The positing of the oracle in the Apology

At the end of the Apology, Socrates addresses his friends for a final statement, discussing the oracle that had informed him throughout his life and his comfort with his sentencing at the trial and imminent death. In this passage, Socrates posits death as “a good,” speaking with a familiarity and self-assurance towards his friends that aids in this characterization.

                Socrates begins by directing his attention towards his “friends,” specified as those among the audience that had voted to acquit him. This initial statement frames the passage as almost affectionate, in a way that seems more like a communal forum on the nature of his sentencing than an official response. This is emphasized by his call for the audience to “stay then awhile,” to talk “while there is time.” Socrates further specifies his friends as the true judges of the audience, stating, “for you I may truly call judges.” This specification serves to both uplift his supporters and criticize those that have condemned them, highlighting their lack of qualifications to be considered judges in his mindset. These qualifications include the ability to carry out justice within the context of the trial; in doing so, Socrates accentuates his claim of injustice in the decision of the trial, an accentuation that pairs interestingly with the framing of his sentence throughout the rest of the passage. While he recognizes this injustice in the speech, and filters the rest of his statement through this lens, Socrates prioritizes his discussion of his own moral judgments in this passage, in the form of the oracle.

His description of the oracle as “within him” positions the oracle as something inherent to him, and in doing so grants the discussion the legitimacy associated with a supposedly objective oracle while still allowing Socrates to interpret its judgments in a more direct way. In this sense, Socrates seems to establish the oracle as his own moral sense; however, in still referring to it as an independent entity, one that even opposes him on “trifles” and “a slip of error about anything,” he is able to phrase his determination of his death as “a good” as a discovery that he can come to with his audience. In doing so, he furthers the communal tone established by the specification of his audience.

Socrates says that what is generally believed to be the “the last and worst evil” has now “come upon” him, and immediately follows this with a discussion of his day and the lack of warning that he received from the oracle leading up to his sentencing. Describing death as coming upon him makes his demise seem gentle; rather than being forced or inflicted upon him, it is something that has arrived as if to great him, framing the discussion as non-adversarial to begin with. The lack of warning from the oracle alongside this, described after his initial positing of the oracle as an objective, independent portion of himself, helps to establish his argument that death can exist as something better than evil. However, it is here important to consider again his initial framing of the audience as his friends, and the ways in which Socrates brings the issue of injustice back into the conversation at the start of the passage; in doing so, death is presented as a good, but only for those among the audience who are his true judges, who have been deemed as friends by his mindset, guided by the oracle.

Sorry, Not Sorry: The Apology

Andrew Santos

Rhetoric 103A

Kwan Hua

10.8.16

Sorry, Not Sorry: The Apology

                        The story of the Socrates’ martyrdom is not the only goal achieved by Plato’s Apology. Ignoring Plato’s syllogisms and Socrates’ use of elenchus, I instead seek to reveal elements of the rhetorical structure of the greater work. I contend that an operation in the Apology’s is that it assaults rhetoric’s merit head on, but by doing this, simultaneously shows how rhetoric is more powerful than truth, thus unraveling (perhaps inadvertently) Socrates’ claims philosophically established claims.

            The apology starts right after Socrates’ crimes are presented to the ‘men of Athens’ by his three accusers, Meletus, Lycon, and Anytus. Plato likely does this as a way to diminish the power of those three speakers. Instead of giving them the floor to directly accuse Socrates, their accusations all come out of Socrates’ mouth, save for a few times he directly interviews his accusers. In this introduction, Socrates immediately assaults the rhetoric of his opposition, “I know their persuasive words almost made me forget who I was – such was the effect of them; and yet they have hardly spoken a word of truth.”[1] Socrates is making an implicit claim here, that rhetoric can be used to construct persuasive arguments without requiring truth. And the three accusers seem to agree, as Socrates describes them as making a defensive argument, saying that he is a wordsmith and a thought weaver, who is capable of casting verbal spells over his audience. It seems that the potential abuse of rhetoric is the only agreement Socrates and his accusers come to, and I contend it is because the work is also assaulting rhetoric throughout its telling.

            So in the rest of the apology, Socrates tactically points out that people tend to interrupt him before he gets to his point.[2] He does this in order to gain a rhetorical advantage over his accusers. Now he can say whatever he might like about any aspect of their character, and challenge them. This is vividly manifested in his third to last usage of this idea of mid-speech interruption, where he gets under Meletus’ skin by coaxing him into interrupting while saying harsh things about Meletus’ state of knowledge. “I wish, men of Athens, that he would answer, and  not be always trying to get up and interruption… No, my friend; I will answer to you and to the court, as you refuse to answer for yourself.” Socrates is just trying to bait Meletus into interrupting his speech, in order to demonstrate how unorderly Meletus is. But this gambit does not pay off. Socrates’ initial claims about the state rhetoric is that eloquence can only be attributed to him if it pertains to the truth. Socrates thinks truth speaks louder than rhetoric.

            Unfortunately for Socrates, this does not end up being the case. Since we are reading from Plato, I grant him the omniscience of the narrator. Thus, Socrates is indeed telling the truth, and his accusers are every bit as devious as he paints them out to be. But if this is the case, and it is the case that truth is the most eloquent operation of persuasion, then it does not logically follow that Socrates should be put to death. The words warning of Socrates’ eloquence, his purported ability to weave and cast spells were taken seriously more than his actual argument. The rhetorical function of the argument of his accusers serves to incriminate him by the very art of sounding convincing.

            Ultimately, this story is one of martyrdom. We can think of a handful of people who were willing to die for their beliefs, and the belief that truth trumps all is the belief that Socrates had to die for. That we are still discussing this great philosopher today shows the power of the truth that he really had, and that things did indeed play out in his favor, even if it was at the expense of his own life. So the rhetoric in the moment got the best of Socrates and won over the people, but the rhetoric of Plato writing the most popular version of Socrates’ defense ends up besting the rhetoric that is devoid of truth. In a way, Socrates was always right, except for in practical terms, which is arguably a common problem amongst philosophers.

---

[1] Apology, Plato (classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html)

[2] Plato Apology

Precis: The Melian Dialogue

Zach Turminini

Rhetoric 103A

Professor Carrico

GSI: Jerilyn Sambrooke

Precis: The Melian Dialogue

The Melians rhetoric is made manifest through their norms and actions, which provides us ample insight into the social and cultural relations at the time, providing us a means of foregrounding the historical context in which the Melian Dialogue took place. This serves a pedagogical purpose, by which Thucydides non-fortuitously asserts the significance, both historically and politically, of the idealized moral relations between states and the Athenian realism and foresight presented in the dialogue. The assertion of power in the Melian Dialogue serves to promulgate the Athenian authority, underscoring their emphasis on security, through which the Athenians argue is achieved by domination or violence, and no variations thereof.  The merit of justifications argued by the Athenians seems to be the center of focus for Thucydides, again, questioning rationale and morality within the realm of political relations between states.

The Melian Dialogue encapsulated the events surrounding a siege of the kingdom of Melos, as well as, the issues surrounding war, politics, and the just use of force. Interestingly, the intensity to which the dialogue begins, in the establishing of terms by the Athenians, in summary ‘allow us to dominate you or perish’. And so, by issuing this ultimatum,which the Athenians justified their actions by rights afforded to them by Natural Law. The Melians had been forced into a decision to either concede to hegemonic rule or fight, which meant assured destruction.

Initially, the Melians argued a more preferred outcome, involving making equal their relations as two distinct states. Unfortunately, this was the main point of contention for the Athenians. Those intentions include among others a desire to both sustain and impose their dominance and control over other less powerful sovereignties through fear and dominance, to the detriment the Melians.

I assert the Athenians are more reasonable, illustrated clearly by their forethought and use of rational logic, in an instance where brute force would have been an easy option. If not for the fact that destroying a state for standing by a version of peace and justice as an alternative to hegemonic rule, is itself a revolutionary example, one which other states would be wiser to take heed of. Ironically, due to the nature of the increased scrutiny in the state relationships between the dominator and the dominated, inaction is taken as a sign of weakness in the wake of the events leading to the dialogue. And so, we must recognize the pragmatism applied by the Athenians in identifying the tactful benefits in taking Melos. Alluding to the importance of state relations and their role in ensuring the security of the Athenian state, by way of example.

Defined by the ultimatum presented by the Athenians, the basic premise of the dialogue is that it was futile for the Melians to resist. Due in part to the Athenians’ might, which drastically swayed the odds in their favor. The only rational choice for the Melians was to concede, according to the risks present in the arguments of the Athenians. Instead, the Melians chose to disregard reasonable terms, and instead engaged in a counter-siege, hoping their Spartan allies would come to their aid. This we would learn later to be the decision that ended in the destruction of Melos. The violence incurred in this example shows the importance of power and exacerbates the fallacy of the idiosyncratic approach taken by the melians, in ignoring the real for the ideal. Through dominance, via power, Athens had justified war and violence in times of peace in order to ensure their security and sovereignty according to the laws set forth by nature.

Precis of Socrates' Strategy in Plato's Apology

            In his cross-examination of Meletus, Socrates begins with a restatement of the charges that have been brought upon him, notably that he is a “corruptor of youth” and “does not believe in the gods of the state”. Instead of aiming his argument at refuting these claims, Socrates is brazen enough to make claims of his own against Meletus. In doing so, he assumes a position of strength against his accuser, refusing to idly accept the subordinate position in which he has been placed. He then proceeds to defend his own claims of Meletus’ wrongdoing by through a series of questions that probe assumptions, beginning with broad questions with obvious answers that Meletus is forced to respond to and gradually narrowing them until he arrives at a question in which he likely would never have agreed to without the prior questions setting the stage; a strategy that involves trapping his opponent in his own admissions.

            He begins broadly with a clarifying question of “who is the improver of youth?” (In which he solicits a specific person) and to which Meletus answers “the judges.” Socrates then inquires, “what, all of them, or some and not others?” to which Meletus is forced to reply “all of them,” seeing as all of the judges are present witnesses to their discourse. By cornering Meletus into saying all of them improve youth, he is setting the stage for Meletus to make other absolutist claims, essentially mocking the binary nature of the claims that have brought them there.

            Socrates continues in the same fashion, asking if the audience, the senators, and the citizen assembly all improve them, with numbers of all of the aforementioned groups, which were also likely present at the trial. He is then able to draw the conclusion that “Every Athenian improves and elevates them; all with the exception of [himself].” The absurdity of such a claim is obvious but Meletus has been trapped in his own affirmations and appears to look unreasonable and careless in his accusations, which in addition further evidences Socrates’ claim that he has “interest in matters in which he never had the smallest interest.”

            Socrates supplements the overall absurdity of the claim and further mocks its binary nature by asserting that the opposite of such a situation would be more likely to be true in regards to horses, such that, “the trainer of horses does them good and all others do them harm.” By using such an example, Socrates is allowing for his audience to make a connection between the hypothetical situation and his own. In such an example, Socrates symbolizes the figure of himself through the image of a horse trainer, in which he draws similarity to in that he is specialized in improving and that he is one of a kind in his field, which evidences a claim he will make at the end of his speech that the Athenians need him more than he needs them.

            Through his example, Socrates is further able to appear more humble than he would have had he overtly asserted that he is one of a kind, an area in which he is lacking overall in his defense. It is a strategy he employs throughout the whole of the work such as when he asserts that the oracle claims he is the wisest, and that he is inclined to disagree with this. By using his specific style of questioning Meletus, he is appealing to Meletus’ own style of reasoning and inverting it, claiming that the method he used to arrive at such claims could just as easily be used to arrive at another, and posing the question of how one can one trust such reasoning if it can be used to arrive at an opposite conclusion.  

The Framework: Why It is Important That It is Better to Endure Suffering

Allan Nguyen

Kwan Hua

Rhetoric 103A

8 October 2016

The Framework: Why It is Important That It is Better to Endure Suffering

            In Gorgias, Socrates’s long, discourse-filled journey to discover rhetoric’s true nature, and of course denounce it, has lead him to one of the fathers of sophistry, Gorgias. Though Socrates initially begins his debate with Gorgias, one of Gorgias’s young, fervid disciples, Polus, attempts to step in and defend Gorgias and the power of rhetoric after Socrates deems rhetoric to be a form of flattery. Starting at 466a, Polus challenges Socrates by asking him how rhetoricians could have possibly become so highly regarded by the state and amassed such power if people had viewed them as flatterers. Polus wants to show that rhetoric is much more subtle than simple flattery and through its subtleness can achieve much more. However, to Polus’s surprise, Socrates, who first responds by taunting Polus as per usual, does not address rhetoric’s subtlety at all and instead goes for a much more radical claim: rhetoricians have not gained power at all. In fact, Socrates claims that rhetoricians have the least power of all citizens.

Of course this is not a claim that Polus can simply accept as a lot of rhetoricians seemingly have tons of influence over the cities they live in, and so Socrates is urged to explain the first of the many steps he takes to prove his claim. Socrates begins by stating that “power is a good to the possessor” (466b). This is intuitively true, and Polus agrees pretty readily. People tend to view the power that they have as a benefit more than a burden. The next step that Socrates takes is by pointing out that rhetoricians only do what they think is best. Polus at first sees no problem with that, as being able to do what you think is best seems to be a good indication of power. However, Socrates then creates a distinction between doing what you think is best, and doing what you will to do. He illustrates this distinction with an example about medicine and an example about voyaging. People take medicine because their will is to feel better, and likewise people go on voyages because their will is to acquire wealth. People do not simply take medicine for the sake of taking medicine since medicine is bitter and unenjoyable to drink. People do not go on voyages for the sake of voyaging because voyaging can be pretty dangerous. Like taking medicine and going on voyages, other actions that people take are also done because they will for something beyond the action itself. Some actions are done in accordance with what a person wills to do while others are not.

The distinction Socrates wishes to make is that not all of the actions that people think are best are actually in accordance with what a person wills to do. Rhetoricians, who clearly are allowed to do what they think is best, might not actually be doing what they will to do. Socrates connects this distinction with the notion of power by asking Polus, “if a fool does what he thinks best…would you call this great power?” (466e). Polus denies this is possible. If a fool does what he thinks is best, his actions are likely to misalign with what he wills to do. Thus, his actions cause more troubles for him instead of benefitting him. Then, the actions cannot be a good since they cause trouble. Since power was agreed to be a good for its possessor, the fool, who is allowed to do what he thinks best, does not have power. Furthermore, the fools who are the least restricted in being able to do what they think is best must have the least amount of power since their misguided actions can more easily bring them trouble.

            So far the argument has only proven that it is merely possible for the rhetoricians to have the least amount of power in the city since Socrates has not yet proven that rhetoricians are fools who believe the best actions are different ones from the actions that will actually help them achieve what they will to do. Socrates attempts to prove this by showing that all men, rhetoricians included, do things for the sake of a good. To prove that all men act for a good, Socrates first has Polus agree that everything is either good, evil, or neither. Things that are neither, which he calls indifferent things, include actions such as walking or speaking and objects such as rocks and chairs.  Socrates backs his claim that men act for the sake of the good by stating that “indifferent things [are] done for the sake of the good” rather than “good for the sake of the indifferent” (468a). The example that Socrates gives to support this statement is that we get up and start walking around when we think walking will lead us to some good. Even when we kill someone and take their belongings, we believe it is for some good, according to Socrates. Since we all will for the good, our actions would stray away from our will if they did not achieve the good.

With all those steps taken, Socrates has created a framework to try to show that rhetoricians have the least amount of power in the city because their actions work against the good which they will to do. With that framework, Socrates goes on to try to prove his claim through the famous argument on whether causing suffering or enduring it is more closely aligned with the good.

Beginning the Defense of Socrates from the Apology

Taylor Gonzalez

Rhetoric 103A

GSI: Kuan Hwa

Beginning the Defense of Socrates from the Apology

            In Plato’s account of Socrates’ trial, we read of the accused as he attempts to defend himself in a court of law, a place that he seemed to greatly despise during his life. Socrates begins his defense of himself against allegations of corruption of the Athenian youth among other charges by explaining how he will go about presenting his defense. He states, “And first, I have to reply to the older charges and to my first accusers, and then I will go to the later ones. For I have had many accusers, who accused me of old, and their false charges have continued during many years; and I am more afraid of them than of Anytus and his associates, who are dangerous, too, in their own way.” Here we will see Socrates begin his defense by explaining how the deck is stacked against him and that in fact, his accusers have done more to corrupt than he has.

            In this second paragraph of the Apology, Socrates explains how he has been greatly mischaracterized by his accusers of old and how their harsh words against him have made the odds greatly out of his favor in this trial. He says, “But far more dangerous are these, who began when you were children, and took possession of your minds with their falsehoods, telling of one Socrates, a wise man, who speculated about the heaven above, and searched into the earth beneath, and made the worse appear the better cause.” Socrates is trying to assert that the accusations levied against him have essentially made him out to be some sort of Boogey Man creature; one who has the power to mislead young people into questioning the gods and believing that evil is good. He is saying that the elders of Athens who have made such claims against him have been telling ghost stories, trying to scare the next generation away from trusting Socrates.

In the same way, Socrates continues, “…they made them in days when you were impressible - in childhood, or perhaps in youth - and the cause when heard went by default, for there was none to answer.” Their tales have shaped the minds of those in the court against him. No one made a case in his defense in the days of these ancient accusations. These stories of a corrupt man were told to impressionable youth, so why would they question authorities about the validity of their claims? Socrates is claiming that the authorities of old have abused their position and have corrupted these youth who are now citizens of Athens. The people in the court have grown up hearing nothing but ill of Socrates and thus, are set against him from the very start.

Socrates is gently making the case that those who have raised up this new generation of Athens, and thus the new accusations, are corrupters of minds in favor of their own ideas. He describes that, “…there are some of them who are convinced themselves, and impart their convictions to others…” These ancient indicters have spouted their lies about Socrates for so long that they are convinced that it is the truth. They then have impressed their corrupted beliefs onto their children and others in Athens. Here Socrates is further trying to turn the tables to say that he is not the nefarious monster that they make him out to be, but in fact they are the fraudulent ones in Athenian society.

Finally, Socrates concludes this section with “…my opponents are of two kinds - one recent, the other ancient; and I hope that you will see the propriety of my answering the latter first, for these accusations you heard long before the others, and much oftener.” The point of Socrates indicating the corruption of his ancient accusers is to be able to discredit the more recent opponents he has acquired. He has said multiple times that those present in the court have been indoctrinated against him since the time of their youth. He starts with his ancient accusers in order to make an effort at explaining that the contemporary opponents have begun from a place of prejudice against him. By breaking down the charges brought against him by the ancient opponents, he can certainly poke holes in the premises of the new band of accusers.

The Apology of Socrates is often looked at in terms of the main arguments that Socrates makes in his defense. These are the obvious arguments that he is making; the ones where readers can clearly see an argument being made, but even from the very beginning of his defense, Socrates is making arguments. He presents the idea that he is standing trial by the products of his ancient accusers. He has been slandered since before most of those in the court were born. Socrates presents the idea that the ancient accusers have corrupted the minds of those putting him on trial. He has been made to look like a monster, when in fact; it is the hatefulness of the ancient accusers that is monstrous. The new set of accusers will bring charges against him, but those charges are deeply clouded by the falsehoods of their elders.

Performative Precis: A Dialogue Between Socrates and Protagoras

Ahmad Al-Zughoul

Rhetoric 103A

Kuan Hwa

October 8, 2016

In the initial scenes in Plato’s Protagoras, Plato creates a performative exchange between two head political figures, Socrates and Protagoras, in an attempt to delegitimize the school of Sophistical tradition. By examining the performative dynamics of the exchange, we can interpret Plato as arguing that the Sophistical tradition seeks only to persuade its participants to believe the side of the truth that is politically advantageous to the Sophists themselves. We can see this in his juxtaposition of the different mannerisms and argumentative styles of his two interlocutors. Ultimately, he makes this argument in order to establish his own school’s legitimacy and recruit members into his academy.

            A primary distinction exhibited in the dialogue is the way the mannerisms, or behavior towards one another, are polarized between the two figures. This is an important distinction because it highlights Protagoras’ emphasis on self-image and advertisement of his school versus Socrates’ emphasis on the proper extraction of truth. For example, Protagoras is consistently making sure he adequately participates in a host of rituals of courtesy to Socrates, seen when he acknowledges Socrates’ reputation, and is also willing to accommodate Socrates by asking questions such as “[d]o you wish… to speak with me alone, or in the presence of company”, proposing to his audience that he can and is willing to argue in any manner. By contrast, we see that in order to effectively prove his own side of the discussion, Socrates must violate and refute this established tradition of Sophistical customs and norms around dialogue in order to proceed in the way of argument that is useful to him. This emphasis on substance as opposed to tradition is exemplified when Socrates immediately butts in after Protagoras’ answer and asks him to “please to answer in a different way”, and provides him with an “example” that he should use to formulate his own answer. As such, we are provided with a scene in which Protagoras seems to be more concerned with showing off his discursive skill than getting to the heart of whether “virtue may be taught”.

Furthermore, a clear juxtaposition between the argumentative styles of the two figures is evident in this performative segment. The argumentative styles of each figure can be seen to reflect the priorities of each interlocutor, with Protagoras being unduly concerned with form over content, which Socrates is concerned with.  Although Socrates has similar moments later on in the dialogue, Protagoras’ main parts of dialogue are characterized by long, drawn out and elaborate speeches. For example, he chooses to argue his claim by putting forth a myth tale, which can be seen to be representative of his own style of speech, full of abstractions and indirect claims, mainly because it would “be more interesting”. Contrastingly, Socrates chooses to employ his relatively consistent and classical method of questioning himself and his interlocutor until an answer is reached and seemingly agreed upon. While Protagoras chooses the method that makes him seem to exhibit a wealth of knowledge and wisdom, any discerning reader will see that Socrates’ method is more valid. This is evident towards the end of the dialogue, where Socrates says “Protagoras, on the other hand, who started by saying that [virtue] might be taught, is now eager to prove it to be anything rather than knowledge; and if this true, it must be quite incapable of being taught”. This occurrence of events, namely the flipping of the original juxtaposed arguments to their complement juxtaposed arguments, can be viewed as commentary on Plato’s part about the Sophistical tendency to not truly believe or not be able to prove that which they propose as truth, but rather to simply propose that which is advantageous to them socially and politically, which, in this case, is that virtue can be taught, the very essence of their schools legitimacy and practice.