Phaedrus

What constitutes a good speech?

Apparently, a good speech seduces. I might not have pondered carefully enough, because on first reading, I didn’t find myself seduced. This might be alright, though, because I’m not entirely sure I’m the intended audience. Though not seduced, I do see the constructions of a good speech that Plato (Socrates) outlines.

A good speech (similar to many of the rules of dialectic as presented in Gorgias) has a clear introduction. The definitions of concepts are addressed before they are sorted and understood, as Socrates offered in one of his speeches: “Because you and I are about to discuss whether a boy should make friends with a man who loves him rather than with one who does not, we should agree on defining what love is and what effect it has” (237C).

After the definition is deliberated, ideas have clear transitions and the thought process is easy to follow: “At any rate, you are more likely to escape detection, as you shift from one thing to its opposite, if you proceed in small steps rather than in large ones” (262A). These transitions are treated so carefully that the speech is put together like a living creature: “it must be neither without head nor without legs; and it must have a middle and extremities that are fitting both to one another and to the whole work” (264C).

And just in case the connections are not as evident, there are summaries so that the listeners stays on track (267D). A good speech concludes and even offers some ­­­­“refutation and supplementary refutation” (267A).

Importantly, a good speech also has something to say. It is well thought out and brings up new points: “In their case, we cannot praise their novelty but only their skillful arrangement; but we can praise both the arrangement and the novelty of the nonessential points that are harder to think up” (236A). The subject of the matter is also offered with the audience in mind: “He will classify the kinds of speech and of soul there are, as well as the various ways in which they are affected, and explain what causes each. He will then coordinate each kind of soul with the kind of speech appropriate to it” (271B). A good speech is only made after an understanding of the subject is considered and the purpose is evident.

What constitutes a bad speech?

“So I say instead, in a word, that every shortcoming for which we blamed the lover has its contrary advantage, and the non-lover possesses it. Why make a long speech about it?” (241E). In the same way, it seems that the opposites of the attributes of a good speech constitute a bad speech. But by simply writing these things down, I’m already going against Socrates, so I’ll also point out the ways Plato describes bad speeches.

At the core, a bad speech is one that is offered without true thought: “It’s not speaking or writing well that’s shameful; what’s really shameful is to engage in either of them shamefully or badly” (258D). Of course, this concept is then further defined. A rhetorician must know good from bad. Otherwise, they might accidently attribute the qualities of a miserable donkey to a horse (260C).

In arrangement, bad speeches start at the end: “He doesn’t even start from the beginning but from the end, making his speech swim upstream on its back” (246A). Following this bad form, the rest of the speech lacks organization and seems haphazardly tossed together: “Don’t the parts of the speech appear to have been thrown together at random?” (264B).

Just as the good speech carefully selects the soul to which it speaks, a bad speech does not consider the art. Essentially, “if his speaking, his teaching, or his writing lacks any one of these elements and he still claims to be speaking with art, you’ll be better off if you don’t believe him” (272B). The bad speech does not regard the truth and only seeks to persuade.

What do you need to do in order to make sure you’re ready to give a good speech? (tease out the process of invention)

To give a good speech, one must first pursue philosophy: “Unless he pursues philosophy properly he will never be able to make a proper speech on any subject either” (261A). This study of philosophy includes knowledge of dialectic (269B).

Part of this philosophical training also must include acquiring the important art of rhetoric so that one can “make a systematic division and grasp the particular character of each of these two kinds of thing” (263B). This offers a knowledge of the subject so that one can actually discuss their thoughts and ideas with the authority of understanding. This understanding leads to a reverence of the subject that allows the proper organization to flow.

Once ready to understand, one gets to turn into a collector. Seeing scattered things as a whole is the key in being able to convey those scattered pieces as a concise creature (265D). Socrates himself offers steps. First, give a Preamble. Then offer the Statement of Facts and the Evidence of Witnesses, then address Indirect Evidence and then Claims to Plausibility. The next step is to add the Confirmation and Supplementary Confirmation (266E).

But these steps are useless if one does not understand the world, as Socrates questioned, “Do you think, then that it is possible to reach a serious understanding of the nature of the soul without understanding the nature of the world as a whole?” (270C).

The process is not for the weak (naturally, one must be strong to understand a single soul, much less the world). Socrates makes the effort it will take clear: “And no one can acquire these abilities without great effort—a laborious effort a sensible man will make not in order to speak and act among human beings, but so as to be able to speak and act in a way that pleases the gods as much as possible” (273E). No pressure.

Once all of these details are addressed, “then, and only then, will you be able to use speech artfully, to the extent that its nature allows it to be used that way, either in order to teach or in order to persuade” (277C).

Why is writing and practicing writing a bad idea if you want to become good speakers/thoughtful people (they’re synonymous)?

Writing is only a good idea if you want to “introduce forgetfulness into the soul” (275A). Similar to the ideas of Alcidamas, writing makes memory less important. Because things can just be written down, there is no need to remember them. And if your memory is not exercised, then you cannot be as strong a speaker. Since writing is an external force, it also depends on others. People who write can’t remember things internally. Thus, students of writing grasp “the appearance of wisdom, not with its reality” (275A). Naturally, people who think that they’re wise without actually having any wisdom are difficult to get along with, so writing produces poor friends. I’m feeling wonderful about my chosen field…

Thinking that a turn was coming, I liked the thought that “writing shares a strange feature with painting” (275D). But, of course, this strange feature is not a positive one. Writing is a bad idea because one cannot interact with the author of the words once they’ve been penned. This is understandable; I’d be both terrified and interested in the opportunity to interact with Plato at the moment. But other than these words that are presented, the further refutes are largely immune from direct defense.

Letters are only good for amusement, not as a path to being a thoughtful person.

#Phaedrus #GreekRhetoric