Absolute Truth Through Rhetoric example essay topic

The Sophist views and beliefs originated in Ancient Greece around 400 B.C.E. The Sophists were known as wandering rhetoricians who gave speeches to those who could afford to listen. The Sophists deeply believed in the power of rhetoric and how it could improve one's life. Plato on the other hand was opposed to all Sophist beliefs. He viewed the Sophists as rhetorical manipulators who were only interested in how people could be persuaded that they learned the truth, regardless if it was in fact the truth.

Plato basically opposed every view the Sophists held true and tried to disprove them throughout his many dialogues. The Sophists and Plato held two very contrasting views and this paper will attempt to sift through them all in hopes of illustrating each one. This paper will first focus on each group. It will begin by identifying both the Sophists and Plato and then citing the significant principles associated with each world view. This paper will then focus on how each component of their world views relate specifically to rhetoric.

Finally, this paper will focus on illustrating each world view by way of current newspaper editorial. As noted, the Sophists were rooted in ancient Greece but traveled to many places, giving speeches on rhetoric to those who could afford to listen. Within their teachings, the Sophists focused on rhetorical techniques and how they could be used to successfully argue any side of an argument. They harped on the idea that through their teachings, self improvement could be achieved because those who controlled language had the power.

The Sophists were relativists, which means they believed that an individual or society's beliefs, while true for that particular individual or society, might be untrue for others. (Bizzell P. & Herzberg, B., 2001, pg. 6) The Sophists referred to this as kai ros and said that because of it, there could be no absolute truth because the truth was dependent on that particular person's point of view. They believed that the only knowledge that humans could achieve is knowledge that is probable because absolute knowledge is unattainable. The Sophists feel that this probable knowledge can be boiled down through what they refer to as logo i.

This technique, in which each opposing side of an argument is examined in order to identify the probable truth, was developed by Protagoras. (Bizzell P. & Herzberg, B., 2001, pg. 23) This is similar to a present day court room arguments where each side is argued and the jury has to distinguish between who made the best argument. There really can be no absolute truth then because the truth hinges solely on who presents a better argument. Just as the opposite of up is down, the opposite of right is wrong, and the opposite of good is evil, the opposite of the Sophists was Plato. Plato and his philosophies were also rooted in ancient Greece at the same time as the Sophists. Plato studied under Socrates, another famous ancient philosopher, and started the very first center for learning which he called the Academy.

Plato was not what you would call a relativist though. He was exactly the opposite. He was opposed to all the beliefs of the Sophists, believing them to be only concerned with the manipulative aspects of how humans attain knowledge. He argued that they taught people how to persuade people into believing they heard the truth, even if it wasn't in fact the truth. Plato believes that true rhetoric is where philosophers and their pupils become free from all worldly encumbrances and all conventional beliefs in the pursuit of a transcendent absolute truth. (Bizzell P. & Herzberg, B., 2001, pg. 29) Plato believes that there is in fact absolute truth and contends that discourse is necessary to uncover it.

He feels that false rhetoric is Sophist rhetoric and that with their vast knowledge of rhetoric, they should be using it to find absolute truth, not teaching people how to convince people that probable truth is in fact absolute. Plato views rhetoric as a means for uncovering this absolute truth in two ways. First is by conveying the truth that person already knows to an ignorant audience by any means possible, or second by helping clear away the debris so that the truth can be clearly seen. (Bizzell P. & Herzberg, B., 2001, pg. 29) Either way, the rhetorician is helping the audience see the absolute truth through rhetoric. Now that the Sophists and Plato have been identified and their world views have been laid out, the focus will shift to identifying how each component relates to rhetoric. For the Sophists, they deeply believed that there was no absolute truth because the truth was dependent upon kai ros, or a specific point of view.

Rhetoric then, was the basis for how probable truth was achieved. The idea was that since the truth was dependent on a person's point of view, the person that could be the most convincing created the truth. If a person could somehow convince the masses that pigs could fly, that would then be the truth because that is what's believed. If someone else came around and argued that pigs can't fly, and made a much more convincing argument, then that would become the truth.

This is why the Sophists felt there wasn't absolute truth. Someone could come around and make a better argument and that would then be the truth. So then, the basis for their teachings were that rhetoric was powerful because you could create truth with it and whoever controlled rhetoric, had the power. The Sophist's beliefs seem to make sense and many bought into it, but not Plato. He felt that this idea was absolutely bogus and argued that the Sophists were only trying to make money with their ideas. Plato believed that there was an absolute truth and that rhetoric was a key to uncovering it, but he disagreed totally with the idea that rhetoric was something that should be taught.

Plato viewed rhetoric as something that you have a natural ability for. He called this a knack and said that while you can be taught tricks of how to manipulate rhetoric and use it to try to persuade people of probable truth, true rhetoric should be used to help people uncover absolute truth. Plato felt that was the job of the philosopher. They help people find absolute truth by teaching the ignorant through rhetoric about absolute truth, or by helping people dust away the debris covering the absolute truth so that they can clearly see it. Regardless, Plato felt that rhetoric was vital to uncovering absolute truth, not by teaching people tricks to use to persuade people of probable truth, but by using rhetoric as a tool to uncover absolute truth. September 11, 2001 is a day that will stand in infamy in the minds of all Americans.

It was a day when our country was under attack from evil forces. These evil forces crashed planes into the World Trade Center in New York, frightening all American citizens and immediately creating stereotypes about the culprits, middle easterners. America saw Osama Bin Laden and his regime as evil people who will stop at nothing to destroy the American way. This is perfect grounds to illustrate the beliefs of the Sophists. The Sophists believed that with the right argument, either side can be successfully proven. In a case such as this, because the Sophists were very arrogant and took on improvable arguments, they would argue that kai ros needs to be applied to the situation.

According to the article in the Houston Chronicle, many countries including the US, Britain, Germany, and Italy label the event as "a terrible tragedy". (The Houston Chronicle, 2001, pg. 7) If the article were to be argued by Sophists though, they would argue that it all depends on the perspective that the event is being looked at from. From the eyes of the Americans and their allies, this was a bleak day, but from the eyes of Osama Bin Laden and his followers, it was a monumental day. The Sophists would argue that from a middle easterner's point of view they were the good guys and the United States was the bad guys and that they were only doing what they were told by their god for the good of their country. Bin Laden persuaded them that in order to improve their lot in life, they must attack the US which goes along with the Sophists beliefs. The Sophists wouldn't care if this was actually true or not, only that they could make it sound true enough to persuade people to believe it.

Then they would feel they had true power. The Platonic world views can be easily seen in an article on the Center for Justice and Democracy website. It talks about the case in which the McDonalds Corporation was sued for three million dollars because she spilled coffee on her lap. The article talks about assume they know the whole story because they " ve heard or been convinced by other people of what happened, but they really don't have the actual facts as to what happened. This article was written in order to clear up any myths that arose from the case and let everyone know the truth of what actually happened. This goes along with Plato's belief that absolute truth is achieved through rhetoric and discourse.

Many people were improperly informed or persuaded to believe certain things about the case without having and factual backing. According to Plato, this would be dusting away the debris (the myths) and uncovering the absolute truth of what really happened. Through rhetoric, probable truths such as McDonalds had to pay three million, are cleared out and absolute truths, McDonalds had to pay $640,000, are uncovered. (Doro show, J. pg. 1-3) This is exactly how Plato would have had it.

To summarize, the Sophists were traveling rhetoricians who were paid to teach people techniques to becoming great arguers and persuaders. They were relativists who believed there was no absolute truth, only probable. This probable truth was discovered through kai ros, dependent on a person's situation, or logo i, the truth is uncovered by examining opposing arguments. The philosopher Plato was in opposition to virtually every belief the Sophists had. He believed in absolute truth and that rhetoric and discourse should be used to uncover this truth. He also believed that false rhetoric was that of the Sophists.

Whether the Sophist view is correct or Plato's view is, there is some sort of truth out there and maybe one day it can be decided as to which method best uncovered it. But until then, the debate will rage on, as it did within this paper.