The story is set up in ancient Greece. It is about two friends, Socrates and Phaedrus. Phaedrus had just returned from a famous patriarch’s home, where he listened to a speech on love.
Socrates has a high affinity for hearing speeches and begs Phaedrus to repeat the speech for him. They decide to walk along a nature trail into the jungle to find a serene environment, where Phaedrus offers to read him the speech. It is noteworthy that Socrates marvels at the surroundings, claiming that his passion for knowledge often guides him to the marketplace where he can listen to various speakers (Plato, Hamilton, & Cairns 475).
As they walk towards their preferred site, Phaedrus takes it upon himself to find out the degree of legitimacy in the fables and orations that have been propagated through different generations, including those of their time. Socrates offers that he does not pay attention to myths, since he does not like instituting lucid explanations for them. He further cites the discrepancies in varying accounts of the tale, with reference to revised versions explaining the nature and factors that instigated the death.
From these occurrences, it is clear that the crisis involves Phaedrus, who lacks the ability to make speeches of his own. This occurs because he is poor at analysis, hence faces challenges when trying to decipher facts from orations. This explains his eagerness to engage Socrates after he leaves the home of Lysius. He does this with the hope that Socrates will help him make sense of the facts argued by Lysius from the speech he gave about love.
From his preferences of crowds, as opposed to nature, it is clear that Socrates has a craving for knowledge. This is further illustrated when he reiterates his passion for speeches to Phaedrus. He practically begs Phaedrus to go over the speech for him, and even promises to recite his own version after the reading is finished.
After the recitation, he shows his analytical prowess by pointing out all the shortcomings of the speech. He makes out the poor application of rhetoric as a style and the incoherence of ideas in the body of the anecdote. He highlights Phaedrus’ inability to formulate speeches and recite those that have been told to him. This explains his incapability to figure out facts and themes from tales, hence his preference or Socrates’ company.
In view of this, Socrates helps Phaedrus comprehend the facts in the narrative, the main theme being that love clouds a person’s ability to make sane judgments.
He argues that people make compromised decisions when they deal with persons to whom they are affectionate. Drawing parallels with the present-day scenarios, many promising ventures have gone wrong due to such affiliations. Records tell of deals gone sour; disagreements at the workplace, and businesses that have been run down as a result of having persons in love with one another at the core of affairs.
Socrates warns the populace to shy away from engaging in development oriented practices with lovers. It would be of immense benefit if persons undertook ventures with those they have moderate affection for, if they are to make progress in their undertakings. If this is observed, the result will be of mutual benefit, given that all parties will profit from the proceedings.
The moral of the story is that mutual affection is necessary for peaceful coexistence of persons. Lack of this will cause disharmony, hence numerous social ills in the society. While it is not an awful idea to have romantic feelings for one another, these should be restricted to social circles and family circles.
After this analysis, Phaedrus dares Socrates to issue a personal address concerning the same matter after he had discredited that of Lysius. He consents to this after a long argument, where he cites the fact that matters of love are not his specialty. This would bring shame on him if his peers found him issuing a discourse on the same.
He also cites that offering an entirely overhauled version is almost impossible, due to the numerous similarities that exist as a result of the narrow scope presented by the topic. After persuasion and threats, he gives in, speaking about love with reference the effect it has on the nature and ability of the soul to perceive reality. This is clearly supported by the evidence he adduces with reference to the topic.
From all his speeches, it is clear the he perceives the soul to exist in three different forms. Each form responds to a different phenomenon in the environment. This gives credence to his belief that they are adapted for different responsibilities in someone’s daily life. He also cites that desire finds completion in these forms.
Summarily, he believes in the immortality of the soul. He argues that the soul has no beginning, given that it is a self mover. The soul is also indestructible, since it is the basis of everything also which practices motion. This also implies that objects moving from without lack souls, while the presence of souls in those that move internally makes them indestructible.
Most importantly, he notes that a person’s desires and preferences are determined by the soul. He contends that while all the three divisions of the soul are essential, it is imperative to for a reason to rule, since those led by appetite or emotion are mentally and emotionally unstable. This makes it easy for their actions to provoke disharmony at personal and social levels. It is also in order that people establish a middle ground in their soul.
There is the mantic soul of rational sanity in existence. This sphere governs the human ability to reason. This refers to the intellectual part of the soul which fails to find the truth by weighing all options, and deliberating when presented with alternatives, all these under the influence of the hubristic soul. It is advised that persons refrain from making crucial decisions under the influence of this segment of the soul. It is advisable to restrict these feelings to social circles, in addition, to family and personal relationships.
There also exists a wanton nature, which refers to a hubristic soul of irrational desire. It may also be called the appetite. This is a dangerous state if left unchecked. It fails to find the truth since people are controlled by their desires, whether material, biological, or of any other nature.
These people opt to feed their craving at the expense of other pursuits, which may be equally fulfilling. The main characteristic is the predominant desire and cravings of the highest degree. As a result of this, people are insensitive to the desires of other persons. This makes it dangerous to act on the premise of impulses drawn from this part of the soul since they are mostly self seeking. Acting on these feelings increases the possibility of persons being at logger heads.
Lastly, the Socratic nature of the soul is mentioned with reference to the philosophical nature that governs temperance and rational desire. It is referred to as the spirit in some quarters. This sphere of the soul draws to the emotional and passionate side of a person’s character. It succeeds in establishing the truth by driving persons in pursuit of status on a social level. It evokes ambition for nobility and magnificence, ethical indignation and hankering for approbation.
Since love relationships can be slotted under this cluster, interactions with others are a source of experience that manipulates emotional growth. Plato favors placing the mantic in control due to its respectable counsel and tendency to search for insight before acting. It equips persons with credible contemplative faculties, hence are unlikely to act hurriedly irrespective of the situation. In order to comprehend the benefits of the divergent nature of the soul, it is imperative to study the real-life applications.
From these deliberations, it is evident that Socrates defines rhetoric as the general art of enchanting human minds with arguments and is practiced in courts, public assemblies and private houses. It deals with all matters, irrespective of the magnitude, time and place of composition. They differ on the most salient aspect with respect to oratory; between competencies with regards the topic of discussion or familiarity with persuasion as an art.
Socrates argues that mastery of persuasion is of more importance to aspiring orators. This assertion is disputed by Phaedrus, who argues that lack of knowledge on the subject will yield substandard arguments by the orator, hence a poor speech altogether. Socrates responds by drawing attention to the fact that conviction is only achieved if the orator knows persuasion. He concludes that both factors are necessary for success in this field.
In the itinerary of their discourse, it is established that the act of persuasion is the skill that governs all speaking. It is indispensable for the speaker to establish common grounds in the topic of choice, and establish all facts and falsehood with respect to the said concepts. Armed with this knowledge, it is easier for him to sway his audience to mendacity by drawing them through parallels. Setting up similarities is impracticable if the orator lacks this knowledge; hence it ceases being an art.
Persons interested in possessing this knowledge should create a concise distinction between the aspects they have incorporated in their speeches. While some facts make the same impression on listeners, others may evoke varied thoughts on the same group. This marks the main shortfall of the speech by Lysias.
He fails to delineate love clearly as he commences his narration. This makes his entire recitation appear jumbled up and incoherent. This prompts Socrates’ remark that all speeches should be well thought and constructed, with requisite attention paid to the introduction, body of the text and conclusion in equal measure (Plato, et al. 523).
It should be noted that clear and certain results are not governed by clearly written rules and regulations. They only exist to remind established writers the dynamics of writing. It is noteworthy that writings lack oratory capacities hence convey their message silently. This explains their inability to speak, come to their own defense or answer questions.
It is evident from this oration, that love can be perceived as a form of madness bequeathed to us which bears more potent than harm to those who experience it. This implies that persons should not shy away from love, rather embrace it whole heartedly and revel in every joy that comes with it.
This includes it among the supreme blessings to mankind, since it changes people’s perceptions and possible reactions to several situations that we may come across. To illustrate the place love manifests itself on and the effect it has on human beings, Socrates extends his speech to the soul. This offers a bridge for the switch to his second speech.
By mentioning the soul and its different forms, he refers to the varied factors that influence actions taken by human beings when faced by different situations in life. He offers counsel, by citing that knowledge about the way the soul acts is essential. The immortality of the soul is evidenced by the fact that the soul dictates all undertakings. With reference to this, persons are advised to uphold self control of and the decisions they make when faced with uncertainties.
Works Cited
Plato. Hamilton, Edith. & Cairns, Huntington. The Collected Dialogs of Plato. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1961. Print.