For those interested in my reading this week and one question that motivates my studies this weekend, I have appended some brief notes on a section of Phaedrus (around 234d).
Rhetoric can be charming, but being charmed is dangerous for any person who wants to be free. This week I have been reflecting on ways to make my personal speech less likely to “charm” and more likely to stimulate thought and liberty in the listeners.
I don’t want them to remember my speech, but to long for the Good at the end of it. There is no way of saying that without sounding silly. It seems to me that it is easier to be charming in rhetoric when one’s goals are openly cynical and self-serving than when one aspires to nobility.
This is all made plain at the start of the Phaedrus. A young man, Phaedrus, has heard a speech he likes a great deal, though he plainly does not understand it. Socrates wants to help the young man and asks to hear the speech.
It is highly significant that the speech does not take place in the Socrates normal place in the city. Instead, Socrates is outside his native element and has gone to the country. There is no geographic limit to the good teacher.
Phadrus is excited about this speech, because it is highly erotically charged. The speech is exciting to Phaedrus, but he does not know how or why it has this effect. How is a bright young man like Phaedrus smitten by such a bad speech, because as we will discover the speech is dreadful?
At 234d Phaedrus calls the speech wonderful.
Socrates replies:
δαιμονίως μὲν οὖν, ὦ ἑταῖρε, ὥστε με ἐκπλαγῆναι. καὶ τοῦτο ἐγὼ ἔπαθον διὰ σέ, ὦ Φαῖδρε, πρὸς σὲ ἀποβλέπων, ὅτι ἐμοὶ ἐδόκεις γάνυσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦ λόγου μεταξὺ ἀναγιγνώσκων: ἡγούμενος γὰρ σὲ μᾶλλον ἢ ἐμὲ ἐπαί ειν περὶ τῶν τοιούτων σοὶ εἱπόμην, καὶ ἑπόμενος συνεβάκχευσα μετὰ σοῦ τῆς θείας κεφαλῆς.
Socrates is blunt. The speech is not wonderful. It is demonic. It also (next verb) knocks Socrates out.
Both “miraculous” and “overcome” (normal translation choices) are highly inadequate word choices. Rhetoric of this kind charms and ends any reasoning. As a result it is highly dangerous to philosophy.
What is to be possessed? Can any one speaker avoid being a tyrant to his audience, because he forces them to listen?