ABSTRACT This essay questions the reading of Plato's Phaedrus according to which writing is understood as a mechanism of objectivity and critical distance. Plato's denomination of writing as a “pharmakon” indicates a deep ambiguity in his definition of writing—an ambiguity embodied in Phaedrus's written speech. The speech triggers both critical analysis and a simultaneous “rhetorical passivity,” whereby upon hearing the speech Socrates is consumed by a manic power. Although Socrates explicitly decries the detrimental consequences of writing in the Myth of (...) Theuth, he nevertheless is overcome by the power of the written speech and driven to a state of logomania. The Phaedrus demonstrates the potential for the written word to release one into a type of passivity, where the subject is no longer an autonomous master but a passive receiver. (shrink)

Rhetoricians usually consider Plato's Republic as a work dedicated to political philosophy. As such, it is ostensibly antidemocratic and thus antirhetorical. But if we focus on the reason for the political allegory—the investigation of justice in the soul—it is clear that Plato is interested in Burke's question: “What is involved, when we say what people are doing and why they are doing it?” Accordingly, this article employs the terms of Burke's pentad in order to articulate the rhetorical significance of Plato's (...) own drama of psychic motivation. Ultimately, I read the degenerating constitutions of the Republic as a rhetorical typography that not only identifies audience types and how to influence them, but also offers a map of psychic transformation that addresses Socrates's famous challenge to rhetoric in the Phaedrus. (shrink)

Resumen En este trabajo analizo algunos de los argumentos clásicos que la tradición retórica contrapone al discurso filosófico. Para ello, comienzo sobrevolando las características que definen al discurso filosófico de filiación platónico-cartesiana, y que son relevantes para la querella con la retórica. Luego intento elaborar un ataque en dos frentes. Por un lado, me detengo en la rehabilitación de la doxa como elemento vital del discurso práctico, en contra de la depreciación a que se ve sometida bajo el enfoque universalista (...) de la filosofía. Luego, tomando como base la noción de sentido común, analizo la idea de "auditorio", esencial para la retórica, y la consiguiente pluralidad de esferas de validez que conlleva. Dicha pluralidad horizontal contrasta con el monismo verticalista del discurso filosófico. Finalmente, en la conclusión dejo abierto uno de los problemas más urgentes de este movimiento pluralista que propone la retórica.In this paper I analyze some classical arguments used by rhetorical tradition to oppose philosophical discourse. To do this, I give a brief account of the characteristics defining the philosophical discourse of Platonic-Cartesian affiliation that are relevant for the dispute with Rhetoric. Then, on the one hand, I dwell upon the rehabilitation of doxa as a vital element of practical discourse in order to countering the downgrading of doxa by the universalistic approach of philosophy. On the other hand, based on the notion of common sense, I analyze the idea of "audience", essential for Rhetoric, as well as the resulting plurality of spheres of validity. This horizontal plurality contrasts with the vertical monism of philosophical discourse. Finally, in the conclusion I point out one of the most urgent problems of this pluralistic movement that rhetoric has proposed. (shrink)

At the beginning of the "Phaedrus", Socrates distinguishes between two kinds of people: those who are more complex, violent and hybristic than the monster Typhon, and those who are simpler, calmer and tamer (230a). I argue that there are also two distinct types of Eros (Love) that correlate to Socrates’s two kinds of people. In the first case, lovers cannot attain recollection because their souls are disordered in the absence of self-knowledge. For the latter, the self-knowledge of self-disciplined lovers renders (...) them capable of recollecting the Forms by ordering their souls naturally. (shrink)

This article updates “The State of the Question in the Study of Plato” (Southern Journal of Philosophy, 1996) based on research covering the years from 1995–2015. Its three major parts examine: (1) how the mid‐twentieth‐century consensus has fared, (2) whether the new trends identified in that article have continued, and (3) identify trends either new or missed in the original article. On the whole, it shows the continuing decline of dogmatic and nondramatic Plato interpretation and the expansion and ramification of (...) the more literary, dramatic, and nondogmatic “new Platonism.” What was a growing insurgency twenty years ago can now be described as a, if not the, dominant approach. (shrink)

There exists an organic parallel between rhetoric and democratic governance. This parallel can best be called “generative logos”—a term used by the Stoics. This helps explain why emotional motivation can, in democratic arrangements, help create stability. In this sense, it is generative logos that unites Plato and Aristotle on the instructive potential of rhetoric in the context of direct democracy—a political arrangement both philosophers, much like they did rhetoric, viewed as being amorphous.