The term “the Art of persuasion” occupies a substantial place in the context of classical Greek rhetoric. Rhetoric as sophistry (a practice based on the art of deceiving people by sophisms), in turn, was sharply criticized by philosophers such as Plato. Whether it is best to be treated as the possession of science (techne) based on knowledge or the Empiria (the matter of experience) has come up and stayed the central question till now. In this micro theme, I am going to elaborate on the contradictory theories of sophists and Plato and substantiate my endorsement of the view on the rhetoric of sophists.
Sophists’ Claim: Rhetoric as a Techne
The sophists, as their teaching defines them, believed in the “art” of rhetoric and word use. They perceived rhetoric as a technique (practical sophistry) that included both theoretical principles and experiential learning skills. This view synchronized with the idea that techne stands for the systematic use of rules and precepts presented by Isocrates (Isocrates Pg. 73). The sophists developed their coaching abilities, and they became skilled in the business of rhetorical productions. They turned the emphasis on looking at knowledge and power as a mighty factor in making the communicative environment highly manipulative. In essence, what their teachings put forward is the integral nature of rhetoric, bringing together a combination of theoretical comprehension and practical effectiveness. It adopted a holistic approach by demonstrating how the theoretical basis should be integrated with practical skills. This was reflective of a radical view of rhetoric as a fine art that draws upon both theoretical foundations and practical expertise.
Plato’s Critique: Rhetoric as Empiria and Pandering
Education was among the main issues that led to conflicting views between Plato and the Sophists. In particular, they disagreed on whether rhetoric should be taught. One of its targets of Plato was the group of Sophists, the traveling teachers in ancient Greece, who favored the utilization of practical experience over a philosophical one. Instead, unlike Plato’s faith in truth-seeking and virtue through dialectical and philosophical inquiring, the Sophists were guided by the development of rhetorical skills as pragmatic tools. Plato claimed that the arguments of the Sophists were shallow and their concepts were morally irrelevant to the philosophical meaning of words. He charged them with using rhetoric as a tool of manipulation, an action that ends in people shying away from the actual search for truth. Plato opined that the Sophists started with the practical use of language but did not recognize consequent philosophical underpinnings, and thus, a trivial and exploitable system of schooling was born. In Plato’s view, rhetoric should have its metaphysical roots in onto-the-philosophy, and its epistemology should contribute to philosophy for real knowledge and virtue (Isocrates Pg. 74). He criticized Sophists for neglecting the philosophical and moral sides of language and thus opted for practical angle (empirical- pragmatic approach). For Plato, proper education is not limited to the vagueness of acquiring useful skills, but it requires a rigorous theoretical approach, which forms the key to perfect understanding and enlightenment.
Supporting the Sophists: Rhetoric as a Disciplined Craft
I am a sophist who views rhetoric as a technique with which one can reach the desired end. The difference between rhetoric and rhetorical cleverness lies in the theoretical principle, skill, and systematic knowledge. Rhetoric provides a techne approach because it offers a structured and principled conceptualized perspective, enabling individuals to apply a more complex communication with more understanding (Aristotle Pg. 29). The sophists, by teaching the art of rhetoric as a skill, indicate a need for mastery and the highest level of persuasiveness in science.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the controversy about the nature of rhetoric in Antiquity, whether it is a craft or a skill, is complicated and ongoing. Although Plato condemned the sophists and accused them of selling their rhetorical abilities, the sophists, in their defense of their art, claimed to be the purveyors of practical knowledge based on rules. I am a sophist as I support the opinion that rhetoric is a complex discipline and a practical but, at the same time, theoretical art. Through recognizing rhetoric as the conduct of persuaded art, we address the complex depth of persuasive communication and discover patterns more rooted in principles than in the accumulation of empty “rhetorical skills.”
Works Cited
Aristotle. Rhetoric. www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/-384_-322,_Aristoteles,_17_Rhetoric,_EN.pdf.
Isocrates. Against the Sophists.
write