Plato's Apology: Socrates' Final Defense

Leland Lesnever
GSI: Kuan

Socrates argues that he is not guilty for the charges of corruption of the youth because his students, whom he has allegedly corrupted, have not testified against him. By working slowly through his argument, Socrates is able to make clear that he cannot be responsible for corruption of the youth because his students have never been corrupted in the first place.

To start his argument, Socrates begins with a summary of his testimony thus far. This reminder frames the following argument into the larger piece, but Socrates tailors the reminder to compliment this passage's argument. Socrates summarizes his argument by saying “I have told you already… they like to hear the cross-examination of the pretenders to wisdom” (Plato) but that once again he is gifted this wisdom by divine power such that “if not true, would be soon refuted” (Plato) by his students testifying against him. Socrates then elaborates on the point that his older students and their families have not come forward to testify against him. He says that by the time of his trial, a number of students have grown to the age that they should be able to understand that Socrates has corrupted them. Additionally, he phrases this statement as a sort of challenge for them to testify against him, demonstrating his confidence in their loyalty by saying that those who “have become sensible that I gave them bad advice in the days of their youth should come forward as accusers and take their revenge” (Plato). He goes on to legitimize this claim by listing a number of people who are in the position to testify against him, but have not. By associating himself with numerous notable individuals in Athens, he increases his credibility as a speaker, as each person’s credibility is offered in support of Socrates in that they have not testified against the claims he has made through his trial. He once again challenges those that he has listed to appear before the court and seek their revenge on Socrates, if he is responsible for any wrongdoing. He says “any of whom Meletus should have produced as witnesses in the course of his speech” (Plato) to return to the stand with “any testimony of the sort which he can produce” (Plato). Again, this idea of challenging his students whom he has allegedly wronged to testify demonstrates for the audience just how confident Socrates is in his plea for innocence. Finally, Socrates concludes his entire argument that his students have not come forward because they do not feel as if Socrates had wronged them, and thus he could not be guilty for the charges he is testifying. This main argument of passage is summarized in a rhetorical question that begs the audience to rethink their position on the trial of Socrates, declaring “why should they too support me with their testimony…. except for the sake of truth and justice, and because they know that I am speaking the truth, and that Meletus is lying” (Plato). The audience must think about whether or not they could still find Socrates guilty given those allegedly harmed have not come forward to lay blame.

By working step by step through the argument, Socrates simplifies the argument so that any audience member can understand specifically not only is Socrates not guilty, but there has been no corruption of youth regardless. Most simply, if those whom he has allegedly wronged do not feel the need to testify against him, he is not guilty of the accusations.

Look, You Don't Really Want To Kill My Daughter (A Rhetorical Précis of Hecuba)

Jae Keitamo

Dale Carrico; Rhetoric 103A

GSI: Jerilyn Sambrooke

7 October 2016

Look, You Don't Really Want To Kill My Daughter

A Rhetorical Précis of Hecuba

E. P. Coleridge’s translation of Euripides’ tragedy, “Hecuba” (424 B.C. E.) asserts, in Hecuba’s plea to Odysseus, that Polyxena should not be sacrificed over the grave of Achilles as the Achaeans demand. Hecuba intertwines both rhetorical inquiry and a Socratic-like deduction in illustrating her argument, which also serves to shame Odysseus for his refusal to show to her the same gratitude she exercised when she saved his life.  Within the questioning of Odysseus’ character is the first of Hecuba’s five rhetorical questions.  Her first line is a direct response to his admission that he lives by her grace.  She asks “what cleverness” it was that allowed for the “passing of their bloody vote,” but this question is not one that Odysseus would be able to answer as he was not included in the vote.  Moreover, the cleverness to which Hecuba refers is not the modern concept of someone being quick-witted, rather, it refers to one’s actual learning and wisdom.  She is questioning the collective intelligence of the governing body that decided her daughter should die.  Additionally, she wonders if it was duty that lead to the decision to sacrifice Polyxena, which suggests a motive of obligation and not desire.  Hecuba immediately qualifies the question of duty by pointing out that an oxen would be more appropriate, and it is this declaration that becomes the backbone of her argument: An oxen should be sacrificed, not a human. But if a human must be sacrificed, it should be one more deserving than Polyxena.  Hecuba does not try to subvert the edict to sacrifice a human, instead goes along with it and proposes two alternatives whom she deems far more deserving.  Hecuba asks if Achilles demands the life of someone responsible for his death as his recompense, a subjunctive which she conjured for the sole purpose of offering Helen, who brought him to Troy and is thus clearly responsible.  Her final rhetorical question posits that perhaps the decision to sacrifice a human was based on beauty.  Here again Hecuba does not attempt to undermine the notion, especially since it is an idea she alone posed, but she does immediately refute that Polyxena is the most beautiful of offerings and suggests that “the daughter of Tyndareus was fairer than all womankind,” and a more deserving sacrifice.

Having now offered two alternate sacrificial choices to Polyxena, Hecuba concludes her argument by emphasizing that her daughter does not deserve to die.  She returns to the very start of her speech and recalls that, at her feet and clutching her hand, Odysseus begged for the help that she now feels is due to her.  Likening her current state to his previous, the grieving mother illustrates how low her life has become, highlighting Polyxena as her one modicum of joy in a world mired in death.  In losing her daughter, Hecuba will lose the last comfort of her now downtrodden life - a pain from which Odysseus could spare her.  Equating the salvation she gave Odysseus, that she is the reason he is able to stand before her, with the saving of her daughter’s life, Hecuba does her best to appeal to his sense of empathy and tries to make him see that she is now as he once was.  Hecuba ends her speech by attempting to empower her audience.  She is aware that her station in life voids any weight her plea may have otherwise carried and begs of the men to speak on her behalf.  Appealing to the cleverness and duty which she previously questioned, she urges the “men of mark” to act with the honor that comes with refusing to commit such a hateful act.  

Plato’s Apology: The Grace of Death

Try Khov

Professor Dale Carrico

Rhetoric 103A

October 2, 2016

GSI: Kuan Hwa

                                          Plato’s Apology: The Grace of Death

            Perhaps no words can better exemplify Socrates’s life than the phrase, “the unexamined life is not worth living”, which Plato attributes to Socrates in Plato’s Apology. The quote was apparently famously uttered as Socrates failed to exonerate himself in court and was ultimately executed. However, what seems to appear as a tragedy to many, Socrates welcomes his fate for he claims, “Let us reflect in another way, and we shall see that there is great reason to hope that death is a good…” (p. 14). In his final words, Socrates attempts to assure his supporters that death is blessing rather than a punishment.

            Although Socrates understands that death is commonly seen as a punishment, he assures otherwise. “I regard [death] as proof that what happened to me is a good, and that those of us who think that death is an evil are in error” (p.13). His reasoning consists of two reason; “either death is a state of nothingness and utter unconscious or, as men say, there is a change and migration of the soul from this world to another” (p.14), which implies that he will either not be aware of his death or his soul will move elsewhere. Regarding the former, “Now if you suppose that there is no consciousness, but a sleep like the sleep of him who is undisturbed even by the sight of dreams, death will be an unspeakable” (p.14), Socrates states that if he should fall into a peaceful eternal slumber, then he welcomes death for he will be relieved of suffering. However, should the latter be true, “”But if death is journey to another place … If indeed when the pilgrim arrives in the world below, he is delivered from the professors of justice in this world, and finds the true judges who are said to give judgment there, Minos and Rhadamanthus, and Aeacus and Triptolemus … that the pilgrimage will be worth making” (p.14), then Socrates believes that he will find true justice and be judged righteously by the gods for he believes that the gods will make no mistake unlike their mortal counterparts.

            However, it appears that Socrates seems to favor and perhaps even hope for the latter of the two experiences after his death. “What would a man give if he might converse with Orpheus and Musaeus and Hesiod and Homer? Nay, if this be true, let me die again and again, I too, shall have a wonderful interest in a place where I can converse with Palamedes, and Ajax … and other heroes of old …” (p. 14). Socrates’ tone illustrates eagerness as he hopes to meet and converse the great heroes and characters of Greek mythology. In addition, perhaps Socrates’ ultimate desire in death is his opportunity to continue his pursuit of knowledge for he states, “Above all, I shall be able to continue my search into true and false knowledge … For in that world they do not put a man to death for this; certainly not. For besides being happier in that world than in this, they will be immortal, if what is said is true” (p.14). The use of the phrase “for besides being happier in that world than in this” illustrates Socrates’ optimism and perhaps eagerness to become “immortal” after death for he sees that the current world in which he resides is full of misery and false judgment.

            In conclusion, Socrates makes peace with his fate and assures his supporters that he welcomes it rather than grieve. His reasoning illustrates his character as optimistic in face of death as well as his passion for knowledge and wisdom. Despite his fatal lost to his accusers, he assures them that they gave him a blessing rather than a punishment. Perhaps he sought to deny them their satisfaction in their victory for he lastly proclaims “Wherefore, O judges, be of good cheer about death, and know this of truth – that no evil can happen to a good man, either in life or after death … For which reason also, I am no angry with my accusers, or my condemners … The hour of departure has arrived, and we go our ways – I die, and you to live. Which is better God only knows” (p.14).  Regardless of his intentions, Socrates ultimately instills the idea that death ought not to be feared but celebrated and welcomed.

The Origin of Love

Precis Assignment: Encomium of Helen

Kizal Butt

Rhetoric 103A

10/01/16

GSI: Kuan Hwa

Precis Assignment: Encomium of Helen

            My precis will be on the Encomium of Helen by Gorgias. The Encomium of Helen is a piece of work that essentially attempts to absolve Helen of her infamous reputation of being a supervillain in Athenian and Panhellenic culture. The particular passages I will be focusing on are 13-17, and they begin with the explanation of the persuasive power of discourse and the various forms it takes, and continues on to say how Helena was unlucky in falling prey to the misfortune of fear.

            In the first paragraph (13), Gorgias begins by laying out various forms that persuasion by discourse takes and what it can be used for. Whether its astronomers using discourse to make obscure concepts understandable, discourse in debate which is artful enough to persuade, but not necessarily honest, or the discourse of philosophers, which focuses on the speed of thought, Gorgias is trying to make the point that we encounter discourse in various aspects of our life. He does this in attempt to universalize the persuasive power of discourse, and how it can twist and turn to reach even our own minds. Gorgias not only describes discourse, but shows us the fragility of opinions. Astronomers’ discourse is key in us “…setting aside one opinion and building up another in its stead…” while philosophers speed of thoughts “…renders changeable the credibility of an opinion.” If opinions are so easily replaceable and changeable, who’s to say that unpopular public opinion of Helen can’t also be reversed.

            Paragraph 14 take an analogous route in furthering the persuasive powers of discourse. Although he likens discourse to medicinal drugs, he points out that it can be both healing and lethal, which is an important balance for this argument. Gorgias creates this balance to show both spectrums of discourse, one side where it can give pain and trick the soul (what was done to Helen) and on the other side where it gives delight and rouses the hearers to courage (a nod to Gorgias’s own work).

            Once Gorgias has established that Helen was simply unfortunate in falling prey to persuasion, he moves on to another reason she cannot be at “…blame for the sin alleged to have taken place.” (15) Gorgias is arguing that our sight is not a sense that sees things how we wish to see them, but through whatever impression that thing is emitting on to our soul. This impression does not bend to fit our nature, instead it overtakes our soul. Since having empathy or understanding for Helen might not be an immediate response to this writing, Gorgias attempts to make it as difficult as possible for us to at least deny her humanity, which includes a certain vulnerability to her senses, and more specifically in this case, her vision. Since our nature is not in control whatsoever in this scenario, Helen’s nature also cannot be questioned in any way.

            The impression imposed on our sight through our sight can lead to various emotions, which in turn lead to actions. This is the focus of the next two sections (16 & 17). “For the strong habitual force of law is banished because of the fear prompted by sight…” (16) shows this connection, and the hold this emotion can have on people. Basically, we are nothing in front of fear. When men encounter warriors in battle armor, they run off, prompted by fear. Gorgias uses this analogy to defend Helen because this is a time where war and battle were seen as very honorable acts, where fighting and dying were more admirable than fleeing from danger to save your own life. According to Gorgias, if courageous warriors with such high levels of dignity could flee before the battle even has even begun, who is Helena, a woman, to be able to withstand such persuasion of the soul?

            Fear however, doesn’t just lead people towards certain actions. It can also affect them from the inside out. Gorgias switches from the physical aspect to the mental aspect of fear in the 17^th section where he says that “…fear extinguishes and drives out understanding.” Understanding is how we reason and make sense of the world. It is also one of the ways we potentially differentiate right from wrong, and if fear completely takes these abilities away, we are essentially left clueless in the world. Not being able to know what is right and true can lead people to “…fall into useless troubles and terrible diseases and incurable dementias…” (17) These images remain in our minds and alter our way of thinking and acting. Through the course of these sections, Gorgias spins a defense for Helen but through various perceptions and viewpoints, things that resonated with the audience of the time, making it nearly impossible to argue with the logos of his writing.

            

The Melian Dialogue: A Meditation on Justice

Laura Jetter

GSI: Kuan Hwa 

When Athenian troops invaded the island of Melos during the Peloponnesian War, they sent envoys to attempt to persuade the Melians to surrender and pay tribute. Thucydides’s The Melian Dialogue presents the two opposing arguments rooted in logos and ethos from the Athenians and Melians, respectively. The Athenian logical argument appeals to the realm of the visible, of practicality and common sense; the powerful are just in exercising their strength on the weak. The Melians counter with an ethical appeal to the realm of the invisible, to decency and righteousness in the eyes of the gods.

            The Athenian envoys begin with a statement on the validity of justice, setting the theme for the debate to follow. They claim that “the question of justice only enters where the pressure of necessity is equal” (89). The “pressure of necessity” refers to which side has greater necessity for invoking justice in their case. The Athenians continue that “the powerful exact what they can, and the weak grant what they must” (89). The question of who is more powerful between the Melians and Athenians is not contested, as the latter is ubiquitous for their naval force. The Melians, as the “weak” in the aforementioned quote, have a greater necessity for invoking justice as a means defense. They demand in return that the Athenians respect a common good, that “when in peril a reasonable claim should be accounted a claim of right” (90). The Melians concede that they are the “man in peril”, whose reasonable claim of peace and independence as a neutral state should be treated as a right. However, it becomes clear that the Athenian conquest of Melos is not to fight their allies the Lacadaemonians, but to reinforce their own position of power and force in the eyes of their existing subjects and future colonies. To let Melos remain free would mean they did not “exact what they can” as the stronger entity and force the Melians to “grant what they must” as the weaker dominion, creating an upset in the natural order of power that threatens their hegemony. The Athenian logos appeals to natural order and strength, enforcing that surrender is the most logical choice for Melos in the face of their undeniable failure in a contest of might. However, this natural order only appeals to matters in the realm of the visible—of physicality and mortality. The ethical basis of the Melian argument for peace alludes to having superiority in the realm of the invisible—of morals and honor, which the gods hold dominion over. The Melian Dialogue transcends being a debate over freedom in wartime to a discussion of whether the visible or invisible holds true authority on the question of justice and status. The outcome of such determines who prevails in the discourse and the conquest.

            When the Melians refuse to forfeit on the grounds that fighting offers the “hope that we may stand upright”, the Athenians warn that when “visible grounds of confidence” have forsaken them, to invoke “recourse to the invisible” will “ruin men by the hopes which they inspire them” (102, 103). To the Athenian standpoint, trust in the invisible to determine justice and inspire hope creates fatal delusion in the face of a visible threat. The Melians invoke the invisible in their own argument, suggesting leverage from the “favour of heaven” as the “righteous” party against the “unrighteous” Athenians (104). The Melians imply that the outcome of the conquest will be determined from by the will of the gods, who must favor Melos for being honorable and righteous. To the Athenians, however, the gods and men alike abide a law of nature, “wherever they rule they will” (105). They re-appropriate the Melian argument to fit their agenda, interpreting the will of the gods to be in their favor on the basis on similar ideologies versus obeying ethics. In the end, neither side is swayed by the arguments of the other because they each appeal to completely separate and distinct domains of power. The Athenians and Melians differ in whether physical power and prudency or whether righteousness and patience have true authority on the question of justice. Upon refusing to forfeit, Athens easily conquers Melos, executing all military age citizens and colonizing the island. In the wake of Athens’s victory justice appears to lay in the realm of the visible, yet Sparta’s ultimate victory in the Peloponnesian war begs the question of whether the Melians foreshadowed Athenian defeat in their argument.

            The short-term and long-term outcomes of the Melian conquest and the Peloponnesian war as a whole transform the dialogue from a discussion on war and peace to an ideological argument between two prevalent realms of existence in Greek politics and society. Thus, the dialogue explores a dichotomy of power and authority. The interactions between the Athenians and Melians represent two sides of justice as a whole: the justice of the visible and invisible, respectively. As asserted in the beginning, justice only enters when there is equal “pressure of necessity”. From the Athenian standpoint, Melos has greater pressure of necessity since they are inferior in “visible ground of confidence”, such as military power. From the Melian standpoint, “pressure of necessity” is equal since they believe their cause to be in favor of the heavens on grounds of righteousness and morality, thus justice shall be the final judge. The Melian Dialogue explores the validity of justice in the presence of an imbalance and whether justice favors those who imbue their confidence in the realm of the visible or in the realm of the invisible.