Blog post due January 27, 2013
Summary
Plato’s Phaedrus is a discussion between Phaedrus and Socrates. Phaedrus has just come from listening to a
speech by Lysias, and he makes his own speech to recount Lysias’s speech for
Socrates on the subject of love. Then,
Socrates and Phaedrus have a discussion on the written word versus the art of
speech making, in which Socrates seems to suggest that rhetoric is for serious
matters and writing is for lighter matters.
Critique
I thought the most interesting and
applicable point of my reading was when they talked about what makes a good
argument and whether or not the person arguing merely had to have rhetoric
techniques or needed true knowledge of his or her subject. I agree with Socrates that those that argue
well know the subtleties of their subject well enough to argue fine lines of
argument.
Socrates’ point about the written
word being unable to stand by itself was interesting to me: “Then he will not,
when in earnest, write them in ink, sowing them through a pen with words which
cannot defend themselves by argument and cannot teach the truth effectually” (p.
166). I thought this was interesting
because our readings thus far have emphasized the connection between writing
and making things permanent and lasting, such as writing beliefs about
religion, law, or taxes to keep a permanent record. However, Socrates brings up an interesting
point that even though writing is lasting it is also mutable as it is subject
to the reader’s perspective. I like the
idea that are words carry more weight if we are able to orally defend what we
write.
Connection
I am a doctoral student in my second
year of my program. If all goes according
to plan, I will take my comps this summer, and begin my dissertation work next
year. This reading made me wonder about
the tradition of defending the written dissertation before a committee. The oral defense seems to be something that
Socrates would approve of as the committee has a chance to raise questions and
the researcher must orally defend his or her written word. By ordering the defense in such a way, the
oral after the written, this tradition seems to value rhetoric over writing, just
as Socrates argues in this piece.
I think it is interesting that you brought in the modern day connection of orally defending one’s dissertation, showing that in academia, we, too, like Socrates, value the spoken word over the written word. Socrates’ support of the oral defense of the written word is quite interesting, and some might even say it is unusual or peculiar, but in fact, our society accepts it in many environments. The example you gave of defending a dissertation reminded me of the way that written and spoken testimonies are viewed in our modern legal system. While immediately after any crime or altercation or action in question occurs, the testimony of a plaintiff, defendant, or witness is taken down in writing. However, once a trial begins, all parties are required to orally defend their original testimony, and from a legal perspective, the oral testimony and defense is considered to be more heavily weighted than the written testimony. Therefore, in both an academic and a legal sense, our modern society agrees with the ideas of Socrates and his views of spoken and written language.
ReplyDelete