Watermarks The Paradoxical Philosopher: Plato the Writer, the Rhetorician, the Artist, and the Philosopher by Megan Schlicht

For hundreds of years, Plato has been admired as a writer, a master rhetorician, an artist, and above all, a philosopher; however, Plato's backlashes against sophistry and art have led to much confusion concerning his ideas and beliefs. John Poulakos says of Plato, "[F]or most rhetoricians Plato has always played the same role he assigned to the sophists--the enemy" (Nienkamp 1). Plato will always appear to be the skilled rhetorician or artist who speaks out against rhetoric and art. In Apology and Phaedrus we see the character of Socrates rail against writing because it can quickly get out of control of the author and just as easily be misinterpreted, yet Plato is known for his skillful dialogical writing. In reference to the Divided Line, Plato informs us that art is one of the lowest forms because it is no more than an illusion, yet Plato uses his artistic ability in "Simile of a Cave" to help us understand the journey to knowledge. This ambiguity within the texts leads to, what appears to be, Plato contradicting himself; however, to fully understand these contradictions we must ask ourselves, "Who is the real Plato?" Plato's contradictory nature and overall ambiguity make the lines of distinction between the writer, the rhetorician, the artist, and the philosopher become blurred, so it is difficult for anyone to understand or explain the real Plato.

Jean Nienkamp says of Plato, "[He is] the writer who writes that nothing of importance can be conveyed through writing; the word-smith who argues that words are but imitations of imitations at the same time that he insists on precise definitions, divisions... " (1). In Phaedrus, Plato presents some of his more powerful arguments against writing. Most specifically, writing cannot convey individual comprehension to the audience. In other words, a book cannot answer someone who has further questions about what he or she has been reading. Plato says that oration is better because the orator can answer back directly any questions the audience might have. One can see Plato's point in this belief. An author's words can be easily misconstrued and the original meanings lost; this is a fact that can be witnessed everyday. How often do our own words get misconstrued in our day to day interactions with other people? In Phaedrus, Socrates says of the ambiguity of writing, "[T]hose who think they can leave written instructions for an art, as well as those who accept them, thinking that writing can yield results that are clear or certain must be quite naïve" (275c). Perhaps this is the reason that Plato chose to write in his dialogical format; however, his mastery of language and rhetorical devices still shines through in each of his works. Plato obviously has strong doubts that writing could help us achieve knowledge in any way.

However, if Plato is correct in saying that writing is not as effective as discourse due to misinterpretation, he contradicts himself in the Apology. Socrates has a discourse with the jurors, but he is still not acquitted. We who read the text today are more likely to see the unjust trial of Socrates than those who witnessed the trial first hand. Socrates' strong appeal with the added stupidity of his captors aids us in seeing the absurdity of the charges. In the Apology, philosophy becomes the one on trial. The charges against Socrates state simply that he is an atheistic sophist who teaches his views to the young people. Sophists were rhetoricians, masters of persuasive speech, who sold their abilities to those who had enough money to pay. While Socrates did not sell his abilities, through Plato's depiction of him in the Apology, we witness his mastery of rhetoric.

Socrates begins his speech with a classic ethical appeal:

I was almost carried away in spite of myself, so persuasively did they speak... . Of the many lies they told, one in particular surprised me, namely that you should be careful not to be deceived by an accomplished speaker like me... . I show myself not to be an accomplished speaker at all. (17b)

However, this question as to whether or not he is an accomplished speaker is soon quite apparent. Socrates is an excellent speaker and quickly demonstrates the utter absurdity of Meletus' claims. Meletus is subjected to one sentence responses such as "Indeed they do" or "They do too." If this dialogue is anything like the actual event, I am astounded to believe that Socrates did not win his argument because it is obvious that he is the more intelligent and persuasive of the two. Unfortunately, we will never know if Socrates was a master rhetorician; we only know that Plato was. One of the principal arguments in this text states that a philosopher's language is truthful and not persuasive, while a sophist's language relies only on persuasive ability and cares nothing about the truth. This argument becomes contradictory because, as we read the Apology, we can see that Socrates' language is very persuasive: "To fear death gentleman, is no other than to think oneself wise when one is not... " (29a). Even though Socrates is critical and insulting of his accusers, he still maintains highly evolved language and rhetorical skills throughout his long speeches. In the end, Plato explains his view of "true" rhetoric in Phaedrus: "[A true rhetorician will] classify the kinds of speech and of soul there are... coordinate each kind of soul with the kind of speech appropriate to it. And he will give instructions concerning why one kind of soul is... convinced... while another remains unconvinced" (271b). In other words, philosophers must adjust their speech with each soul; everyone's soul operates on a different level, and philosophers must learn and understand those levels to convey truth.

Plato's apparent ambiguity went beyond language and continued with his ideas about art. David Fortunoff says of Plato as an artist, "All indications of the last two-and-a-half millennia instruct us that Plato was a philosopher, certainly, but also an artist, definitely, and one actively in command of his artistic medium" (63). Although Plato would probably have died before referring to himself as an artist, he does have that appearance. The most visual and apparent text that gives rise to Plato the artist is "Simile of a Cave." In this very short section of The Republic, Plato draws us a picture of the very difficult path to knowledge. The paradox of this text is that he wants to convey truth through what he calls an illusion. Art is nothing but an illusion; yet, he uses this illusion to show us the path to the ultimate knowledge. In the cave, people are in chains facing a wall of shadows. Everything in the cave represents something else. The chains represent the closed mindedness of people; the shadows represent the latest fad. To get out of the cave we must have a "turning point of the soul"; this occurs when we turn away from the lies and see the truth. This diagram presents a very complex representation, but then, we discuss Plato's Divided Line and realize how lowly he ranks art. Art is not truth, so it is not worth anything. The name of the text itself implies representation, "Simile of a Cave." This continual ambiguity becomes confusing as one continues to study Plato: Who is he really, and what is he trying to say?

Plato the philosopher brought forth many interesting theories, although his paradoxical nature tends to do damage to those very same theories. Plato appears to believe in Forms--the Form of Virtue, the Form of the Good, the Form of Beauty--if we can assume it is his voice that we hear through Socrates; these Forms are truth, and the only way we can get to these Forms is through "re-collecting." Our immortal souls already know all the answers, so all we must do is confuse our souls through questioning. By doing this, we will have the opportunity to arrive at knowledge; yet, as easy as this sounds, Socrates himself admitted to knowing only that he knew nothing:

I am wiser than this man; it is likely that neither of us knows anything worthwhile, but he thinks he knows something when he does not, whereas when I do not know, neither do I think I know; so I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know what I do not know. (Apology 21d)

My only question would be as to whether Socrates ever knows anything. Socrates' questioning causes much confusion, and at the end of the confusion we find ourselves no closer to knowledge of any form. While philosophy's purpose is not to answer questions definitively, should it not at least relieve some of the confusion instead of creating more?

Plato's argument against language creates a classic example of this philosophical confusion. It is paradoxical that one who holds to the idea that language is never able to represent reality should take such care and precautions with definitions of words or concepts. Most dialogues revolve around defining key words or concepts: Meno discusses "virtue;" Euthyphro deals with "knowledge;" and Phaedo argues for the "immortal soul." Yet Plato continues to hold to the belief that language cannot represent reality. While Plato began with good intentions as well as good ideas, his contradictory views and continual ambiguity do more harm than good. Because of his paradoxical writing and ideas, it becomes difficult to understand the real Plato.

Plato's problem lies in the fact that he tries to be a philosopher who communicates through the average man's means, art and language, while at the same time railing that neither art nor language represents reality. Plato is miles ahead of his peers in terms of intellect, and the only way he can relay his theories is through the common man's language. To express his philosophy to the common man through language and art, while maintaining throughout his work the idea that language cannot represent reality, is truly contradictory. Plato's texts are a work of art in themselves. The dialogue, the rhetorical devices, and the play on words required much thought and work on his part, yet it seems that Plato never really trusted language. While it is true that writing can be misinterpreted, I believe that Plato was almost too paranoid of this possibility because, in the end, it happened anyway (Speusippos' Academy quickly misinterpreted all of Plato's work and in fact came up with entirely new theories). Holger Thesleff says it best: "Still, we have a long way to go before we can reach anything like a consensus about the principles to be adopted for understanding Platonic dialogue, not to speak about understanding Plato" (262).

Fortunoff, David. "Plato's Dialogues as Subversive Activity." Plato's Dialogues: New Studies and Interpretations. Ed. Gerald A. Press. Lanham: Rowan and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1993: 61-76.

Nienkamp, Jean. Introduction. Plato on Rhetoric and Language. Amherst:Hermagoras Press, 1999. 1-19.

Plato. Apology. Trans. G.M.A. Grube. Indianapolis: Hacket Publishing Company Inc., 1981: 23-44.

Plato. Euthyphro. Trans. G.M.A. Grube. Indianapolis: Hacket Publishing Company Inc., 1981: 5-22.

Plato. Meno. Trans. G.M.A. Grube. Indianapolis: Hacket Publishing Company Inc., 1981: 57-88.

Plato. Phaedo. Trans. G.M.A. Grube. Indianapolis: Hacket Publishing Company Inc., 1981: 89-155.

Plato. Phaedrus. Trans. A. Nehamas and P. Woodruff. Amherst: Hermagoras Press, 1999: 165-213.

Plato. "Simile of a Cave." The Republic. Trans. Desmond Lee. Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing, 2002: 1-9.

Tejera, Victorino. "The Apology and the Phaedo: Plato's Tragic Humor." Plato's Dialogues One by One: A Dialogical Interpretation. Lanham: University Press of America, Inc., 1999.

Thesleff, Holger. "In Search of Dialogue." Plato's Dialogues: New Studies and Interpretations. Ed. Gerald A. Press. Lanham: Rowan and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1993: 259-266.