Although he was deemed a threat to the city, Socrates' practice of engaging other Athenians in discussion was actually an attempt on his part to foster a bond with his political community pp. And what is good or bad writing or speaking.
But Plato had doubtless a higher purpose than to exhibit Socrates as the rival or superior of the Athenian rhetoricians. Controversies about, say, the effects of graphic depictions of violence, of the degradation of women, and of sex, echo the Platonic worries about the ethical and social effects of art.
And what is good or bad writing or speaking. Socrates, Aristophanes, and Agathon are left behind discussing tragedy and comedy: Socrates is starting to push against the theses that bad people will flourish or that good people can be harmed. No attainments will provide the speaker with genius; and the sort of attainments which can alone be of any value are the higher philosophy and the power of psychological analysis, which is given by dialectic, but not by the rules of the rhetoricians.
Now the characters of lovers depend upon the god whom they followed in the other world; and they choose their loves in this world accordingly. Sex can lead to virtue, in other words, without the need for hard work.
Again, the image portrays the realm of Being as being beyond the realm of the visible, tangible etc. Thrown off their moral balance, McCoy argues, his jurors might be led to question themselves. The first passage is remarkable as showing that Plato was entirely free from what may be termed the Euhemerism of his age.
To return to the Phaedrus: Scholars dispute the answers to these well-known questions. In addition to this interpretive project, no small undertaking in itself, Nichols adds a comparative task to her agenda in pitting her view of Socrates as a proponent of friendship against two rather different views advanced by Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, for whom Socrates is an otherworldly figure, alienated from human society.
Callicles advances a substantive position grounded in a version of the distinction between nature and convention and defends it.
The dialogue provides no shortage of examples of Socrates articulating useful concepts, analyzing and criticizing claims, and theorizing in imaginative ways.
Taking into account the divisions of the soul, the doctrine of transmigration, the contemplative nature of the philosophic life, and the character of the style, we shall not be far wrong in placing the Phaedrus in the neighbourhood of the Republic; remarking only that allowance must be made for the poetical element in the Phaedrus, which, while falling short of the Republic in definite philosophic results, seems to have glimpses of a truth beyond.
Yet we are never told what he thought about—what it was that one knew before the other.
The soul of a man may descend into a beast, and return again into the form of man. To the uninitiated, as he would himself have acknowledged, they will appear to be the dreams of a poet who is disguised as a philosopher.
It is not a legitimate son of knowledge, but a bastard, and when an attack is made upon this bastard neither parent nor any one else is there to defend it. The real art is always being confused by rhetoricians with the preliminaries of the art. The book thus has two general aims.
Some clarification of key terms would have also been helpful. This admission could be understood in several ways: At any rate, it is a special problem for her reading of Plato that the practice of philosophy is rendered impossible when she locates similar worries in the views of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche.
But it is not wholly devoid of truth. Socrates then proposes that they shall use the two speeches as illustrations of the art of rhetoric; first distinguishing between the debatable and undisputed class of subjects. It consisted more and more of compilations, of scholia, of extracts, of commentaries, forgeries, imitations.
Whereas Socrates and Plato include a central role for love and friendship in their reflections on the human good, one cannot help but feel by the end of Nichols' work that in their own portraits of the good life, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and their modernist peers have bequeathed us a legion of chronic brooders.
And still, like a bird eager to quit its cage, she flutters and looks upwards, and is therefore deemed mad. It is too often forgotten that the whole of the second discourse of Socrates is only an allegory, or figure of speech.
Mythos has been seen in the very surroundings in which the speeches have been made. What the elenchus needs if it is to satisfy rather than frustrate love, in other words, is the theory of Platonic Forms. Socrates too starts to speak at length, sounds rhetorical at times, and ends the discussion with a myth.
The least things were preferred by him to the greatest. In such a manner, turning the seamy side outwards, a modern Socrates might describe the evils of married and domestic life.
Another remarkable passage follows:. Phaedrus, and Lysis In Socrates on Friendship and Community, Mary P. Non-Lovers (Lysias’ Speech and Socrates’ First Speech Souls and their Fall Lovers and their Ascent Prayer to Love Socrates’ Second Sailing and the Ideas Piety, Poetry, and Friendship Works Cited Index.
I present herewith a translation of Plato's Phaedrus with supplementary exegetical materials. The work is primarily intended to enhance the Greek reader’s understanding and appreciation of the text.
Indeed, by the time we reach Socrates's Second Speech, Phaedrus and he have themselves entered the fictional realm and when he is. Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews is an electronic, peer-reviewed journal that publishes timely reviews of scholarly philosophy books.
Socrates on Friendship and Community: Reflections on Plato's Symposium, Phaedrus, and Lysis // Reviews // Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews // University of Notre Dame. Phaedrus by Plato, translated by B. Jowett.
In the second speech Socrates is exhibited as beating the rhetoricians at PHAEDRUS: Yes, Socrates, you seem to have a very unusual flow of words. SOCRATES: Listen to me, then, in. Plato's Phaedrus. The central theme of this dialogue is michaelferrisjr.com problem of love serves as the provocation for the speeches, the content of the speeches and the reflection upon speech as a whole.
Further, it is not the case that the views Plato puts into the mouth of his Socrates are necessarily espoused by Plato himself; they may or may not be those of Plato.
Since Plato did not write a treatise in his own voice, telling us what his views are, it is impossible to know with certainty which views he espouses (at least on the basis of the.A reflection on socrates second speech in phaedrus