Plato vs. Aristotle: Battle of the Ancient Greeks

In both readings by Benoit and Haskins, comparisons are made between ancient Greek figures' teachings and writings, specifically that of Plato and Isocrates and that of Aristotle and Isocrates.

The purpose of Haskin's piece is to call for more diverse readings, other than the go-to ancient Greek figures such as Aristotle and Plato, to be added into education so as to compensate for the voices that were silenced or overlooked as not worthy of the "canon." Haskin's piece also serves to explain Aristotle's central position about rhetoric in his kairos. Haskins goes into detail on good rheotric versus bad rhetoric, and how rhetoric came to be associated with persuasion thanks to Aristotle. He also touches base on performative models and politics, explaining Aristotle's performative approach and his mindset that imitative training should only be used at the start of one's education, as well as the importance of "culturally significant speech" when it comes to getting involved in politics.

In Benoit's piece, Isocrates and Plato are compared through the lens of their sophist criticisms, their beliefs and teachings on rhetoric's function and definition, as well as their contributions to the teaching of rhetoric. Isocrates and Plato had three main similarities when it came to their criticism of sophists: the hypocrasy and irony of sophists apparently failed lessons on virtue as demonstrated by their distrust of their pupils, the apathetic attitude of sophists towards truth, and the prioritization of sophists' personal gain over society's general well-being. These three arguments are all sub-similarities, however, when one considers the fact that all of these similar arguments were all used for the similar purpose of attracting students to their school while simultaneously debunking other teachers. It should also be noted that although these figures are similar in their concern with truth that their definitions of truth are different, partially due to their mentors' influence. That is, Isocrates views truth as abstract and not preferable to practical knowledge. He believes certain knowledge does not exist and Plato views truth as an all powerful, inarguable and abstract concept. When it comes to Isocrates and Plato's teachings and beliefs on rhetoric, both figures believed rhetoric was mostly for the purpose of persuasion. Furthermore, Isocrates and Plato view rhetoric differently in the sense that Isocrates views rhetoric as a concept that comes before knowledge whilst Plato views rhetoric as happening after and being dependent on knowledge.  Both figures believe morals is part of rhetoric's function. More specifically, Isocrates believes rhetoric's function to demonstrate the author/speakers' talent, to improve, not flatter or deceive, the audience, and to discuss serious topics. Plato believed rhetoric's function is mainly to save the audiences' souls as demonstrated by his call for "true orators" to focus on justice, control, and virtue. Both Plato and Isocrates' schools gave pupils an opportunity to be educated in one area for a more permanent stay than they could with traveling sophists.

A passage that struck me as particularly interesting in Haskin's piece was:

"Whether or not I have dislodges Aristotle's Rhetoric from its position of dominance in the minds of contemporary students, I hope to have presented some good reasons for questioning Aristotle's Rhetoric as the pinnacle of evolution of rhetorical thought in Ancient Greece. Indeed, if I were to propose one adjustment to the ways we teach classical rhetoric, it would be a requirement to attend to the contestation among the various "schools of thought" within the "canon," alongside the recovery of "muted" voices of the politically and culturally disenfranchised." Because I agreed

This passage stuck out to me because I agreed with the argument that we should be educating students not only on the "canonical" works of the culturally and socially privileged of the time, that is, upper-class white males, but also on the works of the voices that were silenced due to their disadvantage social or political class. We should teach a variety of beliefs and opinions on concepts so as to expose students to as many different viewpoints as possible and to give them as unbiased ideas as possible. In essence, if such lessons were to be taught, students would be able to get a more whole and diverse view point of concepts. Such diversified lessons are vital to acceptance of other cultures and beliefs as well as well-rounded thoughts and views of concepts.

I agree with the arguments made in the passage I explained above because I believe it is essential to study various viewpoints for development of one's thinking and opinions. It would be comparatively more difficult to formulate one's unique beliefs on a matter if the only information and education they got on the matter came from one source, from one naturally biased point of view. What would leave me hesitant, however, would be what works and information to include in this diversified approach to teaching. Whose authority would be high enough to label the non-canonical authors as worthy enough to study and teach?