"Silence is Golden"

The idea of knowledge and understanding as explained in Spencer's blog caught my attention. This principle had been taught many'a'times by my father in the walls of the place I call home. With this in mind I desire to take the invitation presented by Thomas and add on to the comments found in Macey's post in regards to comparing the De Oratore and Gorgias.

Although similar in some ways, ultimately both dialogues are extremely different in nature and purpose. Plato's Gorgias has a very clear purpose; to prove that Plato (as well as his mentor Socrates) are correct in their logic and ultimately have the moral truth.

On the other hand Cicero allows both sides of the argument to be heard as he creates the dialogue between Antonius and Crassus, thus producing an environment of exploration and deeper understanding of the principles of rhetoric. This could be interpreted as a sophist ideology.

Plato claimed that orators have no specific skill and intellect but rather a broad understanding of many things (which in my mind seems immoral or more amoral) while it is apparent that Cicero believes that, “the orator must know the facts of his case.” This adds a level of morality and truth to his definition of rhetoric. 

The final point I wish to make is the most significant I have to offer. Yes, Plato was able to trump his foe in Gorgias but did he truly come away as victor? In reality, Cicero's ability to use rhetoric has swayed our class to trust his interpretation of rhetoric over Plato's. How? The answer is found in Proverbs 29:11, "A fool uttereth all his mind: but a wise man keepeth it in till afterwards." Cisero recognized that to persuade requires trust in the persuader and gained that trust through allowing Crassus hear out the angle of Antonius. Plato failed to understand that mere logos is not enough to persuade when we don’t have all the facts in this life.