1. Literature Review
It is necessary to distinguish “philosophical rhetoric” and “philosophy of rhetoric” in the first place. The two concepts mentioned in this paper are both in western background. “Philosophy”, according to the popular western view, is the summary of knowledge, and the generalization about world development. From ancient times, western philosophers regard philosophy as the objective knowledge about the world and the tool to know the world. Therefore, philosophy is used to gain knowledge and truth. Study on “philosophy of rhetoric” has certain history. As “philosophy” is systematical world knowledge; “philosophy of rhetoric” is the systematical knowledge about rhetoric or metarhetoric. According to Li Baoyuan, “the philosophy of rhetoric deals with rhetorical phenomena chiefly from the perspective of epistemology, methodology, and the social nature of man.” (Li Baoyuan, 1994:8) The concept “philosophical rhetoric” has been put forward and used in The Philosophical Rhetoric of Socrates’ Mission by Robert Metcalf in 2004 and Shilun Bolatu de “Zhexue Xiucishu” by Lin Zhixiong in 2007. However, they neither give a clear definition to it. To make up this imperfection and understand Plato?s rhetorical view better, this paper tries to define “Philosophical rhetoric” as: the rhetorical phenomena aiming to find good and truth.
In The Philosophical Rhetoric of Socrates’ Mission, Robert Metcalf analyses Plato?s “philosophical rhetoric” in Apology. Socrates makes self-defense in the court defending against accusations of his sophistry, investigating the things under the earth and heavenly things, and that educating people for money, etc. In the beginning, Socrates tells the jury not to interrupt because he will tell truth. Robert Metcalf says if we look closely at Socrates defense, we can easily find that he avoids making himself as the agent responsible for the process by which he is hated, and repeatedly mentions his involvement in as innocuous way as possible. In the process, Socrates skillfully discloses some truth by using his rhetoric. Socrates practices “elenchos” which is essential to “dialectic”. Because rhetorical devices are used in this way, they are
2
considered as forms of “philosophical rhetoric” serving the soul?s excellence by the author.
There have been some researches about Plato?s rhetoric in domestic academic field. For example, Li Yongyi consideres Plato?s rhetorical view to be “ambiguous” in 2006. (Li Yongyi, 2006) Cui Yingxian compares Plato?s rhetoric with Aristotle?s, concluding that they hold the same opinion on subject rhetoric. First, Plato attaches more attention to people who participated in language activity, which is different from the simple rhetoric oriented sophists? practice. Second, Plato fixes on universal view, using philosophical ideas to guide rhetoric. In the paper of On Plato?s “philosophical rhetoric”, Lin Zhixiong shares his understanding. (Lin Zhixiong, 2007) when dealing with philosophy and rhetoric, Plato does not deny the value of rhetoric in politics, instead he highlights rhetoric?s responsibility to service for justice and philosophy. Another scholar investigates Plato?s “philosophical rhetoric” in his several works including Gorgias and Phaedrus, with main attention on his dialectic as a significant element in “philosophical rhetoric”.
These findings provide valuable reference for further research, for instance, they try to clarify the relation between philosophy and rhetoric, and put forward the concept of “philosophical rhetoric”. However, there are still spaces to improve. First, these are general findings without precise definition of the concept. Second, there is no detailed analysis about “philosophical rhetoric” in a representative work. Based on the existing research findings, and trying to further the research, this paper gives a working definition to “philosophical rhetoric” to develop the former scholars? findings, and analyzes Plato?s “philosophical rhetoric” in The Republic which is the best one to study his philosophy.
3
2. Plato’s “Philosophical Rhetoric”
2.1 Plato’s Philosophy
Sun Good Light Knowledge Visual Opinion Intellectual Intellectual objects
Figure 1 theory of Forms
As a great philosopher and thinker in ancient Greece, Plato developes his own philosophical system while inheriting Socrates? philosophy. Plato?s philosophical system includes his “theory of Forms” (or Ideas) as the base, “Doctrine of Recollection”, “dialectic” and “political philosophy”.
Plato's “theory of Forms” or “theory of Ideas” proposes that there are two worlds, the “visible world” and the “intellectual world”. And non-material abstract forms in the “intellectual world” possesses the highest and most fundamental kind of reality, whereas, the visible world we see everyday provides opinions about the forms. Theory of Forms is showed in figure 1.
Corresponding to the world of Forms is our world, that of the mimes, a corruption of the real one. This world is created by the Good according to the patterns of the Forms. Man's proper service to the Good is cooperation in the implementation of the ideal in the world of shadows; that is, in miming the Good.
Plato uses “theory of Forms” to solve the problem of universals. And his
4
“epistemology” derives from “theory of Forms”.
2.2 “Philosophical Rhetoric”
The word “rhetoric” has been used often in different meanings today. But tracing back to its origin, it is a complex discipline with a 2500-year-old tradition. It is universally agreed to develop in the west and has gained different definitions by different people. As Bizzell and Herzberg said, “it seems less helpful to define it once and for all than to look at some of its important definitions and to attempt to understand how each arouse and how each still inhibits and shapes the field.” (Bizzell and Herzberg ：1990)
In this paper, “rhetoric” refers to the classical rhetoric of the fifth century BC in Greece. It took its shape in the court of ancient Greece, and bloomed in the democracy of Greece. In about 456 BC, the revolution overthrown the dictator in a Greek colony on the island of Sicily, and then a democracy was established. The ensuing consequence was that, the property ownership of the citizens appeared to be a problem. Should it belong to the originate owner or to the current one? The court required the citizens to defend for themselves without professional attorney. Rhetoric was therefore, first and foremost the art of persuasion in the democratic court of ancient Greece. The first sophists became popular for they can teach the citizens to become skillful in public speech. Under such a democracy, people can do anything they want to as long as they can defend for themselves successfully in the court for their behavior.
Some scholars in early times concluded that Plato opposed rhetoric. As more researches go on, however, some researchers think that he is just objective to the sophists whose rhetoric is based on no knowledge. Later on, Plato?s thoughts have been typically divided into different period, namely, the early ?Socratic? period, the middle period and the late period. In the early ?Socratic? period, there were Apology, Crito, Euthyphro, Charmides, Ion, Lysis, Laches, Hippias Minor, Menexenus,
5
Euthydemus and the Protagoras. The Hippias Major, Gorgias and perhaps the Meno belong to the end of this period, maybe with the Gorgias and more likely the Meno verging into the middle period. The middle period works include the Cratylus, Symposium, Phaedo, Republic and perhaps the Phaedrus. In the late period works include the Parmenides, Theaetetus, Sophist, Politicus, Timaeus, Philebus and Laws, along with the Critias.And thus, Plato?s ideas have been divided accordingly into different period and are thought to be different in these periods. This paper only focuses on the middle period, also called the mature period when the philosophy of “Metaphysics”, “Theory of Forms” and “dialectic” of Plato are generated. In this period, Plato?s view on rhetoric is thought to be related to his philosophy. Plato thought that rhetoric was necessary for expressing ideas, but it must be subject to philosophy which leads to justice, good and truth.
This paper neither discusses the changing rhetorical views of Plato in different periods nor his view in many of his works, which is a large project, but will focus on his opinion on rhetoric at one specific stage of his life, that is the middle period, reflected in The Republic.
Plato famously outlines the differences between true and false rhetoric in a number of dialogues; particularly the Gorgias and Phaedrus wherein Plato criticizes that the sophists? rhetoric is independent on the art of dialectics. Plato claims that since sophists appeal only to what seems probable, they are not advancing their students and audiences, but simply flattering them with what they want to hear. Although Plato's condemnation of rhetoric is clear in the Gorgias, in the Phaedrus he suggests the possibility of a true art where rhetoric is based upon the knowledge produced by “dialectic”, and relies on a dialectically informed rhetoric to appeal to the main character, namely philosophy. Thus Plato's rhetoric is actually “dialectic” or philosophy.
6