Quote: "Callicles responds to Socrates' condemnation of rhetoric as a tool of exploitation by arguing that exploiting other people is not evil if one is strong enough to do it. Since rhetoric enhances one's strength, it is clearly beneficial" (Plato, 83).
Question: Would you agree with Socrates when he says rhetoric is harmful, or with Callicles' opposition?
I would personally say that either Socrates or Callicles can be more correct with their statements, depending on the setting and situation in which one examines the use of rhetoric. Socrates' main issue with rhetoric has to do with the possibility of manipulating the less knowledgeable, while Callicles suggests that rhetoric is not manipulation so much as exercising mental prowess. Either can be true, but the possibility of harm lies with the intent of the speaker.
ReplyDeleteSocrates provides a great point with his opposition. The "evil" is prevalent when one attempts to convince someone of something even when that person has not had the economic or educational tools to be intelligent enough to combat the point. That is, if a scholar is trained with the world of literature and rhetoric and one convinces him of opinions that he wouldn't normally coincide with than that is not nearly as heinous as compared to someone who has had less education and is in a sense, helpless.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that there is one truth to this question. Rhetoric is capable of being both beneficial and extremely harmful. It is just a matter of the intention of the speaker, and the awareness of the audience. If someone is capable of being exploited and manipulated, then they will most likely fall victim to harmful rhetoric. If someone legitimately wants to spread a positive message to an audience, then the audience will benefit greatly from the speaker.
ReplyDelete