...or... 
If I had to absolutely choose to be classified as a Platonist or Sophist in the context of my professional practice (as a governance consultant), I would be in the Sophist’s camp, although neither of them really suit me. Like the Sophists, I ‘travel’ from town to town selling my services (Bizzell and Hertzberg, 25). I also charge money for my services, some of which include training/teaching my clients. And I agree with the Sophists that people can achieve more than societies that preceded theirs without necessarily deferring to the wisdom of their elders (Bizzell and Hertzberg, 22). But the ‘heady’ search for truth, as Plato describes, does not appeal to me as I am, at my core, a practical person.
I adapt to many circumstances in the course of my business life, and my truth is often what I say it is at the time I say it. Here, I also agree with the Sophists, who viewed truth as being relative to place and culture (Herrick 39)--I absolutely adapt my rhetorical style (for my work) to my intended audience, and how my rhetorical message is delivered depends on the situation.
The Sophists, however, believed in the adversarial system of argument. In the documents I produce, particularly those that respond to requests for proposals, persuasion (to use my company’s services) is subtly implied and the need for strong debating arguments is not required (although it could be argued that all proposals are strongly persuasive at their core).
While I recognize that the industrialized nations’ political and legal forums have evolved from the Sophist adversarial system (Bizzell and Hertzberg, 22), I believe we need to consider if persuasion needs to be adversarial (or not) depending on our individual circumstances. To that end, I adapt my rhetorical style to my audience, which may demand a Platonist or Sophist style depending on its needs of the moment.
In the context of my personal belief system, however, I am very much a Sophist. Protagoras taught that excellence is the result of training and not innate. While I do acknowledge that we are all born with certain skills depending on our genetic makeup, these skills are surely only strengthened and grown through training (I am reminded of the Latin saying “repeticia est mater studiorum).
Further, I agree with the Sophists that truth is relative to the individual. As Protagoras said: "Man is the measure of all things, of the things that are, that they are and of things that are not, that they are not". The challenge with Plato was his desire and determination to discover absolute truth (Bizzell and Herzberg, 28). In today’s rhetoric, we see that truth can have many sides.
Plato’s idea that one can work out truth in one’s own mind and then correct the “less experienced mind” (Bizzell and Herzberg, 29) is an antiquated philosophy. Age does not necessarily equate wisdom. Nor does pure thought. If one travels down the wrong road, no length of time driving on that road will change it to the correct one, and one must surely ask directions or turn off or double back to correct the mistake.
As humans, we have the capacity to learn individually and through many avenues and even with the help of those less knowledgeable than ourselves. We have, to a large degree, left the ancients behind us, but have not forgotten them.
As the poet and philosopher George Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Debbie,
ReplyDeleteYour comments on truth and learning are insightful, especially as they relate to time. Certainly many of what we may consider truths or solids have been recycled and practiced over and over. We have not only build upon old constants, but we have also bettered our techniques in how we practice and reestablish our languaging. For example, humans (as teachable, habit-forming creatures) are taught and then practice advertising by simply listening and being persuaded. Not everyone has the same persuasion factors. But let's say your parent taught you that if you hear "half-off", it's a good deal. OR your neighbors convinced you that couponing saves money. (Others may not be triggered by the words "half-off" and may think couponing is a major waste of time.) This example is overly simplistic, but it points to the notion of relative consistencies as opposed to absolute truth. We have solid patterns that are only consistent because we practice them again and again and again. Likewise, we because accustomed to using certain words, gimmicks, and tactics when we are, continuing with the example, advertising something. Such ads could be related to work OR they could be us trying to convince someone else of where to go to dinner. These techniques become especially acute for me when I'm interacting with little children: all of the sudden, key words and voice inflection reverts back to what I have learned is convincing and exciting.
Emily
Debbie,
ReplyDeleteYou said, "As humans, we have the capacity to learn individually and through many avenues and even with the help of those less knowledgeable than ourselves. We have, to a large degree, left the ancients behind us, but have not forgotten them."
I love this statement. We cannot forget the ancients because we have added to the knowledge that they have given us. If we forgot them, we would have to keep learning everything all over again from scratch and would never make any progress.