Rhetoric vs. Dialectics: A Critical Examination of Plato’s Phaedrus

Abstract

This article deals with the analysis of rhetoric and dialectic, examining how Plato employs
rhetoric in Phaedrus. The dialogue between Socrates and Phaedrus reflects the similarities
and differences between rhetoric and dialectic. Similarly, it can be divided into three sections:
the first two speeches against love, the third speech in praise of love, and a discussion of
rhetoric. The dialogue revolves around the art of rhetoric and how it should be practiced.
True rhetoric has dialectic which involves collecting and dividing knowledge of a subject in a
natural way. This kind of dialectic art can be acquired only by philosophizing systematically
about the nature of life and the soul.Rhetoric is called the art of persuasive communication.
Persuasion means the relationship between the audience and the speaker. And it denotes a
form of motivated discourse. On the other hand, dialectic is more than an abstract principle
or method of philosophical ideas. It can be interpreted as a concrete method of social science.
That is why rhetoric has become a counterpart of dialectic, which has received a significant
effort and amount of attention. This study clarifies how the application of the arguments,
the uses of pathos, logos and ethos, Aristotle’s notion of statements categorized as division
of speeches like invention, arrangement, style, memory and delivery are analysed in Plato’s
Phaedrus. From this study, it is believed that dialectic seems more powerful than rhetoric
in Plato’s Phaedrus. The main outcome of this study is to analyze and examine the Plato’s
Phaedrus concentrating on rhetoric and dialectic.