For our section on oral knowledge, I have
been assigned the topic of the ancient Minoans, with an emphasis on how they
were portrayed by Euripides in his classic play, Bacchae. As I was thinking
about this assignment, I had an idea that will (hopefully) allow me to connect
our discussions in the last section of the class to the idea of rhetoric in
Greek culture, which, I hope, will transition into Euripides. My idea was to incorporate Socrates into a
post. (hence the title, I hope someone besides me sees the humor?)
To start, a definition of rhetoric could be useful:
in Collin’s English Dictionary, rhetoric is defined as being “the study of the
technique of using language effectively,” or alternately, “the art of using
speech to persuade, influence, or please.”
One of the most prominent features of
Socrates’ style of teaching was to engage in a discourse that consisted of posing
a question that required thinking and reasoning to resolve, receiving the
answer, then posing anew a question. As
defined above, this was a very rhetorical method of teaching; it aimed to
create a more effective dialogue than a one-way lecture ever could by
involving the learner in the teaching/learning process. This was also a sophic learning structure, as
less emphasis was placed on receiving knowledge from either a prophet or
teacher of any kind, and more emphasis was placed on the reasoning and
deductions of the individual, albeit guided by a wiser teacher. For that matter, the answers that were arrived
at were frequently incidental to Socrates’ greater wish to help his listeners
teach themselves the ability to reason out difficult problems. Essentially, Socrates was trying to find a
way to teach wit.
A
famous example of this method was given in the allegory of Plato’s cave, a conversation
recorded in a volume of Plato’s work The
Republic that supposedly happened between Socrates and one of his
associates, Glaucon. (text here) I found
an abridged film version of this allegory on youtube:
(It is an interesting sidenote, if you take the
time to read the text, that Glaucon actually seems to be thoroughly dominated
by Socrates, and never to expresses anything more or less than acceptance
of Socrates’ proposals. This has caused
some doubt in the minds of critics (and my own mind as well) whether this
conversation actually occurred as stated, or whether it was an anecdotal composition
by Plato.)
Whether this specific conversation happened
or not, it is certainly in his style, and Socrates’ style of teaching and
discussing has left an indelible mark on students and teachers alike. To this day, especially in higher learning
institutions, professors will ask students to take one side of an argument, and
then initiate a debate with the student to make him (or her) really learn the
position being supported, and every time they do, it is Socrates who deserves
the thanks or the blame. But I suppose
modern universities fall just a little outside our designated time range of
pre-Renaissance.
Socrates would say his method was philosophical (aimed at truth), not rhetorical (aimed at persuasion, irrespective of truth). Don't confuse the rational process of his mentoring method (which depends on a wiser authority leading someone to predetermined ideas) with argumentation on two sides of an issue by equals (which would be associated with the sophists, against whom Socrates and Plato defined themselves). You may wish to check out my primer / reference on rhetoric, <a href="http://rhetoric.Byu.edu>The Forest of Rhetoric</a>.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the correction and the link, Professor Burton. I must confess that neither Greek philosophers nor rhetoric are among my strong points. I read through a few of the "trees" in the site you referred me to, and I believe I understand the concept of rhetoric better now.
ReplyDeleteOne question that I have (and I would like to hear thoughts from Professor Burton or other members of the group); the "Socratic Method" I learned about briefly in high school was somewhat like a debate team; a student taking a position and then being forced to defend it against a teacher or professor who, essentially, played Devil's Advocate, and the emphasis (to me) seems to be more on the student's thought process than on the actual conclusions reached. Is this different from the method as Socrates conceived it, and if so, is this method more rhetorical than his original method?
I am no expert on rhetoric. I actually am very familiar with Prof Burton's rhetoric website. I used it extensively about 2 years ago in my AP Lang class. And even last year, during my philosophy class, I would find myself going back to that site. Probably providing more information then needs be about by usage of that website.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, Socrates and Plato. To be honest, after my philosophy class, I still have barely a CLUE about them and their approach to teaching. When I read Plato's Allegory of a Cave, all I thought was: 1) Why is this so long? 2) This makes no sense. But after probably forcing myself to reread it again and again did I begin to grasp the concept. What someone's reality can be a situation where they are forced in (prisoners chained to wall) and the ideas and knowledge they have come to them by what they perceive from their reality (shadows on wall).
What do you think is the basic concept of that allegory?
Rephrasing: What someone's reality IS can be a situation they have been forced into (prisoners chained to wall) and the ideas/knowledge they gain and come to learn are from what they perceive from their reality (shadows on wall)
ReplyDeleteBrett, your post (paired with Dr. Burton's explanations) has really helped me to better understand rhetoric vs philosophy.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I understand from studying Dr. Burton's comment and his website on rhetoric, rhetoric is aimed at convincing someone that you are right while philosophy is aimed at discovering absolute truth, independent of the opinions of those participating in the discussion. That being said, the debate process that you describe Brett seems to deviate from his true methodology and is definitely very rhetorical.
I would have to say that most of what we learn in school is rhetorical. We learn to develop an idea and then defend it. We've even written tons of "persuasive essays" in an attempt to learn how to present our opinion so that our readers will assume our position as well.
BTW, I thoroughly enjoyed the clay animation video you posted. Thanks for sharing!
I think this post is really insightful Brett! Kind of going off what Jake said what Jake said, at least from my experience in school rhetoric and sophic learning go hand in hand because the best way to really learn about something (like the facts surrounding your side in an argument) is to be able to convince others (and vice versa) that what you're saying is right.
ReplyDeleteShuan, I think you definitely got the idea of Plato's cave, or at least one of the ideas. It's always interesting to read an allegory, because there are always so many different ways to interpret them. I can certainly see your point that some or even much of what we "know" comes from our perception of our reality, but I don't think that's all. I felt like Socrates (or Plato, depending) was using this as an analogy for philosophers like himself. They are like the man freed from the chains, and they see a different light, but those who are still chained down can't understand what they have learned for themselves. But, he's the one who can better see how things really are.
ReplyDeleteAnother bit I really like is where Socrates quotes Homer and says that the man out of his chains would rather be a pauper than the most respected of the people in chains; this powerfully underscores the almost infinite value of truth, which, I understand from Professor Burton's post, was a very Socratic view.
Definitely an interesting concept to consider. I'd always defined enlightenment as a revealing of something unknown before. But now I feel it could be better defined as a revealing of truth. So this leads me to the question of the prisoners that are chained to the wall and their perceptions. Are they still gaining knowledge from their reality (shadows on wall) even if what they may be perceiving may not be true reality? Or would they be purely exercising their imagination?
ReplyDeleteI think so Shuan. Even if the prisoners aren't perceiving "reality" they still have certain knowledge that is useful amoungst their fellow prisoners. Aren't we all like the prisoners? Perhaps only God and his angels can understand what reality truly is. We can get so caught up on temporal problems when, in "reality", the only things that matter are the things that will affect our eternal progression. Don't you think that the angels of God watch us and say to themselves "If only they knew what we know! Then they wouldn't make such stupid mistakes."
ReplyDeleteLike the freed man, they cannot possibly hope to make us understand that what we see and experience is not everything that exists. There is more beyond our comprehension. Does that make our knowledge useless? No. It still serves us quite well even if God and his angels would not benefit from anything that we have to offer.
Jake, speaking of God, in our church, we accept and believe in prophets, both the ancient ones in the scriptures, and the modern-day kind who accomplish the same purpose. Aren't those prophets a lot like the man that has been freed? I doubt the Greek philosophers had that in mind when they came up with this metaphor, but the prophet gets to see things more clearly than us, and then he is allowed to come back and warn us about where he sees that we are likely to go wrong. He may not have as clear a view as the angels, but he still knows with surprising accuracy where all the pitfalls are.
ReplyDeleteOn a tangent, imagine how frustrating it must be, then, for a prophet to preach to a people that doesn't listen? Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lehi, it seems like most prophets (especially the older ones) found only deaf ears. If it's frustrating for the angels to sit by and see our mistakes, it must be so much worse for someone who knows and tries to warn us, but we don't listen.
That is definitely great insight. It's like when I was watching the most season of The Bachelorette (don't judge..I love that show). There was a guy that was horrendous and just completely out of line. But she didn't see it and kept him on for awhile. Each week, I was yelling at the show just asking why she couldn't see what everyone else in America (that watched that show) could see!
ReplyDeleteI can't even imagine what Heavenly Father must think whenever we may go astray after repeated warnings. Luckily he is merciful.
It's so human to be warned and not heed those warnings. Do you think the knowledge we gain from doing a wrong, and we haven't realized it is a wrong yet, is still considered TRUE knowledge?
I guess I'm trying to figure out what classifies as what kind of knowledge.
Like for Adam & Eve. After they partook of the fruit, they became aware of their nakedness. Would you say they came to full knowledge? But then that would be implying they had limited knowledge before the fruit and they knew was what God taught them...
So many complexities to knowledge!
Rephrase: "and all they knew before was what God had taught them"
ReplyDelete