Latest / The Philosophy Insights Collection / 10 - Phaedrus - Plato

Transcript

10 - Phaedrus - Plato · The Philosophy Insights Collection

• 0:00
  Section ten. Suppose that you read me the first words of Lucias's speech.
• 0:10
  Hm, you know how matters stand with me, and how as I conceive
• 0:16
  they might be arranged for our common interest. And I maintain that I ought
• 0:23
  not to fail in my suit, because I am not your lover for lovers
• 0:29
  repent enough, Now shall I point out the rhetorical error of those words.
• 0:38
  Yes, everyone is aware that about some things we are agreed, whereas about
• 0:46
  other things we differ. I think that I understand you, But will you
• 0:51
  explain yourself? When any one speaks of iron and silver, is not the
• 0:59
  same thing present in the minds of all, certainly, But when any one
• 1:04
  speaks of justice and goodness, we part company and are at odds with one
• 1:11
  another and with ourselves. Precisely, then, in some things we agree,
• 1:19
  but not in others. That is true in which are we more likely to
• 1:26
  be deceiv'd, and in which has rhetoric the greater power. Clearly, in
• 1:33
  the uncertain class, then the rhetorician ought to make a regular division and acquire
• 1:41
  a distinct notion of both classes, as well of that in which the many
• 1:48
  err as of that in which they do not err. He who made such
• 1:53
  a distinction would have an excellent principle. Yes, And in the next place,
• 2:01
  he must have a keen eye for the observation of particulars in speaking,
• 2:07
  and must not make a mistake about the class to which they are to be
• 2:13
  referred. Certainly, Now, to which class does love belong? To the
• 2:21
  debatable or to the undisputed? Class? To the debatable? Clearly? For
• 2:28
  if not, do you think that love would have allowed you to say,
• 2:31
  as you did, that he is an evil both to the lover and the
• 2:37
  beloved, and also the greatest possible good capital But will you tell me whether
• 2:46
  I defined love at the beginning of my speech, For having been in an
• 2:53
  ecstasy, I cannot well remember. Yes, indeed that you did, and
• 3:00
  no mistake. Then I perceive that the nymphs of Achelous and Pan, the
• 3:07
  son of Hermes, who inspired me, were far better rhetoricians than Lucias,
• 3:15
  the son of Caphelus. Alas how inferior to them he is. But perhaps
• 3:23
  I am mistaken. And Lucias, at the commencement of his lover's speech,
• 3:30
  did insist on our supposing love to be something or other which he fancied him
• 3:37
  to be. And according to this model he fashioned and framed the remainder of
• 3:44
  his discourse. Suppose we read his beginning over again, if you please,
• 3:52
  but you will not find what you want read that I may have his exact
• 3:59
  wordords you know how matters stand with me, and how as I conceive they
• 4:06
  might be arranged for our common interest. And I maintain I ought not to
• 4:13
  fail in my suit because I am not your lover. For lovers repent of
• 4:18
  the kindnesses which they have shown when their love is over. Here he appears
• 4:27
  to have done just the reverse of what he ought. For he has begun
• 4:31
  at the end, and is swimming on his back through the flood to the
• 4:38
  place of starting. His address to the fair youth begins where the lover would
• 4:45
  have ended. Am I not right, sweet fibers, Yes, indeed,
• 4:53
  Socrates, he does begin at the end. Then, as to the other
• 4:58
  topics, are they not thrown down anyhow? Is there any principle in them?
• 5:05
  Why should the next topic follow next in order? Or any other topic?
• 5:13
  I cannot help fancying in my ignorance that he wrote off boldly just what
• 5:19
  came into his head. But I dare say that you would recognize a rhetorical
• 5:27
  necessity in the succession of the several parts of the composition. You have too
• 5:35
  good an opinion of me, if you think that I have any such insight
• 5:41
  into his principles of composition. At any rate, you will allow that every
• 5:47
  discourse ought to be a living creature, having a body of its own and
• 5:54
  a head and feet. There should be a middle, beginning and end ad
• 6:00
  apted to one another and to the whole. Certainly can this be said of
• 6:06
  the discourse of Lucias. See whether you can find any more connection in his
• 6:14
  words than in the epipaph which is said by some to have been inscribed on
• 6:19
  the grave of Midas the Phrygian. What is there remarkable in the epitaph?
• 6:28
  It is as follows, I am a maiden of bronze, and lie on
• 6:33
  the tomb of Midas, so long as water flows and tall trees grow so
• 6:42
  long here on this spot by his sad tomb, abiding, I shall declare
• 6:48
  to passers by that Midas sleeps below. Now in this rhyme, whether a
• 6:57
  line comes first or comes last, as you will perceive, makes no difference.
• 7:04
  You are making fun of that oration of ours. Well, I will
• 7:11
  say no more about your friend's speech, lest I should give of friends to
• 7:15
  you, although I think that it might furnish many other examples of what a
• 7:23
  man ought rather to avoid. But I will proceed to the other speech,
• 7:30
  which, as I think, is also suggestive to students of rhetoric in what
• 7:36
  way. The two speeches, as you may remember, were unlike. The
• 7:44
  one argued that the lover and the other that the non lover ought to be
• 7:49
  accepted and right manfully, you should rather say madly and madness was the argument
• 8:01
  of them. For as I said, love is a madness, yes,
• 8:07
  and of madness there were two kinds, one produced by human infirmity. The
• 8:16
  other was a divine release of the soul from the yoke of custom and convention.
• 8:22
  True, the divine madness was subdivided into four kinds, prophetic, initiatory,
• 8:33
  poetic, erotic, having four gods presiding over them. The first was
• 8:41
  the inspiration of Apollo, the second that of Dionysus, the third that of
• 8:48
  the Muses, the fourth that of Aphrodite and Eros. In the description of
• 8:58
  the last kind of madness, which was also said to be the best,
• 9:03
  we spoke of the affection of love in a figure into which we introduced a
• 9:09
  tolerably credible and possibly true, though partly erring myth, which was also a
• 9:18
  hymn in honor of love. Who is your Lord and also mine fightre Us
• 9:26
  and the guardian of fair children? And to him we sung the hymn in
• 9:33
  measured and solemn strain. I know that I had great pleasure in listening to
• 9:39
  you. Let us take this instance and note how the transition was made from
• 9:46
  blame to praise. What do you mean I mean to say that the composition
• 9:54
  was mostly playful? Yet in these chance fancies of the hour were involved two
• 10:01
  principles of which we should be too glad to have a clearer description if art
• 10:09
  could give us one. What are they? First? The comprehension of scattered
• 10:16
  particulars in one idea, as in our definition of love, which whether true
• 10:24
  or false, certainly gave clearness and consistency to the discourse. The speaker should
• 10:31
  define his several notions and so make his meaning clear. What is the other
• 10:39
  principal? Socrates? The second principle is that of division into species according to
• 10:46
  the natural formation, where the joint is not breaking any part, as a
• 10:54
  bad carver might. Just as our two discourses alike assum'd. First of all
• 11:03
  a single form of unreason, and then as the body, which from being
• 11:09
  one becomes double, and may be divided into a left side and right side,
• 11:16
  each having parts right and left of the same name. After this manner,
• 11:24
  the speaker proceeded to divide the parts of the left side, and did
• 11:31
  not desist until he found in them an evil or left handed love, which
• 11:37
  he justly reviled, and the other discourse, leading us to the madness which
• 11:43
  lay on the right side. Found another love, also having the same name,
• 11:50
  but divine, which the speaker held before us and applauded and affirmed to
• 11:58
  be the author of the great, greatest benefits, most true. I am
• 12:03
  myself a great lover of these processes of division and generalization. They help me
• 12:11
  to speak and to think. And if I find any man who is able
• 12:18
  to see one and many in nature him, I follow and walk in his
• 12:24
  footsteps, as if he were a god. And those who have this art
• 12:31
  I have hitherto been in the habit of calling dialecticians. But God knows whether
• 12:39
  the name is right or not. And I should like to know what name
• 12:43
  you would give to your or to Lucius's disciples, and whether this may not
• 12:50
  be that famous art of rhetoric, which Thrasimacus and others teach and practice.
• 12:58
  Skillful speakers they are and impart their skill to any who is willing to make
• 13:05
  kings of them and to bring gifts to them. Yes, they are royal
• 13:13
  men, but their art is not the same with the art of those whom
• 13:18
  you call and rightly, in my opinion, dialecticians. Still we are in
• 13:26
  the dark about rhetoric. What do you mean the remains of it? If
• 13:31
  there be anything remaining which can be brought under the rules of art, must
• 13:37
  be a fine thing, and at any rate is not to be despised by
• 13:43
  you and me. But how much is left? There is a great deal
• 13:50
  surely to be found in books of rhetoric. Yes, thank you for reminding
• 13:58
  me. There is the exordium showing how the speech should begin, if I
• 14:05
  remember rightly, that is what you mean, the niceties of the art.
• 14:11
  Yes, Then follows the statement of facts, and upon that witnesses, thirdly
• 14:20
  proofs. Fourthly, probabilities are to come. The great Bizantian word maker also
• 14:30
  speaks. If I am not mistaken of confirmation and further confirmation you mean the
• 14:39
  excellent Theodorus. Yes, and he tells how refutation or further refutation is to
• 14:48
  be managed, whether in accusation or defense. I ought also to mention the
• 14:56
  illustrious Parion, even who first invented insinuations and indirect praises, and also indirect
• 15:09
  censures, which, according to some, he put into verse to help the
• 15:15
  memory. But shall I, too dumb forgetfulness consign Tissias and Gorgeoas, who
• 15:26
  are not ignorant that probability is superior to truth, and who by force of
• 15:33
  argument, make the little appear great and the great little disguise the new in
• 15:41
  old fashions and the old in new fashions, and have discovered forms for everything,
• 15:50
  either short or going on to infinity. I remember Prodigus laughing when I
• 16:00
  told him of this. He said that he had himself discovered the true rule
• 16:07
  of art, which was to be neither long nor short, but of a
• 16:12
  convenient length. Ah, well done, Prodicus. Then there is Hippias,
• 16:22
  the Alayan stranger, who probably agrees with him. Yes. And there is
• 16:30
  also Polus, who has treasuries of diplesiology and gnomology and iconology, and who
• 16:41
  teaches in them the names of which Lecumnius made him a present they were to
• 16:48
  give a polish had not Protagoras something of the same sort. Yes, rules
• 16:56
  of correct diction, and many other fine precepts for the sorrows of a poor
• 17:03
  old man or any other pathetic case. No one is better than the Chalstedonian
• 17:11
  giant. He can put a whole company of people into a passion and out
• 17:18
  of one again by his mighty magic and his first rated inventing or disposing of
• 17:26
  any sort of calumny on any grounds or none. All of them agree in
• 17:34
  asserting that a speech should end in a recapitulation, though they do not all
• 17:41
  agree to use the same word. You mean that there should be a summing
• 17:48
  up of the arguments in order to remind the hearers of them. I have
• 17:55
  now said all that I have to say of the art of rhetoric. Have
• 18:00
  you anything to add? Not much, nothing very important. End of Section ten.