Isocrates
Isocrates—Contemporary and student of Socrates, Rival of Plato, Studied under Gorgias, ran a school at the Lyceum—dedicated to political discourse (civic and political matters)
Isocrates was NOT a Sophist: (from ChatGPT)
“The Sophists were a group of itinerant teachers who offered instruction in various subjects, including rhetoric and persuasion, for a fee. They were often criticized for their relativistic views on truth and morality and for teaching the art of persuasion without necessarily emphasizing a commitment to truth or ethics.
Isocrates, on the other hand, was a prominent Athenian educator and rhetorician who had a distinct philosophy and approach to education. He believed in the power of education to cultivate virtuous and morally upright citizens. Isocrates emphasized the importance of rhetoric in public life but also stressed the need for ethical and moral principles in persuasive discourse. He advocated for the use of rhetoric in the service of the greater good and civic virtue."
“Against the Sophists”
It looks like some sophists were claiming (falsely and deceptively) that they could tell the future. This probably means telling student-customers that they would be able to find success through the skills and knowledge that they (the sophists) taught. Isocrates didn’t like this: “foreknowledge of future events is not vouchsafed to our human nature…(and according to Homer) for mankind this power lies in the realms of the impossible.”
The sophists claim to be “masters and dispensers of goods so precious” but they sell this valuable good for very little—casting doubt on the goods’ actual worth—or maybe on their own intelligence/business savvy.
The sophists “assume the right to instruct the rest of the world.” Is Isocrates not making a similar assumption with his work and school? Is humility really a trait teachers possess and exercise in their professional capacity? This would seem to be a contradiction that Isocrates is missing.
Isocrates finds flaws in the Sophists reasoning and calls out their hypocrisy.
Correctly titled, this work should be “Against the Sophists and ‘also those who profess to teach political discourse’” because Isocrates extends his criticism beyond the sophists to any teachers of political discourse.
The (Missing) Virtue of Rhetoric: I think a main point underlying his work is that arguing to win (perhaps a definition of rhetoric) is not virtuous when the person making the argument has not fully weighed (or does not understand) the ethical/moral concerns of their argument or position. I would agree with Isocrates on this. Do Plato and Aristotle address this in the framework of the dialectic? Do they share Isocrates’s view?
**Side note: difference between ethics and morals according to ChatGPT. Ethics are more abstract and philosophical while morals are more cultural.
Why tearing down is not enough: “However, if it is my duty not only to rebuke others, but also to set forth my own views,..” Yes, it is the duty of someone making a case/argument to not simply tear down the other side but to present (build) their own solution or argument. This was the biggest problem with Republicans attacking Obamacare for years. They never presented their own plan.
On Nature vs. Nurture and Implications for Education: “ For ability, whether in speech or in any other activity, is found in those who are well endowed by nature and have been schooled by practical experience.” This may be generally true, and he is implying that the whole pitch of the sophists disregards that they cannot teach what only nature can endow. But sometimes it takes a good teacher to help someone discover within themselves what their natural talents and abilities are. And good teachers may also be able show people how to grow talents and abilities. Doesn’t pretty much everyone with a sound-ish mind have the capacity (i.e. ability) for rational thought and critical thinking? Don’t we as teachers need to start with this as a core belief in our students? Isocrates response: “[formal training/teaching] cannot fully fashion men who are without natural aptitude into good debaters or writers, although it is capable of leading them on to self-improvement and to a greater degree of intelligence on many subjects.” Ok, but are we just arguing about a matter of degree now? “Fully fashioned” debaters vs. more intelligent people.
On Originality: “ the teacher, for his part, must so expound the principles of the art with the utmost possible exactness as to leave out nothing that can be taught, and, for the rest, he must in himself set such an example of oratory [18] that the students who have taken form under his instruction and are able to pattern after him…” I think there is an overemphasis on copying here. Should any artist strive to bear the image of her infuences? How much is too much? How much is not enough? Who are the truly most original artists, and do they bear the image of their influences, of any influence?
Forensic Discourse: one of the first times we have seen this term mentioned. From ChatGPT: concerned with past and “the rightness or wrongness of a particular case, argument, or interpretation of events. It aims to establish guilt or innocence, assign responsibility, or resolve legal disputes.”
Those poor unfortunate souls: “those who desire to follow the true precepts of this discipline [political discourse] may, if they will, be helped more speedily towards honesty of character1 than towards facility in oratory. And let no one suppose that I claim that just living can be taught;2 for, in a word, I hold that there does not exist an art of the kind which can implant sobriety and justice in depraved natures.” So some are beyond help. But honesty of character is more important (at least in my opinion) than communication skills, so instead spending my limited time trying to figure out who is depraved and who is not, I feel a responsibility to teach the art to all—in hopes that Isocrates is right about the potential results. However, we should be able to supplement the teaching of rhetoric with more direct instruction and examination of virtue, ethics, and morals.
It worked for me, so it has to work for you! “I believe that the very arguments by which I myself was convinced will make it clear to others also that these things are true.” I would hope so, Isocrates. Else, you were too unwise to serve as anyone’s teacher.
Objective of Education: (both from Pullman) Isocrates believed that the purpose of education was to learn how to get things done. AND/OR? objective for education [according to Isocrates] is "just living." A little unclear on this, but I think getting things done in a political manner could/should reflect a virtuous person’s sense of justice or just living.
**Sidenote Question: How did the Greek philosophers’ focus on logic sit with the established religions/gods of the time?
“Antidosis” Isocrates’s defense of himself and pedagogy.
Hints of Stoicism upon losing his case: “I bore that expense in such a manner as is becoming to those who are neither too much upset by such things nor altogether reckless or even careless about money.”
In response to feeling slandered in the courts he wanted to “show to them and to posterity the truth about my character, my life, and the education to which I am devoted.” This is a defense of all he stood for. “…a true image of my thought and of my whole life… more noble than statues of bronze.” Because words and ideas last longer.
The power of persuasive speech “is the source of most of our blessings.”
The connection between speech (language) and intelligence: “none of the things which are done with intelligence take place without the help of speech, but that in all our actions as well as in all our thoughts speech is our guide, and is most employed by those who have the most wisdom.” This has implications for AI and our evolving ideas/definitions of intelligence. LLMs were the bridge from an ocean of information to the ability to do intelligent things with that information.
*Personal Note: Being a scary accurate MLM (medium language model) when it comes to the color commentary of live sports.
Professors of “disputation”—is that an early term for “rhetoric”? GPT says, no, and that disputation has more to do with the back and forth exchange of ideas.
The art of rhetoric (or whatever Isocrates wants to call it—what does he call it?) as “gymnastic of the mind.” It is an interesting and flattering analogy. Later he implies that he hasn’t really named “these studies.” “What the studies are which have this power I can tell you…”
What makes up the Universe? Who cares! It’s all worthless speculation. (But physicists would probably disagree): “speculations of the ancient sophists, who maintain, some of them, that the sum of things is made up of infinite elements; Empedocles that it is made up of four, with strife and love operating among them; Ion, of not more than three; Alcmaeon, of only two; Parmenides and Melissus, of one; and Gorgias, of none at all. For I think that such curiosities of thought are on a par with jugglers' tricks which, though they do not profit anyone, yet attract great crowds of the empty-minded, and I hold that men who want to do some good in the world must banish utterly from their interests all vain speculations and all activities which have no bearing on our lives.”
The importance of defining and setting terms: “ since I am being tried on such an issue, and since I hold that what some people call philosophy is not entitled to that name, to define and explain to you what philosophy, properly conceived, really is.”
Defining wisdom and philosopher: “I hold that man to be wise who is able by his powers of conjecture to arrive generally at the best course, and I hold that man to be a philosopher who occupies himself with the studies from which he will most quickly gain that kind of insight. [phronesis, pracical wisdom.]” No argument here with those definitions. An operative word here is “conjecture” GPT says this about the Greek word for conjecture: “In the context of Greek philosophy and thought, eikasia represents a form of reasoning that involves making mental images or suppositions, especially when concrete evidence or certain knowledge is lacking.”
Don’t tell me with your words. Show me with your actions. “the argument which is made by a man's life is of more weight than that which is furnished by words.”
What goes around comes around theory—but with the gods? The same Greek gods bestowing misfortune on people? “you ought to believe rather that those are better off now and will receive the advantage in the future at the hands of the gods who are the most righteous and the most faithful in their devotions, and that those receive the better portion at the hands of men who are the most conscientious in their dealings with their associates.”
Isocrates says, (paraphrase) At the very least, I try to keep my students away from partying and gambling.
Alcidamas—student of Gorgias, rival to Isocrates
“On those who write speeches” (Writing vs. Speaking)
Seems to make major distinctions between speaking (especially extemporaneous) and writing, prioritizing the former but not discounting the wisdom inherent in the latter.
Essay as a verb: “I shall essay to bring formal accusation against written discourses.” Well that is fun!
I feel like what he is describing with skill of speech to be more like quick wittedness, and I would agree that quick wit is both more rare and maybe even more powerful and impressive than wit captured in writing. It’s the scary fast power of the microwave vs the crockpot. Both reach the same ends in cooking, but we could probably argue the merits of slow cooking for better flavor and texture. Maybe quick wittedness (in speech) is more emotionally powerful because we are apt to be impressed with the speaker’s ability.
Imitation: “to imitate felicities cleverly spoken, to revise privately some matters on the advice of laymen and to alter and expunge other parts as a result of repeated and careful excogitation, verily, this is an easy matter even for the untutored.” Agree about the imitation part. See notes above from Isocrates on originality.
Writing [well] is easier than speaking [well]: “Thus it is that, since writing is easier than speaking, we should rightly consider the ability to compose a meaner accomplishment.” Ok. I concede, but there is the idea of staying power that the written word has over the spoken—along with the ability to influence audiences in different times and places….but maybe youtube neutralizes that advantage.
The clever speaker has the advantage: “every sensible person will admit that the clever speaker, by changing somewhat his natural point of view, will be able to write well, but no one would believe that it follows that this same power will make the clever writer a clever speaker;” No argument here, but maybe this IS an area where natural ability really comes out. Can cleverness in speech be learned, taught, developed? I think its probably easier to teach, learn, develop writing—because so many of us are slower than our quick witted brethren.