In what is surely one of the most confusingly written paragraphs ever put to paper in any language, Socrates in Phaedrus states “Since the nature of speech is in fact to direct the soul, whoever intends to be a rhetorician must know how many kinds of soul there are. Their number is so-and-so many; each is of such-and-such a sort; hence some people have such-and-such a character and others have such-and-such. Those distinctions established, there are, in turn, so-and-so many kinds of speech, each of such-and-such a sort. People of such-and-such a character are easy to persuade by speeches of such-and-such a sort in connection with such-and-such an issue for this particular reason, while people of such-and-such another sort are difficult to persuade for those particular reasons.” While reading that paragraph in it’s entirety ranks somewhere between climbing Everest and giving birth to triplets on a scale of difficulty, the meaning is actually quite simple, namely, know your audience.

Once the meaning of the paragraph is extracted from the veritable sea of such-and-suchs and so-and-sos, it can be seen that Socrates is actually making a decent point. He is simply stating that certain people respond best to certain types of speeches, and that a necessary skill for an adept speaker is to be able to identify the best type of speech for convincing or affecting their audience. Socrates’ brings this up for several reasons, the first being that he and Phaedrus are discussing the nature of rhetoric and trying to define what makes a good or skilled rhetorician. Secondly, Socrates will reference the tendency of a speaker to speak differently to different audiences later in Phaedrus, when he states his complaints with speaking and speakers. He states that speakers often deceive their audiences and that a skilled speaker can convince an audience of anything they wish for them to believe.

On Socrates’ point that knowing one’s audience is essential to the art of public speaking I concur wholeheartedly. Being able to identify and speak to specific aspects of an audience member’s sympathies or beliefs is essential when stating an opinion. This can commonly be seen in everyday, especially in politics, where, for example, politicians may speak to an audience about their fears, be it immigrants, other religions, gun violence or control, abortion, or any other controversial issue. Using an audience’s pre-held notions as a jumping off point for garnering support is par for the course in modern political speeches and debates. Another example, one that I have more personal experience with, is in debating. Debaters would often identify types of judges and change their speeches accordingly, even advising their teammates about specific judges. For example, “lay judges” were amature judges with less understanding about debates, and we would “dumb down” our speeches accordingly. On the other hand, judges from the UAA debate team would make us try harder and concentrate more on our wording and the complexity of our arguments. I even heard stories of the dreaded “Hippie Judge” from other debaters. Identifying the audience to which one is speaking and altering one’s speech accordingly is an essential skill for any aspiring speaker, exactly as Socrates asserts.

While I do feel that Socrates is correct in saying that knowing and speaking to one’s audience is an important skill and one that is frequently used by speakers, I would also argue that a true master speaker and speechwriter would be able to deliver an effective and convincing speech to any audience. Being able to adapt a speech to fit multiple audiences on the fly would be the mark of a real expert public speaker, even more so than knowing how to identify and speak to your audience beforehand. Additionally, being able to construct a speech that is effective to any audience, without prior knowledge, is an indication of brilliant speech writing.

I also find myself agreeing with Socrates’ eventual assertion that speeches can be used to deceive and trick people, and sway the public opinion in whichever way the speaker wants it to go, especially when the speaker knows how to properly speak to his or her audience. This is another phenomenon that is very common in politics, and is frequently coupled with the speaking tactic of speaking to a specific audience, as covered earlier. Manipulating the public’s fears and wants and associating them with one’s particular beliefs or agenda is a common and effective political strategy. This technique is used very often in American politics, over issues such as immigration and foreign policy, and is most commonly seen during election seasons, as candidates try to skew public perception of issues in their favor using speeches and debates. It seem as though politicians and their methods may not have changed much since the times of the ancient greeks.

While speakers certainly can deceive and outright lie to listeners, to the listener’s credit, anyone who thinks critically, considers other perspectives, and researches information on their own, a listener can see through a politician’s deception. The speaker must count on the listeners to trust him or her in order for their trick to work, and when that trust is eroded, their speaking career can be over. While this was no easy feat in the 
time of Socrates, modern day listeners can protect themselves from these kinds of manipulations easily, especially since the advent of the internet age. Any major speech made today is analyzed and fact checked and picked apart as soon as the words are uttered, often before the speech is even over. These findings are spread around the world and made available to the public in a way that was never possible before. For the first time in history, it may be possible to overcome the efforts of speakers and put the power firmly back into the hands of the listeners, and could make Socrates’ fears unfounded. It would be interesting to see what his opinion on the state of public speaking and rhetoric in this age where we are inundated in information at all times.

Blog Entry Number One, Lysis

One of Plato’s major postulations about the nature of friendship and love in the Socratic dialogue Lysis is that one can only be truly loved by someone if that someone imposes no limits on the individual in question and allows him or her to be entirely free in their actions. According to Plato, this is because he believes that it is impossible to be happy without total freedom, and that in order for someone to truly love or care for another, they must want them to be happy. This in turn means they must allow them total freedom. Plato explains this to Lysis by saying that his parents cannot love him, because they place him in the charge of a tutor, who is a slave, and will not let him do certain things that were entrusted to slaves or hired hands. Plato asserts that because of this, Lysis’ parents are preventing him from happiness and must not love him. In the dialogue, Plato uses this as a jumping off point for his discussion on the nature of friendship with Lysis and Menexenus. Plato’s assertions on this are never significantly challenged as the conversation moves on, but I feel that the assumptions have a weak foundation and merit further examination.

The first problem I have with Plato’s view is with his opinion that happiness comes from total freedom. While limitations on freedom can certainly be limitations on happiness, I disagree that one must be permitted to do whatever they desire to be happy. No person can ever be truly entirely free from obligations and limitations, but it is certainly true that people are capable of being happy. Happiness depends on many other factors than just freedom, including outlook and attitude, the meeting of basic needs, and having satisfying social connections. For example, someone may work at a job under a manager or boss, and not be free to leave or to spend their time as they wish, but may still be happy with the work they do, or be satisfied with their life overall. A restriction on freedom does not necessarily cause a lack of happiness in the way that Plato asserts it does.

I also find myself disagreeing with Plato’s views that in order to care about and love someone, one must always strive to make them happy. There are many situations where what would make someone happy and what would be in their best interests are in conflict. For example, a friend might have a problem with addiction or be an a toxic relationship, and may feel a sense of happiness with their situation. I believe that a true friend would try to help the other out of a bad situation, even if it may be painful or difficult. Additionally, a friendship may be dynamic and frequently changing. At some points, one friend may be in a vulnerable position and need help and attention from the other, without reciprocating at that time. In a situation such as this, one one friend is being made happy while the other is providing somewhat altruistically and not receiving any happiness. As long as this situation is not permanent, a friendship may remain intact despite a happiness imbalance. While it is necessary for both parties in a friendship to find happiness in that friendship, it is not necessary that both parties find happiness at every moment in a friendship or that both parties constantly strive to please each other.

There are also many situations where a friend or someone who loves another could want to deny another’s freedom for their sake. The aforementioned examples of an addiction or an abusive relationship are embodiments of this concept, as it may be necessary to put a friend in a rehabilitation facility or try to remove them from a bad situation. Parents limiting their children’s behaviors and freedoms is another example, one used specifically in the dialogue as an example by Plato as to why Lysis’ parents do not truly love him. However, I see this behavior as a sign of love rather than a sign of a lack of love. Parents acting out of concern for their child’s safety may prohibit them from engaging in dangerous activities, and may place their child under the authority of another such as a teacher for their benefit. They do this not to deny their child of freedom and happiness but for their child’s benefit and safety, even if the child feels limited or oppressed and a sense of unhappiness.

My final issue with Plato’s position is that he seems to define all friendships as utility friendships, wherein friendship is based solely on the usefulness of the two friends to each other. Plato tells Lysis “...your father does not love you, nor does anyone love anyone else, so far as that person is useless.” While I do agree that all friendships must have some sort of usefulness or benefit to both parties, I do not believe that it is impossible to love or be friends with someone who does not benefit you. As i stated earlier, sometimes friendships are dynamic and one friend may temporarily reap all the benefit while the other gets nothing, but the two are still friends. Additionally, I believe that parents often love their children unconditionally, even though they may not have a use for them. This is especially true of younger children. For example, the vast majority of mothers and fathers would say they love their new baby, but they do not get any real use from a baby, especially not usefulness due to the baby’s actions or purposeful contribution to the relationship.

In summary, I believe that Plato’s views on the nature of love in terms of usefulness and freedom are false. This is because I find that it is illogical to assume that total freedom is necessary for happiness and that it is required for a friend to constantly try to make the object of their friendship happy at all times. Additionally, I feel that there are multiple ways that the opposite of Plato’s believes can be true and that a denial of happiness and freedom can sometimes be an indication of greater love than just pleasing a friend, and that it is possible for a friend and especially a parent to love and feel for someone even when that someone serves no immediate use to them.