In this excerpt from Plato's Phaedrus, Socrates and Phaedrus engage in a dialogue to determine the conditions for speaking well. They explore the relationship between truth, persuasion, and morality, raising questions about the responsibility of the orator and the impact of their words on their audience.
Extract
[...] In this excerpt, 'speaking well' appears to be characterized by the ability to convince and persuade one's interlocutor. Socrates said,He began by hypothesizing that in order to speak well, a person must know the truth about the subject they are discussing, that is, know what is good and evil. However, Phaedrus presents a different thesis: in order to speak well and convince, it is not the truth that the orator must learn and know, but what appears just, beautiful and good to the eyes of the interlocutors. [...]
[...] It is therefore necessary to conclude from this dialogue between Socrates and Phit is therefore necessary to conclude from this dialogue between Socrates and Phaedrus that one can say of a person that they speak well, provided they know the truth, that is, the good and the evil on the matter treated. In addition, the moral of this story suggests that a person speaks well when their words guide the audience towards just and virtuous actions. It also leaves the door open to the question of morality, since Socrates implicitly emphasizes that the art of oratory involves a responsibility, given that one incites people to action, towards the good or towards the evil, by the word. [...]
[...] In order to'In order to evaluate the justice of the thesis advanced by Phaedrus, Socrates resorts to a comparison. He imagines a situation in which Phaedrus and he are unaware of what a horse is, and in which he would succeed in persuading Phaedrus to go to battle on a donkey, thanks to arguments that attribute the qualities of a horse to the donkey (it serves as a 'battle mount', it is 'capable of carrying loads' and 'one can use it for a multitude of other things'). [...]
