From beginning to end, Aristotle’s captivating reading, Crito, is composed with of the three rhetorical devices: logos, pathos, and ethos. Consequentialy, one of the existent rhetorical devices is more robust than the others. Whilst logos and pathos spawn well-founded emotional and logical enticement, the most indisputable rhetorical device used throughout the story is ethos. Undoubtably, ethos is the utmost evident rhetorical device in the story, Crito, as Socrates honorably stood by his morals, even after Crito tried to prompt the man to abandon them; demonstrating his thickness of character, integrity, and honesty.
In Apology and Crito the readers get to learn about the last couple moments of Socrates before he is given the death sentence. In Plato’s Apology, Socrates is brought to trial and accused of many crimes. In his defense, Socrates uses his usual technique of questioning people’s actions and at the end of the trail he gets convicted for corrupting the youth and not believing in the gods. In Plato’s Crito, Socrates is requested by Crito to run away from jail, and ultimately avoid his death. Instead, Socrates chooses to question Crito’s request and comes to the conclusion that it is best for him to stay.
Plato’s dialogues Gorgias and Phaedrus both consider the idea of rhetoric. Rhetoric being the art or skill of getting something from the masses or individuals, and often used in getting away with a crime. The type of rhetoric being argued about in the Gorgias dialogue is public rhetoric, what exactly rhetoric is, whether it is an art or not, and how it is best used so as to promote the highest good. In the Phaedrus dialogue private rhetoric is being discussed over the issue of love. This paper will examine how eros is central to both the Gorgias and Phaedrus dialogues.
In the Greek literary work Apology written by Plato, Socrates was convicted for refusing to recognize the gods recognized by the state, introducing new divinities and corrupting the youth. It is believed by many critics that Socrates knew he was going to be sentenced to death so, he was able to use his defense as an opportunity to clear his reputation, confront his accusers, but most significantly instruct the Athenians. He wanted them to look into themselves and seek virtue and wisdom before looking into personal interests. We notice throughout Socrates’ defense that there is a continued theme of wisdom and teaching towards the Athenians.
This relationship was based upon total compassion and love. Socrates was there in his Right’s last moments. He proved to be a loyal friend giving his own, fairly limited, wealth to better Right’s standard of living. This male relationship is different from the other two, in that it has much more vulnerability. Rather than Socrates serving as a mentor or challenger, he is serving as Right’s equal.
Plato’s Symposium begins with Apollodorus relating the events of the dinner to an unnamed friend. The seemingly unnecessary framing of the gathering actually creates a distance between the gathering and its retelling, sets up the later frame of Socrates and Diotima by the layers of reporting, and the movement of the characters involved further explores the themes discussed in Diotima’s speech to Socrates. Altogether, Apollodorus’s initial scene sets up ideas explored later on in the symposium itself. This imitation is necessary to the Symposium overall because it shows how the concepts discussed within the gathering can be applied to life. Allowing Apollodorus to start the dialogue forces distance between Apollodorus as the narrator and
The final argument of Plato’s Phaedo was created to prove souls cannot perish. Plato does so by arguing how a soul cannot die nor cease to exist on the same fundamental grounds of how the number three can never be even. For the number three holds the essence of being odd, without being odd entirely. Similarly, a soul holds the essence of life through immortality, however the soul is not immortal itself and only participates in immortality, just as the number three participates in being odd. Additionally, an essence or form cannot admit to the opposite of itself just as small cannot be large simultaneously, and hot cannot be cold.
In setting, content, and purpose, Plato’s Symposium as well as his Republic are quite dramatically different works, particularly in their independent suggestions of Eros as a force for good and justice. The purpose of this stark juxtaposition, rather than to simply baffle his readers (which may, on the whole, not be far from the general object of this master philosopher’s intentions) is to use the two respective works as corresponding halves to a whole explanation. Symposium acts as a complement to Republic. It is the missing half, the fullness of the empty void that is the poetry, sex, and erotics that are expelled from the Republic. Therefore, in order to grasp an adequate understanding of Plato’s opinion of Eros and its proper function and role in society, it is necessary to pair these works and view them in tandem, to explore the relationship between the two rather than attempt to decipher the meaning of the individual content.
In the Symposium, Pausanias (Greek geographer) conveys the second speech which talks about a few of the societal standards representing homoerotic relationships. The way that a companion (an older man) and his lover ( a younger man) may act towards each other is largely based on what society accepts. It is shown that the totality of this relationship is pursuer/pursued; the older man takes the initiative in the relationship and is the dominant during sexual intercourse whereas the younger man would gain in return the assistance, support and mentor ship from the older man. For example, Pausanias articulates the ethical component when he talks about the conditions under which it is adequate to satisfy a
All of the speakers speeches about love in the Symposium are important because they each have a unique idea to contribute about what is love and the idea of love. One of the speakers, Pausanias goes after Phaedrus’ speech. When it is his turn to speak he present his speech about love as not a single thing and therefore we shouldn’t praise it since there is more than one. Pausanias states that there are two kinds of love, he claims that since “there are two kinds of Aphrodite, there must also be two loves” (Symposium 13). The first Aphrodite is called Uranian or Heavenly Aphrodite since she is the daughter of Uranus, she is the oldest and has no mother.
The Phaedo dialogue presents a discussion between Socrates and his fellows in the hours before Socrates’ death. Socrates uses his remaining time with them to alleviate their worries as to his own impending death, by providing his proofs for the immortality of the soul. Socrates makes his argument under the premise of what he refers to as an ancient doctrine which asserts that after death, the souls of the dead travel to another world and once they return they “are born again from the dead (28)” to give life to the living. Socrates’ argument is an attempt to reason that all that is living comes from that which is dead due to a cyclical process of opposites “generating” their own opposites. Socrates uses the states of sleeping and waking to
Each speech fulfills its own duty to explicitly demonstrate the various angles of love. These speeches on love, in some way, are not completely independent and link up with one another – whether it is disagreement or improvement of former ideas. Plato’s Symposium seems to be telling us that love has many features and many sides. The symposium delights readers with its entertainment, and we get a very good sense of human-being attraction in Ancient
It can easily be said that defining eros is an onerous task and achieving eros itself even more so. This is exactly what is done in Plato’s text Symposium. Individual speakers give an extemporaneous speech on their account of eros. For each of these speakers, this plays a varying role, which manifests itself differently. Most notably for philosophical purposes is Socrates speech restating a woman named Diotima’s theory of love, which for the purpose of this paper is one of importance.
Part A- Socrates In thinking of Socrates we must recognize that what we have is four secondhand sources depicting him. That of Plato, Xenophanes, Aristophanes, and Aristotle. All having radically different accounts on Socrates and his views. Out of all them we consider Plato’s to be the most possible account, even though we face a problem of different versions of Socrates.
Lost Objectivity in the Symposium The Symposium presents several arguments about love at a group drinking party. Eryximachus suggests that each of the guests orate a speech on love and explain what love actually means. Each of the guests presents a speech on love, however; their analysis of love may not be as objective as it seems.
