The PHAEDRUS

I think Plato’s Phaedrus was a good introduction to this rhetoric course. Rhetoric forms many layers in this piece; overall, Socrates and Phaedrus give multiple examples of good and bad rhetoric, Socrates shows the power of rhetoric by persuading Phaedrus, and his third speech teaches by using love as an analogy for rhetoric. John C. Adams in “The Rhetorical Significance of the Conversion of the Lover’s Soul in Plato’s Phaedrus” gives a helpful dissection of the three speeches (8).

The first speech (by Lysias) is flawed, not only in form but also in content. First, Lysias’ speech does not use characteristics of good rhetoric in that it neither defines his argument, for instance, nor summarizes his points at the end, and it also argues the case of the non-lover, a dishonorable position in Socrates’ worldview. Lysias’ errors extend beyond the argument structure to specific arguments. For example, in differentiating between lovers and non-lovers, Lysias says that if a couple is not in love, no one will think twice about their walking about town and talking together, whereas people are sure to comment if lovers are doing the same thing. I would think, however, that the two pairs would be indistinguishable from a distance and people would be likely to think the non-lovers are indeed lovers.

Socrates’ first speech is rhetorically sound in contrast to that of Lysias, but he continues with the unethical argument for the non-lover. In his second speech, however, he marries logos and ethos: he argues brilliantly and argues for truth, that the lover is better than the non-lover. (Honestly, his second speech loses me more quickly than the first, possibly because it’s longer and contains more analogies.) The speech certainly does not start with a modern thesis; rather, it begins on a seeming tangent by discussing madness and then the characteristics of the soul, eventually describing love’s (rhetoric’s) effects on the soul. With his thesis he ends, showing that the non-lover brings only selfishness and loneliness.

As a side-note, I find Socrates’ (Plato’s) analogy of the chariot and the two opposing horses quite effective for his argument. I should try using analogies more often in my own writing. . .