how discussion is key that therefore other people ought to discuss his works as well. And people have been doing exactly that for the last millenia, and have followed suit with all sorts of other text throughout history. By writing his works in the dialog format, I think he made a precedent of discussion and dialectical reasoning that is resonant in any discussion of his work or other works. As much as Plato posits philosophical ideas, he often places in his works, including the Phaedrus, strong caveats against taking perceived or rationally derived facts as granted truths from not only the world around us but his works as well; just as the allegory of the cave demonstrates our potential ignorance, so does his ideas of how we are constantly deceived by rhetoric, images, and emotion, and more often than not cannot perceive pure truths as Platonic forms in general.
ReplyDeleteI agree with many of the comments ascribing the choice of dialogue as a stimulant for discussion and as a mode of progressing logically through the piece. In my opinion, Plato succeeds pretty decently at creating a work that is alive. He achieves this by approaching the topic of rhetoric and images by contradiction. By contradiction he allows us to approach the topic in a highly analytical fashion with our own mind looking for potential errors. This is what gives the work its liveliness as apposed to what we would experience in a an essay where we would just progress absorbing his points and leave the questioning until the end. In short, Plato writes because he is trying to create "good" rhetoric. He is in essence convincing us of his views by disproving Lysias and certainly we have been stimulated by his rhetoric to discuss and analyze his ideas and not accept them blindly.
ReplyDelete