论文定稿

2012届普通本科毕业论文（设计）

Table of Contents

Abstract .......................................................................................................................... i 摘 要 ......................................................................................................................... ii

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 1. Literature Review .................................................................................................... 2 2. Plato’s Philosophical Rhetoric ................................................................................ 4 2.1 Plato?s Philosophy .................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Plato?s Philosophical Rhetoric ................................................................................. 5 3. Plato’s Philosophical Rhetoric in The Republic ..................................................... 7 3.1 “Theory of Forms” Guiding to Find the Good......................................................... 7 3.2 “Dialectic”................................................................................................................ 9

3.2.1 On “Justice” .................................................................................................. 9 3.2.2 On “Education of Dialectic” ....................................................................... 11 3.2.3 On “Philosopher-king” ................................................................................ 12 3.2.4 On “Poetry” ................................................................................................. 14 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 16 Bibliography ............................................................................................................... 17 Acknowledgements .................................................................................................... 19

Abstract

Many scholars have investigated Plato?s ideas. However, Plato?s “Philosophical rhetoric” receives insufficient study. His “philosophical rhetoric” is guided by his core philosophy “theory of Forms” which divides the world into two, the visible world and the intellectual world. Every subject in the visible world possesses a form in the intellectual world. The form is the highest knowledge, namely truth and good. According to Plato, the highest knowledge is only to be found by the philosopher. And only mastered by the philosopher who is the right people to reach truth and good, rhetoric can be correctly used.

This paper, based on the available research findings, discusses Plato?s “Philosophical rhetoric” reflected in The Republic through documentary research method. This paper discusses from two large aspects, including Plato?s “theory of Forms” as the guiding principle for “Philosophical rhetoric” and “dialectic” as the specific practice of “Philosophical rhetoric”. In detail, this paper focuses on the four primary topics justice, education, philosopher-king, and poetry to analyze “philosophical rhetoric”. With the help of existing research findings, this paper concludes that Plato?s “Philosophical rhetoric” is to be used to find truth and good.

Key words: Plato, philosophical rhetoric, theory of Forms, dialectic

i

摘 要

关于柏拉图的研究很多，但根据现有文献，对于柏拉图“哲学修辞”的研究的成果明显不足。作为古希腊修辞史上一位有影响力的修辞学家，柏拉图对于修辞的看法深受其哲学思想的影响。柏拉图的“哲学修辞”在应用上,以哲学基础“理念论”为指导，强调真理性，追求真、善、美；使用分析综合辩证的方法深入认识事物现象的本质属性, 并以此体现修辞的真正力量。

本文运用文献法，以现有的研究成果为基础，研究柏拉图《理想国》体现的哲学修辞思想。《理想国》在整体布局上是以“理念论”为指导，以柏拉图的“辩证法”为修辞策略来体现柏拉图的“哲学修辞思想”；具体来看，又是从四个重要话题“正义”、“教育”、“哲学王”以及“诗歌”中来体现。本文结论表明柏拉图的“哲学修辞”是以追求真理为原则的修辞。

关键词：柏拉图；哲学修辞；理念论；辩证法

ii

Introduction

The Republic is Plato?s masterpiece written in his mature phase when Plato?s philosophical idea evolves a comprehensive system. The contents in The Republic are divided into ten books by the later scholars for the purpose of better understanding. It is crowned as the perfect system of Plato?s philosophy, covering his “theory of Forms”, “epistemology”，and “dialectic”.

Although Plato has made indelible contribution to western rhetoric, his view on rhetoric is controversial throughout the times. Plato has been either regarded as an objector to rhetoric for his criticism towards the “sophists” or thought to be ambiguous about rhetoric for his changeable attitude in different works. Scholars in the modern times have done certain efforts to study his rhetorical view, leaving unsolved questions and limitation, though. This paper, based on the existing available research findings of many scholars, aims to investigate Plato?s “philosophical rhetoric” in The Republic by documentary research method.

This paper first introduces literature review in which the two concepts “philosophical rhetoric” and “philosophy of rhetoric” will be differentiated and the current study on Plato?s “philosophical rhetoric” will be presented. Then, Plato?s philosophy is to be introduced in the second part. In the third part, this paper focuses on detailed analysis about Plato?s “philosophical rhetoric” in The Republic. The conclusion comes forth with an acknowledgement and a bibliography following.

In the near decade, people?s attention turns to Plato?s rhetoric again. Scholars both at home and abroad are more likely to recognize his “philosophical rhetoric”. The concept “philosophical rhetoric”, although used by some scholars, receives no clear definition. And existing researches just focus on a large sense. This paper, by defining “philosophical rhetoric” and analyzing its concrete practice in The Republic, improves the existing defects, and helps to give a better understanding about Plato?s “philosophical rhetoric”.

1

1. Literature Review

It is necessary to distinguish “philosophical rhetoric” and “philosophy of rhetoric” in the first place. The two concepts mentioned in this paper are both in western background. “Philosophy”, according to the popular western view, is the summary of knowledge, and the generalization about world development. From ancient times, western philosophers regard philosophy as the objective knowledge about the world and the tool to know the world. Therefore, philosophy is used to gain knowledge and truth. Study on “philosophy of rhetoric” has certain history. As “philosophy” is systematical world knowledge; “philosophy of rhetoric” is the systematical knowledge about rhetoric or metarhetoric. According to Li Baoyuan, “the philosophy of rhetoric deals with rhetorical phenomena chiefly from the perspective of epistemology, methodology, and the social nature of man.” (Li Baoyuan, 1994:8) The concept “philosophical rhetoric” has been put forward and used in The Philosophical Rhetoric of Socrates’ Mission by Robert Metcalf in 2004 and Shilun Bolatu de “Zhexue Xiucishu” by Lin Zhixiong in 2007. However, they neither give a clear definition to it. To make up this imperfection and understand Plato?s rhetorical view better, this paper tries to define “Philosophical rhetoric” as: the rhetorical phenomena aiming to find good and truth.

In The Philosophical Rhetoric of Socrates’ Mission, Robert Metcalf analyses Plato?s “philosophical rhetoric” in Apology. Socrates makes self-defense in the court defending against accusations of his sophistry, investigating the things under the earth and heavenly things, and that educating people for money, etc. In the beginning, Socrates tells the jury not to interrupt because he will tell truth. Robert Metcalf says if we look closely at Socrates defense, we can easily find that he avoids making himself as the agent responsible for the process by which he is hated, and repeatedly mentions his involvement in as innocuous way as possible. In the process, Socrates skillfully discloses some truth by using his rhetoric. Socrates practices “elenchos” which is essential to “dialectic”. Because rhetorical devices are used in this way, they are

2

considered as forms of “philosophical rhetoric” serving the soul?s excellence by the author.

There have been some researches about Plato?s rhetoric in domestic academic field. For example, Li Yongyi consideres Plato?s rhetorical view to be “ambiguous” in 2006. (Li Yongyi, 2006) Cui Yingxian compares Plato?s rhetoric with Aristotle?s, concluding that they hold the same opinion on subject rhetoric. First, Plato attaches more attention to people who participated in language activity, which is different from the simple rhetoric oriented sophists? practice. Second, Plato fixes on universal view, using philosophical ideas to guide rhetoric. In the paper of On Plato?s “philosophical rhetoric”, Lin Zhixiong shares his understanding. (Lin Zhixiong, 2007) when dealing with philosophy and rhetoric, Plato does not deny the value of rhetoric in politics, instead he highlights rhetoric?s responsibility to service for justice and philosophy. Another scholar investigates Plato?s “philosophical rhetoric” in his several works including Gorgias and Phaedrus, with main attention on his dialectic as a significant element in “philosophical rhetoric”.

These findings provide valuable reference for further research, for instance, they try to clarify the relation between philosophy and rhetoric, and put forward the concept of “philosophical rhetoric”. However, there are still spaces to improve. First, these are general findings without precise definition of the concept. Second, there is no detailed analysis about “philosophical rhetoric” in a representative work. Based on the existing research findings, and trying to further the research, this paper gives a working definition to “philosophical rhetoric” to develop the former scholars? findings, and analyzes Plato?s “philosophical rhetoric” in The Republic which is the best one to study his philosophy.

3

2. Plato’s “Philosophical Rhetoric”

2.1 Plato’s Philosophy

Sun Good Light Knowledge Visual Opinion Intellectual Intellectual objects

Figure 1 theory of Forms

As a great philosopher and thinker in ancient Greece, Plato developes his own philosophical system while inheriting Socrates? philosophy. Plato?s philosophical system includes his “theory of Forms” (or Ideas) as the base, “Doctrine of Recollection”, “dialectic” and “political philosophy”.

Plato's “theory of Forms” or “theory of Ideas” proposes that there are two worlds, the “visible world” and the “intellectual world”. And non-material abstract forms in the “intellectual world” possesses the highest and most fundamental kind of reality, whereas, the visible world we see everyday provides opinions about the forms. Theory of Forms is showed in figure 1.

Corresponding to the world of Forms is our world, that of the mimes, a corruption of the real one. This world is created by the Good according to the patterns of the Forms. Man's proper service to the Good is cooperation in the implementation of the ideal in the world of shadows; that is, in miming the Good.

Plato uses “theory of Forms” to solve the problem of universals. And his

4

“epistemology” derives from “theory of Forms”.

2.2 “Philosophical Rhetoric”

The word “rhetoric” has been used often in different meanings today. But tracing back to its origin, it is a complex discipline with a 2500-year-old tradition. It is universally agreed to develop in the west and has gained different definitions by different people. As Bizzell and Herzberg said, “it seems less helpful to define it once and for all than to look at some of its important definitions and to attempt to understand how each arouse and how each still inhibits and shapes the field.” (Bizzell and Herzberg ：1990)

In this paper, “rhetoric” refers to the classical rhetoric of the fifth century BC in Greece. It took its shape in the court of ancient Greece, and bloomed in the democracy of Greece. In about 456 BC, the revolution overthrown the dictator in a Greek colony on the island of Sicily, and then a democracy was established. The ensuing consequence was that, the property ownership of the citizens appeared to be a problem. Should it belong to the originate owner or to the current one? The court required the citizens to defend for themselves without professional attorney. Rhetoric was therefore, first and foremost the art of persuasion in the democratic court of ancient Greece. The first sophists became popular for they can teach the citizens to become skillful in public speech. Under such a democracy, people can do anything they want to as long as they can defend for themselves successfully in the court for their behavior.

Some scholars in early times concluded that Plato opposed rhetoric. As more researches go on, however, some researchers think that he is just objective to the sophists whose rhetoric is based on no knowledge. Later on, Plato?s thoughts have been typically divided into different period, namely, the early ?Socratic? period, the middle period and the late period. In the early ?Socratic? period, there were Apology, Crito, Euthyphro, Charmides, Ion, Lysis, Laches, Hippias Minor, Menexenus,

5

Euthydemus and the Protagoras. The Hippias Major, Gorgias and perhaps the Meno belong to the end of this period, maybe with the Gorgias and more likely the Meno verging into the middle period. The middle period works include the Cratylus, Symposium, Phaedo, Republic and perhaps the Phaedrus. In the late period works include the Parmenides, Theaetetus, Sophist, Politicus, Timaeus, Philebus and Laws, along with the Critias.And thus, Plato?s ideas have been divided accordingly into different period and are thought to be different in these periods. This paper only focuses on the middle period, also called the mature period when the philosophy of “Metaphysics”, “Theory of Forms” and “dialectic” of Plato are generated. In this period, Plato?s view on rhetoric is thought to be related to his philosophy. Plato thought that rhetoric was necessary for expressing ideas, but it must be subject to philosophy which leads to justice, good and truth.

This paper neither discusses the changing rhetorical views of Plato in different periods nor his view in many of his works, which is a large project, but will focus on his opinion on rhetoric at one specific stage of his life, that is the middle period, reflected in The Republic.

Plato famously outlines the differences between true and false rhetoric in a number of dialogues; particularly the Gorgias and Phaedrus wherein Plato criticizes that the sophists? rhetoric is independent on the art of dialectics. Plato claims that since sophists appeal only to what seems probable, they are not advancing their students and audiences, but simply flattering them with what they want to hear. Although Plato's condemnation of rhetoric is clear in the Gorgias, in the Phaedrus he suggests the possibility of a true art where rhetoric is based upon the knowledge produced by “dialectic”, and relies on a dialectically informed rhetoric to appeal to the main character, namely philosophy. Thus Plato's rhetoric is actually “dialectic” or philosophy.

6

3. Plato’s “Philosophical Rhetoric” in The Republic

3.1 “Theory of Forms” Guiding to Find the Good

In The Republic, Socrates uses the Allegory of the cave and more specifically the Allegory of lines to illustrate the difference between the visible world and the intellectual world of the forms. As mentioned above, every thing in the visible world has a form in the intellectual world. Plato uses the allegory of light to illustrate that sun is the appearance of good, namely the form.

Socrates imagines a picture where a group of people live their whole life as prisoners in a cave, and are chained to the wall with their faces toward the wall. They therefore can not see the scene behind them. Only when there is sunshine, they can see the shadow of the scene behind them reflected on the wall. They think the reflected scene is what the objects behind them are. Then, according to Socrates, one of the prisoners is fortunate enough to get out of the cave and see what the reality is. In the beginning, the prisoner is blinded by the light, but, as he get used to the light, he see the fire and the statues and understand how they cause the reflection the other prisoners see in the cave. And Socrates says that the philosopher is alike the prisoner out of the cave. Only philosophers can distinguish the visible world from the intellectual world which the prisoners in cave see. What we see with our naked eyes everyday are appearance, the reflection of the forms. However, the philosophers are different from the common people. Because the philosopher can gain all knowledge themselves, they will not be blinded by the shadow or the appearance, they can see the real world with their knowledge. In this analogy, the sun is the symbol and representative of good, and good is the form of the Forms.

Socrates then gives more detailed explanation, namely “theory of lines”. According to him, the understanding stages of the prisoners are in accordance with the divided lines he imagined. The line is divided into the “visible world” and the “intellectual world”. The divider is the Sun, the form of the Forms. When the prisoners are in the cave, they know nothing about the world outside, and the shadow

7

on the wall accords with the lowest level of the line. When the prisoners get out of cave and see the sun and fire and light, they reach the second stage of the divided line, the stage of belief. Once the prisoners get out of the cave and see the sun, the fire and the light, they came to the third stage of the divided line, understanding. At last, the prisoners? turns to the sun, good, or the source of truth, they are at the highest stage of the line, named as dialectic. And the prisoners begin to understand all the other forms since then. At the end of his allegory, it is believed to be the philosopher?s duty to go back to the cave and educate those in the cave what the real world is. Since the philosopher is the only people to understand the form, good, he is the best to rule the state-city. This is the conclusion of philosophical-king.

Socrates says in the Republic that people who take the sun-lit world of the senses to be good and real are living pitifully in a den of evil and ignorance. Socrates admits that few climb out of the den, or cave of ignorance, and those who do, not only have a terrible struggle to attain the heights, but when they go back down for a visit or to help other people up, they find themselves objects of scorn and ridicule.

According to Socrates, physical objects and physical events are “shadows” of their ideal or perfect forms, and exist only to the extent that they illustrate the perfect versions of themselves. Just as shadows are temporary, inconsequential epiphenomena produced by physical objects, physical objects are themselves fleeting phenomena caused by more substantial causes, the ideals of which they are mere instances. For example, Socrates thinks that perfect justice exists.

The allegory of the cave is intimately connected to his political ideology, that only people who have climbed out of the cave and cast their eyes on a vision of goodness are fit to rule. Socrates claims that the enlightened men of society must be forced from their divine contemplations and be compelled to run the city according to their lofty insights. Thus is born the idea of the “philosopher-king”, the wise person who accepts the power thrust upon him by the people who are wise enough to choose a good master. This is the main thesis of Socrates in the Republic, that the most wisdom the masses can master is the wise choice of a ruler.

8

3.2 “Dialectic”

“Dialectic” is the tool to practice “theory of Forms”, and is regarded as the only way requiring no hypotheses to know the forms of universals. 3.2.1 On “Justice”

The Republic by Plato is an exposition of justice which proposes that justice of the state exists in harmony and order. The realization of state justice is dependent on the political qualities of citizens.

When concerning the issues “which is good, justice or injustice” and “which can make people happier”, Socrates does not give his answers directly, but spends much time and energy on defining, analyzing, as well as finding the origin of both justice and injustice. In the first book, two definitions of justice are proposed but deemed inadequate. Returning debts owed, and helping friends while harming enemies are common sense definitions of justice that, Socrates shows, are inadequate in exceptional situations, and thus lack the rigidity demanded of a definition. Yet he does not completely reject them for each expresses a common sense notion of justice which Socrates will incorporate into his discussion of the just regime in books II through V.

At the end of Book I, Socrates agrees with Polemarchus that justice includes helping friends, but says the just man would never do harm to anybody. Thrasymachus believes that Socrates has done the men present an injustice by saying this and attacks his character and reputation in front of the group; partly because he suspects that Socrates himself does not even believe harming enemies is unjust. Thrasymachus gives his understanding of justice and injustice as “justice is what is advantageous to the stronger, while injustice is to one's own profit and advantage”.Socrates finds this definition unclear and begins to question Thrasymachus. Socrates then asks whether the ruler who makes a mistake by making a law that lessens their well-being, is still a ruler according to that definition. Thrasymachus agrees that no true ruler would make such an error. This agreement allows Socrates to undermine Thrasymachus' strict definition of justice by comparing

9

rulers to people of various professions. Thrasymachus consents to Socrates' assertion that an artist is someone who does his job well, and is a knower of some art, which allows him to complete the job well. In so doing Socrates gets Thrasymachus to admit that rulers who enact a law that does not benefit them firstly, are in the precise sense not rulers. Thrasymachus gives up, and is silent from then on. Socrates has trapped Thrasymachus into admitting the strong man who makes a mistake is not the strong man in the precise sense, and that some type of knowledge is required to rule perfectly. However, it is far from a satisfactory definition of justice.

At the beginning of Book II, Plato's two brothers challenge Socrates to define justice in the man, and unlike the rather short and simple definitions offered in Book I, their views of justice are presented in two independent speeches. Glaucon's speech reprises Thrasymachus' idea of justice; it starts with the legend of Gyges who discovered a ring that gave him the power to become invisible. Glaucon uses this story to argue that no man would be just if he had the opportunity of doing injustice with impunity. With the power to become invisible, Gyges is able to seduce the queen, murder the king, and take over the kingdom. Glaucon argues that the just as well as the unjust man would do the same if they had the power to get away with injustice exempt from punishment. The only reason that men are just and praise justice is out of fear of being punished for injustice. The law is a product of compromise between individuals who agree not to do injustice to others if others will not do injustice to them. Glaucon says that if people had the power to do injustice without fear of punishment, they would not enter into such an agreement. Glaucon uses this argument to challenge Socrates to defend the position that the unjust life is better than the just life. Adeimantus adds to Glaucon's speech the charge that men are only just for the results that justice brings fortune, honor, reputation. Adeimantus challenges Socrates to prove that being just is worth something in and of itself, not only as a means to an end.

Socrates says that there is no better topic to debate. In response to the two views of injustice and justice presented by Glaucon and Adeimantus, he claims incompetence, but feels it would be impious to leave justice in such doubt. Thus the

10

Republic sets out to define justice. Given the difficulty of this task as proven in Book I, Socrates in Book II leads his interlocutors into a discussion of justice in the city, which Socrates suggests may help them see justice not only in the person, but on a larger scale, “first in cities searching for what it is; then we could examine also in some individual, examining the likeness of the bigger in the idea of the littler”

Different from other branches of learning, “dialectic” requires no hypotheses to know the nature and essence of an object. As Socrates says,

Again, by the second segment of the “intellectual world” understand me to mean all that the mere reasoning process apprehends by the force of “dialectic”, when it avails itself of hypotheses not as first principles, but as genuine hypotheses, that is to say as stepping-stones and impulses, whereby it may force its way up to something that is not hypothetical, and arrive at the first principle of everything and seize it in its grasp; which done, it turns round and takes hold of that which takes hold of this first principle, till at last it comes down to a conclusion, calling in the aid of no sensible object whatever, but simply employing abstract, self-subsisting forms, and terminating in the same.(Republic, 222)

Plato?s “dialectic” is related with the sophist?s rhetoric at that time. Sophist?s rhetorical practice is profit oriented; while for Plato; right rhetoric should first know the nature of a thing and then tries to get its definition, to find truth not opinion. 3.2.2 On education of “dialectic”

This idea is also advocated in the education by Socrates. In book VII, Socrates discusses education with other debaters. The series of studies of which this may be predicted comprises: ⑴arithmetic; ⑵plane geometry; ⑶geometry of three dimensions; ⑷astronomy pursued abstractly as a science of motion; ⑸the science of harmonics;⑹dialectic or the science of real existence.

11

Plato regards truth as the highest value, proposing that it could be discovered through reason and logic in discussion, namely “dialectic”. He considers rationality to be the proper means for persuasion, the discovery of truth, and the determinant for one's actions. To him, truth is the greater good, and each person should, above all else, seek truth to guide one's life. Therefore, Plato opposes the Sophists and their teaching of rhetoric as art and as emotional oratory requiring neither logic nor proof. 3.2.3 On “philosopher-king”

Plato's tripartite “theory of soul” is a theory of soul proposed by Socrates in the Republic. In it, Socrates argues that the soul is composed of three parts: the appetitive, the rational, and the spirited. These three parts of the soul also correspond to the three classes of a just society. Individual justice consists in maintaining these three parts in the correct balance, where reason rules and appetite obeys.

In Book IV of The Republic Socrates states that opposite actions, affections and states cannot be assigned to one thing in respect of the same part of it, in relation to the same object and at the same time. For instance, it seems that, given each person has only one soul, it should be impossible for a person to simultaneously desire something yet also at that very moment be averse to the same thing, as when one is tempted to commit a crime but also averse to it. Both Socrates and Glaucon agree that it should not be possible for the soul to at the same time both are in one state and it?s opposite. From this it follows that there must be at least two aspects to soul.

The appetitive aspect of soul is the one that is responsible for the base desires within people. It is responsible for the simple cravings needed to stay alive, such as thirst and hunger, and also for unnecessary cravings such as sexual excess or the desire to over-consume at meal time. The desires for necessary things should be restricted by the other parts of the soul, while unlawful desires should be restricted completely by the other aspects of soul.

The rational soul is the thinking portion within each of us, which discerns what is real and not merely apparent, judges what is true and what is false, and wisely makes

12

the rational decisions in accordance with which human life is most properly lived. The spirited soul is the source of the desires that love honor and victory. In the just soul, spirit acts as the enforcer of the rational soul, ensuring that the dictates of reason are followed. Emotions such as anger and indignation are the result of the frustration of the spirit.

According to this model, the principles of Athenian democracy are rejected as only a few are fit to rule. Instead of sophists? rhetoric and persuasion, Plato says reason and wisdom should govern. As Plato puts it: “Until philosophers rule as kings or those who are now called kings and leading men genuinely and adequately philosophies, that is, until political power and philosophy entirely coincide, while the many natures who at present pursue either one exclusively are forcibly prevented from doing so, cities will have no rest from evils,... nor, I think, will the human race.” (The Republic 473c-d)

Plato describes these “philosopher kings” as “those who love the sight of truth” and supports the idea with the analogy of a captain and his ship or a doctor and his medicine. According to him, sailing and health are not things that everyone is qualified to practice by nature. A large part of The Republic then addresses how the educational system should be set up to produce these philosopher kings.

However, it must be taken into account that the ideal city outlined in the Republic is qualified by Socrates as the ideal luxurious city, examined to determine how it is that injustice and justice grow in a city (Republic 372e). According to Socrates, the “true” and “healthy” city is instead the one first outlined in book II of the Republic, containing farmers, craftsmen, merchants, and wage-earners, but lacking the guardian class of philosopher-kings as well as delicacies such as “perfumed oils, incense, prostitutes, and pastries”, in addition to paintings, gold, ivory, couches, a multitude of occupations such as poets and hunters, and war.

In addition, the ideal city is used as an image to illuminate the state of one's soul, or the will, reason, and desires combined in the human body. Socrates is attempting to make an image of a rightly ordered human, and then later goes on to describe the different kinds of humans that can be observed, from tyrants to lovers of money in

13

various kinds of cities. The ideal city is not promoted, but only used to magnify the different kinds of individual humans and the state of their soul. The philosophic soul according to Socrates has reason, will, and desires united in virtuous harmony. A philosopher has the moderate love for wisdom and the courage to act according to wisdom. Wisdom is knowledge about the Good or the right relations between all that exists.

According to Plato, a state made up of different kinds of souls will, overall, decline from an aristocracy ruled by the best, to a timocracy ruled by the honorable, then to an oligarchy ruled by the few, then to a democracy ruled by the people, and finally to tyranny ruled by one person, a tyrant. 3.2.4 On “poetry”

Young Plato loves poetry and drama, and writes poems and verses, eluding his talents in literature. However, he exiles poets out of the Republic. There are mainly three reasons for his doing so. First, poetry is general imitation, and the poet imitates the phenomena of daily life and opinions prevalent among the half-educated instead of the Forms, the only realities. Plato takes a bed and a table as examples, for a bed, there are the form of bed created by god; the bed itself made by the manufacturer and a bed painted by a painter. According to Plato?s “theory of Forms”, only the god possesses the science of the bed; the manufacturer knows how to make a bed, thus mastering the correct opinion; while, the painter or the imitator only has the vague notions about the bed imitated. Following this analogy, poetry is imitation not the truth or form. Besides, poetry can weaken the reason and logos in people?s mind by leading people?s feeling and compassionating. Last but not least, poetry which is not good for the youth should be abandoned, and poets who imitate instead of reason should be exiled out of the Republic.

Poetry, as a kind of rhetoric，is excluded in the Republic. Does it mean that Plato opposes all poetry or rhetoric? The answer is definitely not. In Book II, Socrates says that, we must find those artists who pursue real beauty and good. Their works will be

14

leant by the children and youth. As a result, the minds of children and youth are influenced and educated by the good knowledge.

As said in the book, poetry, rhetoric or other arts are permitted on the premises that they are helpful for children and youth to reach good, just and truth.

Having recurred to the subject of poetry, I continued, let this defense serve to show the reasonableness of our former judgment in banishing from our state a pursuit which has the tendencies we have described: for in doing so we yielding to reason. But that poetry may not charge us with being, to a certain extent, harsh and rough, let us address her, and say that there is a quarrel of long standing between philosophy and poetry. For those lines,

That yelping cur, which at its master barks, and Mighty he is in the vain talk of fools, and Poor are those subtle thinkers,

and a thousand others, are marks of an old antagonism between the two. But nevertheless let us admit that if the poetry whose end is to please, and imitation, can give any reasons to show that they ought to exist in a well-constituted state, we for our part will gladly welcome them home again. (Republic, 339)

15

Conclusion

Plato?s contribution to the theory of rhetoric lies in two aspects. One is that he criticises the rhetorical practice of the sophists of his time, the other is that he creates rhetoric “corrected” by himself.

Influenced by his core philosophy “theory of Forms”, Plato?s “philosophical rhetoric” is to find truth and good mainly through dialectical method. In The Republic, the character Socrates discusses several important topics with other debaters. First, they talk about “justice”. Socrates uses dialectical questioning to oppose others? opinions. By querying others? words, and requiring other debaters to define “justice”, Socrates steels the whole debate. Second, about “education” for citizens, Plato, represented by Socrates in the debate, insists that only those that are good and real can be taught to the people, while those that go against truth or good should be excluded. Third, Plato says that the philosopher is the only one to reach truth and good, thus they should become the philosopher-king to rule the ideal polis. In the end, debaters discuss “poetry”. Poetry is a kind of rhetoric for its language. However, poems that simply imitate, such as Homer?s poems run counter to truth and good.

Rhetoric is necessary in people?s life, thus it should be used correctly. He expresses it through establishing an ideal state-city where the ruler is the philosophy-king and where rhetoric is used in the right way of pursuing truth and good.

Distinct from the traditional rhetoric, Plato practices “philosophical rhetoric”, which subjects to “theory of forms” and leads to truth and good through dialectical activity.

16

本文来源：https://www.bwwdw.com/article/r8p3.html