In his response to Phaedrus’ reading of Lysias’ speech, Socrates immediately asserts that the speech should be praised for its rhetorical, rather than logical features, or “not so much the invention as the arrangement” (236a3-4). This appraisal is meant to accord little actual praise to Lysias, who clearly favors form to content, consistent with his career as rhetorician. Socrates critiques the repetitive nature of the speech, which obscures the actual paucity of ideas on the topic of love put forward by Lysias. Socrates, by comparison, prizes argumentative or logical expression above rhetorical structures. His criticism, meanwhile, suggests a more general disapproval of creative, formal activity: he refers to Lysias as a “creator” (234e6), which shares the Greek etymology for the word “poet.” As we know from lecture, Plato holds art (poetry, painting) in suspicion, as an activity removed from truth, a position elaborated in the Republic. Moreover, art seems to be associated with the irrational, sensory activity critiqued by Socrates in his first speech, his response to Lysias.
Why, then, does Socrates preface this response with the disclaimer that the ideas are not his own? The strategy is typical of Socrates, who often claims that he knows nothing; and it is apt, in this case, as it allows him to absolve himself of the very act of creation – he is not “creating,” in other words, his theories on love (and rhetoric), but merely reiterating the ideas of others. Meanwhile, how are we to interpret his suggestion that his ideas may have derived from “poets” or “prose-writers”? Does this not contradict his typically low regard of poets? This preliminary act of deferral may suggest that the ensuing speech is not to be taken seriously by the reader: Socrates does, after all, deliver the speech with his head covered, and later provides an alternative standpoint in his “palinode,” or speech in praise of love. Still, this reference to poets and prose-writers suggests an underlying ambiguity and ambivalence on the issues of art and creativity in the text. As Rowe points out, in his commentary to the translation (note 45), the unidentified “prose-writer” in question may well be Plato himself. The reference may be an ironic one, but it may also demand the reader to reevaluate the assessment of art in the text. While he does, in this first speech, seem to associate art with irrational desires, is it not possible that art serve a higher, more laudatory purpose, even guiding its audience to the good, via reason? Socrates’ “palinode” may provide an answer to this last question, in its suggestion of “divine” forms of “madness.” These are important topics to bear in mind as we continue in our reading and analysis of the Phaedrus, particularly as we approach Socrates’ later, culminating statements on speech and writing.
Socrates claims that the speech he is about to make is the work of “poets” and “prose writers,” but this is not necessarily a contradiction of Plato’s usual suspicion of the arts. In a later passage (near 260d5), Socrates states, “Without me the man who knows what is true will be unable to persuade scientifically.” Although, in context, this statement refers to scientists, it could be extended to those who know truths about the arts as well. That is, if a poet discovers some truth, is perfectly acceptable provided that Socrates, one learned in the science of speaking, relates that truth to the people – as he does in the speech that shortly follows this one.
ReplyDeleteMy first impression of these two seemingly contradicting speeches is that Plato intentionally made the first speech as such to emphasize the point that he will make after his second speech. This is because of the nature of the idea of love- one that is not clearly defined collectively- allows him to define it in two different ways such that he arrives at two conclusions. This later allows him to give a discourse on the pitfalls of words and rhetoric in general. For this reason, Socrates makes the distinction about love in his second speech which, as mentioned, is defined as "divine." This I believe is done to emphasize "divine love" as an important facet of human motivation, thereby extending the previously narrow definition of love as pertaining only to sexual or romantic love.
ReplyDeleteIn the first speech made my Socrates, besides providing a counterpart to Lysias' argument, I believe, Socrates engages in somewhat of a competition with Lysias to observe who the better orator is. The philosophical nature of the speech is overshadowed by the fact that Socrates is possessed by the Nymphs. He states that he is almost speaking in 'dithyrambs' (238d) or choral poems connected with the worship of Dionysus. These dithyrambs, that Socrates is almost speaking through, provide a rejection of his own ideas of knowledge of rhetoric. It's hard to observe then the real purpose of Socrates' divinely inspired speech, either as an approval or disapproval of art/artwork. Also, I agree on the fact that delivering the speech with Socrates' head covered, as a somehow symbolic form, shows the mixed feelings and vagueness on the issue of art as stated above. Either way, the speech does not necessarily assert the rejection that Plato has of art, and form.
ReplyDeleteIt was at first confusing to me that Socrates would refer to himself as a poet or as being controlled by an outside force, since Plato regards poets as imitators and puts so much stock in reason and logic. But maybe it goes back to the magnet analogy that Professor Bobonich was talking about today in class: most poets are just transmitting information from the gods and do not understand that of which they speak, but some enlightened philosophers are slowly getting closer to understanding the innate truths of the universe, and therefore would not revert to a "stupid piece of iron" if the magnet disappeared, but would retain the essential knowledge of the Platonic forms. Maybe Socrates views himself as one of these philosophers, and in doing so, takes pride in the "divine madness" that is leading him to a high understanding.
ReplyDeleteEven though Socrates does criticize art for its association with irrational desires, he does indeed concede that it has the potential to serve a higher purpose. Beauty is the highest right that our material senses can percieve (250B). Thus, art that is especially beautiful could possibly invoke in us a recollection of those Forms that were glimpsed outside of heaven. However, Socrates does qualify this praise of the physical sense with the idea that when beauty is seen it must be revered and not pursued for sensory pleasure (250E). This retains the idea that although useful information can be gleaned from the senses, it must then be evaluated based on reason.
ReplyDeleteWith all of the references to the coming speech not being of his own creation--the possession by the nymphs, the covering of the face, etc.--Socrates not only is identifying himself as a poet and channeler of the thoughts of others, but is placing as little blame on himself as possible. Not only is he using his old adage that "he knows nothing," but he is also emphasizing that none of the ideas come from the thoughts his soul may have gleaned from glimpsing the Platonic forms. Any possible ideas independent of the rhetoric he can attribute to the nymphs. In this way, he is giving himself more authority when he challenges the first speeches.
ReplyDeleteI think there is definitely some ambiguity in Plato's opinion of poets. In Socrates' second speech, he makes it clear that "the greatest of goods come to us through madness, provided that it is bestowed by divine gift" (244a6). Therefore, good could come from "mad" poets or prophets inspired or possessed by the gods. They receive divine information that they convey through their art to society. However, Socrates goes on to bash these very poets and prophets on the grounds that they do not know what they are doing or why; no reason is involved in their actions. These two points are directly clashing, which indicates to me that poets, prophets, and art in general can not be characterized simply as good or bad. Plato approves and disapproves of them depending on the context in which he is looking at them.
ReplyDeleteAs Socrates states in 229e, his purpose in his dialogues is to know himself. He describes the human soul as both "typhonic" and "divine", a two-horse team consisting of one badly-behaved, desire-following horse and one reason-abiding, noble horse. Although Socrates usually explores only the part of himself containing reason, he appears to be experimenting with his other side through the course of the Phaedrus. While Socrates does not blindly follow his desires, his expression of respect for art and poetry indicates that he is not suppressing the "unreasonable" part of his soul as thoroughly as he typically does. Perhaps his covered head is meant to indicate an acknowledgement of the "bad" part of his soul, the part he tends to cover and restrain.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that Socrates' first speech is, in his mind at least, pretty much entirely false. In fact, we can take both Lysias' speech and Socrates' first speech as examples of the use of rhetoric to convince the audience that right is wrong, a use Socrates warns Phaedrus of in 260c. However, it seems that Socrates' second speech is one that he, and probably by association Plato, is in agreement with. He leaves his head bare, showing that he is not ashamed of his words, and he offers it as a palinode to what he refers to as the heresy of his first speech. His covered head, which he originally attributes to protection against the elements, later takes on the connotation of being a shield against the divine disapproval that he feels the first two speeches will bring upon him.
ReplyDeleteSocrates's first speech is an example of pure rhetoric, not based in true understanding. By covering his head and claiming that he is possessed by nymphs, he shirks responsibility for his words; they are not his own. This contrasts with his second speech in which he speaks from the heart and says what he believes. As a result, the reader can compare rhetoric and truth and observe that Socrates's second speech is incredibly more effective simply because it is backed by reason, understanding, and knowledge. This supports what he says later on that one cannot be truly persuasive unless his words are entrenched in the truth.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Pablo in the sense that Socrates did not believe in his first speech and was just testing his audience. He wanted to see if he could get them to believe false words. The fact that he covers himself when giving the first speech also reinforces the belief that he is lying. After realizing what he can do, it is easy for him in is second speech because he knows that he can get his audience to believe him.
ReplyDeleteAs I see it, Socrates' two speeches and the discussion about whether or not his ideas are his own has a lot to do with awareness. As professor Bobonich described it yesterday, you could see the role of the poet as an iron ring attached to a magnet, symbolizing the divine power from the gods. Remove the iron ring, and the effect is gone. This makes poets seem like passive receivers of divine knowledge, but most importantly it hints at the fact that they are not aware of when they are in contact with their divine inspiration. Their appearance remains the same.
ReplyDeleteSocrates, however, uses the disclaimer to distance himself from the poets. He mentions several times throughout the text that he can feel the muses and on other occasions, as quoted in the original post, that these words are not his own. I think Plato uses this distinction deliberately to increase the authority behind Socrates' words while not presenting him as a mere tool of the gods' powers, as he would have done with a poet.