We recently read some excerpts from writings by Plato, in which Socrates has discussions with Gorgias and Phaedrus about rhetoric. They were interesting to read, though I wasn’t sure how to feel about them. Plato seemed to depict Socrates in an odd way, and it makes me wonder if Socrates had anything remotely to do with these works, or if they’re true stories or fiction. Plato’s Socrates spoke at length, and his dialogue felt as though he spent most of his time leading his conversation partner into a corner where he could ask them a trapped question about rhetoric. Perhaps that’s how Socrates actually spoke, or perhaps not.
At any rate, some of the things Plato wrote could still have many applications today, as a lens to view current events objectively. I’ll apply a few things to Christianity as an example.
Christianity is a fairly widespread religion that has many divisions that fall under the general umbrella. It has a message (that of belief in God) that it tries to spread, which fits the rhetorical objective to persuade others of what the rhetor believes. People who challenge Christianity are generally the same people who challenge religion in general, or the existence of a God at all.
Socrates did not believe in a divine being, but he did believe in a world beyond our own, which mirrors the Christian belief in a Heaven. However, Christians believe in God, a divine being who is said to be returning one day to take the faithful people to Heaven. Socrates did not believe in any sort of divine being, much less a creator, instead saying that humans had to reach this next world on their own. This would be grounds for Socrates to debate with Christians about their beliefs.
Socrates also disliked rhetoric and was quite open about believing that it was not a way to find reliable truth. Dialectic was his preferred method of speech, because it did not rely on belief. Rhetoric, according to Plato’s versions of Socrates and Gorgias, is based primarily on the rhetor’s belief in what they say. Its purpose is to persuade, but it is not the only way to persuade. Because Christianity is based entirely on belief in something that cannot be proven, Socrates would likely dislike Christianity’s methods and teachings.
Plato also made a point to distinguish between knowledge and belief, between learning and believing. Socrates preferred to focus on the provable, the learning of knowledge, rather than belief and faith. Despite his belief in a world beyond, he focused on the here and now, trying to teach his students how to hone their souls so that they might reach their potential in the next world.
Socrates confronts Gorgias with the argument that even though rhetoric is used in courts of law, where legality and rules have the highest of power, it is primarily a method of persuasion and belief. A rhetor would be able to convince lawmen of an accused person’s innocence, to convince them what is right and what is wrong. This, he said, was not education, but creation of beliefs, whether or not they may be true. Gorgias says that of course this is true, that the power of rhetoric embraces all other arts, and claims he was able to convince patients to take their treatments even when the doctors could not, simply through rhetoric. However, he says that rhetoric is not to be used against anyone and everyone, but at a target audience, like any tool or art.
This is important because Christianity has a target audience as well – unfortunately, that audience is, in an ideal situation, everyone. The aim of Christianity is to spread the message of God’s salvation and the end of sin, so that everyone on Earth has heard the story. According to Gorgias, however, the tool of rhetoric, the persuasion, cannot be used on anyone and everyone. It is for this reason that many people become or remain atheistic, or at the very least agnostic. They believe religion is pointless and the church, the Christian institution, holds nothing for them.
I have no opinions on what the church does, but I do notice this important comparison of what Plato wrote, and what the church does today. Do I agree? According to rhetors, that doesn’t matter as much as how well I am able to present the issue. I hope this has provoked thought, and has been a reminder of the importance of past people’s discoveries – even outdated beliefs have value. That is why we learn from history. If we do not, we only repeat it.
Buried Relic 