Aristotle, Plato, Isocrates, and the Sophists a study of rhetoric, truth and philosophy
The earliest rhetorical theorist were teachers who sought to educate the citizens of Greece to be effective rhetors so they could be effective politicians and engaged citizens as democracy began to spread through the Greek legal and political system. In order to better understand rhetoric, it is important to look at a few of the most influential theorists and understand their life experience, training, and political views. In this paper we will examine the popular theorists Isocrates, Plato, Aristotle, and The Sophists. This will give us a better understanding of rhetorical philosophy and how it relates to the concept of truth.
Beginning with the earliest group of rhetoric scholars, the sophists were traveling teachers and diplomats who were effective because they have experienced other cultures through their travels. Sophists would teach subjects such as grammar, politics and mathematics. They also taught the citizens of Greece to be effective speakers so that they may take place in the democratization of the Greek courts. In Athens around 500 B.C.E. most professions were skill and craft based. The word sophist comes from ‘sophia’ which means wisdom, “Many of those with sophia became itinerate professional teachers, and they made their livings from teaching not craft skills, but what today would probably be called critical thinking, and personal and social skills; skills which then as now, were seen as widely applicable and most useful” (Johnson, 1998). We classify these teachers as sophists, but they were not united by any formal sense, instead they were individuals who taught from their own ideals and knowledge.
The sophists believed that truth is relative and had to be adjusted to fit the audiences needs in a certain time and with a certain set of beliefs and laws. Many bragged on their ability to talk impromptu on any subject and hold the attention of their audiences, “The sophists were said to be intellectually meretricious, preforming feats of verbal trickery and enchantment” (Jarratt, 1987). Since teaching was their profession, the Sophists accepted pay for their trade. According to Jarratt (1987), Gorgias, a popular sophist was said to have made enough money that he had a solid gold statue made of himself when he died, and Hippias bragged that he earned more money than any other sophists.
Plato was one of the earliest and most influential theorists who greatly opposed the ideas and opinions of the sophists. Plato believed that truth is absolute, “Plato has distinct approaches to absolute truth (that truth that resides in the forms) on the one hand, and worldly, or phenomenal truth on the other” (Simpson, 2007). He fears that Greek citizens would use rhetoric to deceive and mislead their listeners. Plato saw rhetoric as a form of power, “Plato believed that anyone could use dialect to discover the good and true, but only those who already possess truth could use rhetoric” (Borchers, 2006). Plato believed that there was no connection between dialect and rhetoric especially as it relates to truth and morality. Rhetoric is not an art in Plato’s opinion but instead it is a way to deceive.
Plato’s writings are unique and enjoyed because they take the form of dialog between characters, “For Plato was primarily an entertainer, a great impresario and setter of scenes, and stager of romances great and small where fact and fiction, religion and fancy, custom and myth are blended by imaginative treatment into-no one knows exactly what the mixture should be called” (Chapman, 1992). Unlike many of the other theorist Plato believed that Rhetoric could not be taught, instead it was a gift that some people possessed, his major complaint with teaching rhetoric was that it was an unprincipled teaching of the Sophists. Plato did believe that with carful instruction, rhetoric could be used to “preserve justice”. Plato believed “A true rhetorician must first be a just man” (Gorgias, 508, p. 84).
Unlike the sophists who accepted pay for their teaching, Plato believed that teachers had a public obligation to teach their student. Plato like Aristotle wanted a more altruistic form of education, “In contrast to the detached aristocrats Plato and Aristotle, the sophist in these unverifiable reports take almost monstrous qualities of greed, exhibitionism, and deceit” (Jarratt, 1987).
Isocrates was another great scholar of rhetoric in the Golden Era of Rhetoric, but unlike Plato he was more practical about rhetoric and less idealistic of its implications. “So, for Isocrates, three important functions of rhetoric are to display the art of the author, to improve (but not merely gratify) the audience, and to deal with important matters” (Benoit, 1991). He focused on the morality of politics and open what is considered the first institution for liberal arts education. He was considered a poor speaker who lacked character in his presentation unlike his fellow popular scholars. Instead his style consisted of a literary form that should be read rather than spoken or heard. Since Isocrates is less idealistic he is considered less of a philosopher and more of an orator, “Isocrates’ work has suffered more than most in modern scholarly estimation for its failures to fit disciplinary categories” (Livingstone, 2007), showing that his works did not carry philosophic value.
Isocrates like Plato had a relationship with Socrates, but while Plato was considered a friend, Isocrates was considered a student. In his works he even refers to Socrates as his “Master”. Isocrates rejected the idea of absolute truth unlike Plato and states that general theories of rhetoric had limited applicability. Both Isocrates and Plato believed that the sophists disrespected the idea of truth and protect their own self-interest over caring for the wellbeing of others. Isocrates charges “The majority of orators have the have the audacity to harangue the people, not the good of the state but for what they themselves expect to gain” (Benoit, 1991). The differences in Plato and Isocrates idealism is adherent, “in fact you could say that for Isocrates, rhetoric constitutes knowledge, giving rhetoric primacy over knowledge; for Plato, knowledge (obtained though dialectic) precedes rhetoric, which is clearly secondary to and dependent on knowledge” (Benoit, 1991). To Plato dialectic is more fundamental than rhetoric, which contrast sharply to Isocrates beliefs.
Aristotle is the last of the great theorists that we will look at, he is also probably the most well known in modern times. When Aristotle was young he went to study at Plato’s academy and then became an instructor at the school for twenty-one years. Aristotle was influenced by Plato but did not agree with him on all things. Plato believed that we cannot know reality except for as an idea. Aristotle on the other hand believed that through observation we come to know the reality of experiences. Aristotle states that rhetoric is the observing in any given case the available means of persuasion. Aristotle also gives us the three species of rhetoric that we evaluate: Demonstrative which is aimed at the past, Judicial which deals with the present, and deliberative that talks about the future, and each type has a specific audience.
Isocrates does not offer a formal definition of rhetoric but though his writing it is clear that he sees rhetoric as the study of persuasion, much like Aristotle. Aristotle also claims that rhetoric is an art unlike Plato, “Aristotle offers a finer distinction, characterizing it as the art of identifying the available means of influence in particular cases” (Benoit, 1990). Aristotle saw no epistemic function of rhetoric, “For him, science discovers truth, and dialectic test particular statements” (Benoit, 1990). Neither Isocrates or Aristotle except the idea of absolute true like Plato, but they also don’t except the concerning view of the sophist when it comes to truth so they fall somewhere in the middle of the two.
To conclude we look at how the history of rhetoric and how it is perceived by scholars that had conflicting views on what rhetoric, philosophy, dialect, and truth means. An understanding of this will show how conflict have been debated though out history. By studying the sophist, we are able to understand how orators contributed to a growing democracy and strengthen discourse amongst citizen in ancient Greece and how it has had long term effects on how we view democracy today. We have moved away from the idea of subjective truth, but we also do not expect the ideas of absolute truth. As discussed with Isocrates and Aristotle people need to understand the search for truth is never so cut and dry and we need to except there are no absolute truths that we cannot see. Understanding the role of persuasion in people’s lives also questions the philosophies of what truth is. How we go about teaching these ideas to the public has varied, in different times the concepts of education being needed for democratic societies has changed. In terms of the sophist we see the need to pay to learn discourse, in the eyes of Plato it is the civic duty of the teachers to educate society. By understanding how discourse can be affected by the idea of rhetoric, truth, and philosophy we may become better democratic citizens.
Reference
Benoit, W. (1990). Isocrates and Aristotle on Rhetoric. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 20(3), 251–259. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3885845
Benoit, W. (1991). Isocrates and Plato on Rhetoric and Rhetorical Education. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 21(1), 60–71. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3885281
Borchers, T. A. (2011). Rhetorical theory: An introduction. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Chapman, J. (1992). Plato. Arion: A Journal of Humanities and the Classics, 2(2/3), 66–97. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20163529
Jarratt, S. (1987). The First Sophists and the Uses of History. Rhetoric Review, 6(1), 67–78. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/465950
Johnson, S. (1998). Skills, Socrates and the Sophists: Learning from History. British Journal of Educational Studies, 46(2), 201–213. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3121784
Livingstone, N. (2007). Writing Politics: Isocrates’ Rhetoric of Philosophy. Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric, 25(1), 15–34. doi:10.1525/rh.2007.25.1.15
Simpson, D. (2007). Truth, truthfulness and philosophy in Plato and Nietzsche. British Journal For The History Of Philosophy, 15(2), 339–360. doi:10.1080/09608780701255485