Phaedrus Summaries

Phaedrus Part I

The language in Phaedrus confuses me. In the beginning it seems as though Socrates is playing a mind game with Phaedrus, at first he wants him to recite the speech from memory, but then Socrates notices the scroll and asks him to read it. There is a long monologue about the lover and non-lover, I assume they are speaking about communication. Phaedrus reads Lysis and then discusses how the non-lover is preferred for his ability to be his own person, and a stronger friend. Phaedrus seems to be saying true rhetoric does not spoil, is honest, and not a fickle friend.

Phaedrus part II

Since, Phaedrus focused on the non-lover in his discourse, Socrates believes it is important to go through the characteristics of the lover. Socrates talks about there are two human principles. These principles are desire and judgment. He discusses how following judgment is for the better, but desire can be a hindrance. He then discusses the noble madness of love. He uses the analogy of the chariot and horses. The one horse is upright and guided by words and motion. He is loving, honorable, and modest. The other horse is deaf, proud and insolent. I think the point of this passage is there are two kinds of rhetoric. Rhetoricians can use judgment and follow words and guidance, or they can use desire and not listen to others and stand proud even with lack of knowledge.

Phaedrus part III

In the last section, what stood out most to me was the discourse on the importance and power of the art of rhetoric. They discuss the potential of rhetoric’s influence in public meetings, but also how in these meetings rhetoric may be manipulated and/or superficial for the benefit of the speaker. Phaedrus asks how true the art of rhetoric can be achieved. Socrates discusses how this is not just something that can be learned as an art, but rhetoric is also a gift. Socrates also discusses how it is similar to medicine, as it is words of virtue that feed the soul, and that is found in truth. This section was the easiest for me to understand because I felt it was relatable, we often have superficial discourse, and truth is something that is helpful for the soul to consume.

Johannesen Ch.4

Dialogical Perspectives

This chapter had a lot of interesting information and perspectives on human communication. The difference between monologue and dialogue is clearly defined by various theorists and writers. I had never considered the differences between the two.

The part that most struck me was the section on dialogue and persuasion. In the beginning of the chapter, I thought that the differences between dialogue and monologue was portrayed rather extremely. Since, in dialogue you are going to be aware of the others ideas, views and interests, how will they be aware of yours? True dialogue seems nearly impossible. The dialogue and persuasion section addressed that an individual may express disagreement or persuade, but still be participating in dialogue.

I agreed with Richard M. Weaver that humans are prone to persuade and be persuaded. That is why commercials, advertisements, and debates are so prominent in our society. I do not think that all persuasion is unethical. Monologue may not be the appropriate way to persuade individuals.

While reading this section I thought of evangelizing Christians. Evangelists persuade people to accept Jesus Christ; this is not usually done in an unethical and objectifying way. God calls us to spread the word, and in discussing our views and explaining our beliefs we are trying to persuade. This does not make it a monologue though. We can listen to the others views to understand what is different and similar in their beliefs.

I thought this chapter had a lot of information that's valuable when analyzing conversations and media. It made me think of the types of conversation I have had with my peers, professors, and family. Have I ever objectified someone in conversation? Have others approached me in monologue? What about public relations, is that an unethical career because of its purpose in persuasion? These are just some of the questions that came to my mind.