Term Paper on "Plato Study of False Rhetoric as it Pertains to Democracy"

>The purpose of rhetoric is to convince - logic, truth, honesty, morality, honor, consideration, empathy, these have little to do with the actual function of rhetoric other than where they can be used best to achieve the speaker's goal. To Socrates, rhetoric involved an equivalent of an artist's paint and canvas - the rhetorician, skilled in the art of using words - could easily out-speak an expert on a particular topic, thus casting doubt upon the quality of the other's work, truth of his words, and depth of his philosophy. The rhetorician is like the painter in that he can create any reality he wishes on the canvas of the conversation and, if skillful enough, can convince the audience that what is on the canvas is real. Now, as will be discussed, Gorgias revealed to Socrates that rhetoric's ideal is to be used to convince people of the good, moral, and of what is just and unjust.

In his conversation with Gorgias Socrates discerned that rhetoric exists only within the use of words and crafting of ideas - that without discourse, rhetoric could not exist. Unlike philosophy, which to Socrates and Plato is a discoverable "truth," an absolute knowledge, rhetoric is the process of effectively conveying the good and truth of philosophy to others. Thus, when used effectively, the rhetorician can convey the complexities of philosophy to anyone in any context, thus bringing the benefit of philosophy to people who would otherwise not comprehend it. This latter group, then, those who do not comprehend philosophy, are what clearly make up the masses of the people involved in a Democracy - particularly today. So, then, it is up to the rhetorician to help convince the people of the good of a particular thing.

While Gorgias asserts that his art is practiced for the good - that it is the argument for justice, against the unjust what we come to understand, through the Socratic lens, is that rhetoric is inherently capable of falsity. To prove his point, Socrates proffered four arguments against rhetoric:

Rhetoric is not an art

Rhetoric does not confer power

Rhetoric as a protection against suffering wrong is of little importance

Rhetoric as a means of escaping a deserved punishment is not to be commended (Golden 52)

Plato structured these arguments within the context of the debate between Gorgias and Socrates. The result, of course, was that all of his points were proven. but, the problem is that he was proving his own point with his own words - thus Plato's own rhetorical communication with the reader was used to present his argument. Again, the problem of words.

Within the context of an external political structure, however, Plato's arguments against the validity of rhetoric as a force for good and a method of the discovery of truth (as art is defined within the Platonic / Socratic model). We jump to the discussion between Socrates and Polus to see the validity of this point. Socrates informs Polus that he views rhetoric as a form of self-gratification, of flattery, of essentially nonsense. Polus argues that rhetoric can delight others, can make them feel good, and thus it is "a fine thing." Of course, the parallel we find in this is the Yes-Man, the individual whose sole purpose it seems, is to say the things that another person wants to hear, thus revealing the truth to another only if it is within the context of the moment.

A true advisor and friend, then, does not employ rhetoric, but rather employs philosophy to guide.

We look at modern political speech, at how political parties function and how our electoral process moves to see that rhetoric is an inescapable reality. If we examine how people run for office, we can see that rhetoric is virtually all that is employed to get people elected. George W. Bush, for example, clearly said that he was a "uniter not a divider," which was a clearly crafted soudbite meant to convince people that he would bring the nation together under one ideological banner, one common and inclusive brand of political philosophical behavior. And yet, within months of the election, Bush had clearly ignored that promise and proved that he had used rhetoric simply to get what he wanted - to gain the power of the Presidency - and then to use that power to divide the nation to a level that is nearly beyond comprehension.

With only rhetoric, Bush was able to convince 49% of the nation that he should be our leader and without a true majority, he took the reins and has virtually destroyed our world-position, has made his friends incalculably rich, and has been directly responsible for tens of thousands of deaths - the guilt for which all those who voted for him share.

As an art, rhetoric has no existence - there is no canvas, no pot, no garden, and no structure upon which is formed. It is the crafting of arguments using the most effective terminology for a given audience to be swayed to a particular point-of-view.

Rhetoric, though it may seem so, does not confer power. Socrates observes that rhetorical speech is little more than flattery and saying that someone is wonderful and intelligent does not make them so (unless they actually are). People like David Koresh, Kim Jung Il, or Georges Rael use rhetoric to convince people of their deific status and for those who are susceptible to the "logic" of their rhetoric, being convinced is easy - as long as the words keep coming. but, what, as Socrates argues, occurs to rhetoric if no one speaks? Rhetoric exists only in words. Philosophy exists without man, without words, with or without being discovered and understood - it is a truth to be found, debated, interpreted, and grasped. Rhetoric disappears once the words are spoken - it is absolutely without substance.

Which explains, in great part, why we as a people are so distrusting of the words that politicians and lawyers use - because at our core, we understand enough of the truth of philosophy to realize that what we are… READ MORE