Sophists vs. Socrates
Socrates was very straightforward about what points he disagreed on with the Sophists. He mentions that speech was used by Sophists to misguide people. For example making large things seem small and small things seem large. Also using figurative language to embellish speech as establish false credibility. This for the purpose of leading people towards a certain agenda. Socrates saw this as problematic because it only grazed the surface of what rhetoric really was. In Plato's Phaedrus we learn that Socrates believed that it was essential for dialectic to come before rhetoric so as to establish grounds on reality. When a rhetorician overlooked the importance of dialectic or simply avoided it, they were enabled to stretch facts and use shallow tactics to influence people. True rhetoric allows for knowledge to be obtained before persuasion is used. According to Socrates, Rhetoric without Dialectic was just deception and he makes it clear that he disapproves of the style of “rhetoric” that Gorgias and other rhetoricians of the day used.
If the real Georgius were to respond to how he was portrayed, I don't think it would be what would normally be expected from someone who receives criticism. What I think we would expect would be for Georgius to be offended and try to offer some sort of reconciliation for his beliefs and manner of living. Rather, I think that he would simply continue on using his way of rhetoric to persuade people that there is nothing wrong with what he is doing. He may even ironically say something to the effect of “It really is no big deal to make something small out of something large, we get caught up in the details of things anyway.” This obviously demonstrating the fundamental difference between Socrates and Gorgias. Where Socrates would search for reality and dig for deeper understanding, Gorgias would continue superficially persuading others.
Medium and Message
At the present time I am seeking for words to describe what is going on in my head. I am staring at a paragraph of words that define a prompt for me to respond to in written for in order to demonstrate to my instructor that I know the material that has been presented in class. I use a given set of letters combined in such a way that makes a sentence, something that I can see then translate in my head into something that I can cognitively understand. I rearrange these letters in a miraculous manner in order to show in a visual manner what is going on inside my head. This is recorded and set in stone (should I choose to submit it of course) and classified as what was going on in my head as a result of the prompt that was given to me.
Ironically what I am currently doing is a perfect representation of how writing and the creation of an alphabet changed Greek thought. Through oral communication there is no record of what is said. Ideas are cast into thin air only to fall upon deaf ears or ears that are open and listening, ready to internalize that which passes through. This allows for a different thought process to be conducted. One where ideas are developed as they pass through the mouth of the orator. When writing was introduced into greek culture, ideas that at one time were developed questioned were recorded and limited by what the author's intentions. The thought process similar to the one above was developed and, should I dare say it, greeks and generations following to this day became and are now limited in thinking. Although the development of an alphabet and writing has allowed civilizations to grow and flourish, it has lowered the capacity of thought that is contained within a given individual. Isn't it ironic that the very thing that has limited our capacity of thought has become the key medium of exchange of thought in our lives?
No comments:
Post a Comment