Reading response: The Phaedrus
I am not ashamed to say that while reading through the Phaedrus I became lost or confused by the language of the speakers. However, after the explanations in class, I feel a lot more confident about the different topics that were being presented by Socrates and Phaedrus. Some times, when reading ancient texts, it is hard to see how they relate to readers now. I felt that there were some interesting points made by Socrates that still hold true in today’s society.
First, I thought his chariot analogy was timeless and could be incorporated into the present. The analogy is about a soul who is driving a chariot with a good horse that stays inline with truths and a bad horse that tries to sway the soul. The soul must then struggle to maintain control over the bad horse in order to allow the good horse to drive him. I think that this analogy still holds true because it centers on human nature. Human nature, I am guessing, hasn’t changed that much over the centuries. Sure, we have evolved, but there was and still is the constant struggle between good and evil that goes on inside of us. It is important for people to maintain control over their “evil” desires so they can maintain a good life. If someone struggles too much with their bad horse, then they miss out on the goodness life has to offer.
A second point I thought still holds true was when Socrates was discussing good speaking skills. Phaedrus was saying how he heard it was a disgrace to write speeches, but Socrates rebuked him saying that the disgrace was in speaking and writing badly. While today people probably don’t think that speech writing is a bad job, it is safe to say that they don’t like listening to an ill-written one. Today, if someone can’t communicate concisely and coherently, they aren’t going to get much praise. For instance, celebrities and politicians are frequently made fun of because of their poor communication skills. The biggest target as of late is President George W. Bush. Much of the American public equates the position of President as someone who is an eloquent speaker. They want someone who will represent them to outside countries as a competent population. Personally, I feel that it is a disgrace that someone in such a high position doesn’t have the necessary public speaking skills.
Overall, I enjoyed the Phaedrus after I got a chance to hear my classmates explain parts of the speeches. I really liked seeing the text brought to life. It gave me a chance to really understand the different aspects in their conversation. For instance, the wordiness and self-assurance of Socrates.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
You write about speaking and writing poorly, and it reminds me of the argument between Socrates and Gorgias concerning morality and rhetoric. I think that what you are writing about begs the question: Does the issue of the rhetor's intent also include the rhetor's ability to engage in discourse? Simply put, I wonder if we can look at the effectiveness of one's ability to formulate an arguments that goes in the direction that they had intended as one of the concerns involved with misleading an audience? This removes the rhetor's accountability in terms of malicious intent and shifts it to the realm of the unintentional yet potentially harmful. I believe that the rhetor must be responsible for using their abilities without becoming lazy or indifferent, but I'm not sure that there are some those out there who perform in this arena and actually give it their all. To me, that's just as bad as those who intentionally aim to mislead their audience.
Post a Comment