"If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight! Sun Tzu said that."
-Team Fortress 2's Jane "The Soldier" Doe.
In the year of 380 B.C.E. Plato found himself at odds with the rhetorical super power of ancient Greece: the Sophists. These radical philosophers had dangerous fringe beliefs such as "our view of reality is limited by the means with which we capable of perceiving it and thus is inherently flawed" or "democracy is a pretty cool system of government". He knew that both these things could only be described as "pure sophistry" and had to be stopped. But how does one take on people as influential as the Sophists? The answer is simple.
[source]
That's right! Plato constructed his famous dialogues in which he pits his OC*, Socrates, against hollow, straw versions of well known Sophists.
*Evidence suggests that Socrates was not an OC and, instead, was a real person.
Because Plato is the sole author of these works, he is fully in control of how the objects of his ridicule act, what they say, and what they do. Does he use this opportunity to show how high tier his ethos is? Let his readers know that his philosophy could beat the Sophists fair and square? Nah. Instead, Plato forces the Sophists into contrived situations in which they are forbidden from using the full extent of their rhetorical prowess. Why would he want to paint his rhetorical and political opponents as ill tempered sin obsessed fools who can't tell when they are being entrapped? Is it to:
A.) Spread the word to the [white men born in Athens] that the Sophists aren't all that
B.) Play on the fears and preconceived notions of his fellow elitists to convince them that the Sophists represent an existential threat to their continued existence and should be eliminated to further advance their political goals
C.) Express his anger that these people he believes to be fools are held in such high regard
D.) make a joke and be funny, haha
If you guessed B, cool. That's what I would guess too. We can't really know for sure, death of the author and all that. What I'm trying to get at here is that the only opposition the Sophists could give to Socrates is what Plato allowed them to give. Plato has incredible control over our view of the Sophist's because his works are much of the surviving literature on the subject. And the ability to control the media, the conversation, and the narrative, is one of the most potent abilities any rhetor person can have.
I totally forgot to tie the quote at the beginning back into the post; this is what happens when you write things right before going to bed
ReplyDeletePlato was able to dictate the terms of engagement such that he debated the Sophists in a space where his victory was assured. The full quote is
"If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight, even though the ruler forbid it; if fighting will not result in victory, then you must not fight even at the ruler's bidding."
Thus, I suggest that Plato felt the need to fight this way because other ways wouldn't guarantee a win.
The quote being from "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu
DeleteThis is a great post! It's so important to consider the author and context of these early rhetorical writings as we study them. You're so right that Plato is committing a "strawman" logical fallacy here and in the rest of his works about Sophism, and that this is the source of their unfortunate reputation. It reminds me of his and Herrick's assertion that it is "up to the rhetor" to decide whether or not to use rhetoric ethically--in the case of the Sophists, I'd say Plato certainly isn't.
ReplyDeleteIt is truly interesting how in control of the narrative Plato makes himself by creating his dialogues. I really appreciate your inclusion that Plato did not give the Sophists a fair chance in his writings, instead portraying them as nonsensical figures that were not able to defend nor explain themselves. It's a shame that he was so influential to spread the mistrust of Sophists through not only Athens at the time, but also well into the more modern studies of rhetoric. In terms of our class, it is also interesting to see that his efforts have had somewhat opposite effect on modern students, as we seem to side more with the Sophists with apprehension towards Plato.
ReplyDeleteAll of this!! I have always really appreciated the Sophists for their understanding that...maybe the world isn't as straight forward as we want it to be. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle wanted to find ultimate truth and to categorize experiences into specific boxes; the problem with this, in my opinion, is that... life isn't simple like that! We all have different knowledge and understandings, and what seems true to me may not seem true to you because of our differences. And that's okay! If I remember correctly from my ENG210 course, the Sophists valued finding compromises between stances. Their discussions aimed at finding truth weren't purposed to find the eternal, unchanging truth, but rather, to find the truth for the people in the discussion at that moment. This feels so much healthier than trying to find eternal truth, because everyone is--believe it or not, Plato--going to have a different opinion about what that eternal truth is!! Anyway, great post and also very humorous!
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading this post because it was entertaining while also being informational. It is fascinating how Plato wanted to condemn the acts of the Sophists when in reality, he was sort of following what they were believing in as well. Plato did have such a great amount of control of his writings that it is interesting to see how he used his rhetorical power to create his own philosophy. I like that you brought up the point that when others would combat Plato, he would choose to allow it or not because he has so much power in his writings. It is an interesting view to remember since we are so used to a debate culture in society today.
ReplyDeleteLiam, I loved reading your post. You are spot-on. Plato was an elitist who used his position to unfairly present a group of people. It reminds me a lot of modern-day fearmongering. If someone who has attention and power, as Plato did, portrays whole groups of people as a threat to a nation, and they do not allow members of that other group to speak or present themselves; it is easy to create division among groups. Plato was spreading "fake news," if you will, because of his fear of losing power. Just an observation. :)
ReplyDeletePlato seems like the type of guy who would constantly challenge people he disliked to square up and when anyone took him up on the challenge he'd go silent. It's no secret that Plato thought himself to be superior to the sophists in multiple ways--he thought of himself as a king philosopher, after all--but there's something so dorky about creating all of these scenarios in which he unfairly criticizes the sophists and then uses these examples to claim his victory. Of course, Plato's influence on history and how we understand rhetoric today still has importance and I don't want to completely discredit everything he has done, but I do admit that it is very fun to make fun of him (and he kind of deserves it, let's be honest).
ReplyDeleteLiam, I appreciate your critical analysis of Plato's narrative. In history, we must always be vigilant of where our understanding of even our more broad concepts comes from. Most of what we know of Socrates comes from Plato, who was his student and friend, who idolized him, so much of what we know must come with a grain of salt. Your characterization of Socrates as Plato's "OC," though not entirely literal, has truth to it. When we look at history as what it is, man's interpretation of what happened rather than what actually happened in its full truth, when we realize that the past can't speak for itself, figures like Plato (and every other great historian, philosopher, or writer) loose some of their power over our understanding.
ReplyDeletei love how you write your stuff, informational and funny, the images help me learn and retain the info so good on that! plato controlling how people view, read, and interact with sophists is one of the reasons his opinion became so powerful, he had all the rights to what the sophists were
ReplyDelete