Barbara Brooks wrote:
To seekers of good and graceful rhetoric,
M : So, now I see you standing aloof and alone, speaking to a specific audience - about to inform them of the true way - the ancient rules of writing or arguing philosophical points ? Would that be a correct impression - or are you a fellow seeker, wishing to interact as one among many ? That is - you are talking at, rather then listening to ?
Homer and other writers of poetry and even Pericles and others who have composed writings in the form of laws Socrates believed to all of them if their compositions are based on knowledge of the truth, and they can defend or prove them, when they are put to the test, by spoken arguments, which leave their writings poor in comparison of them, then they are to be called, not only poets, orators, legislators, but are worthy of a higher name, philosophers.
M: and this is what you believe too ? Let me try and understand, since you do not spell things out in your own words -
Writings are poor - compared to philosophical spoken argument - a poet would need to be able to justify or explain the poem to others in order for him to be deemed a philosopher ?
So, you see true philosophy as a particular form of music - you mentioned jazz in your thread ' Girl Philosopher' - and anything else is not true ? Only certain rules apply ?
Speaking or writing of discourses, a when intelligent words, the living word of knowledge is graven in the mind of the rhetorician when to speak and when to be silent can defend itself,
M: When you write here, BB, of the ancient discourses and rules - you have living knowledge in your mind and wish to apply the rules as set out, and 'bring them back to preserve true philosophy' - is that what mean ?
According to the rules, then, your writings or wrotings are not enough - you must be able to explain them. And answer our questions...
The serious pursuit of the dialectician, who, by the help of knowledge sows and plants therein words which are able to help themselves and have in them a seed which others brought up in different soils render immortal, making the possessors of he rhetorical skill happy to the utmost extent of human happiness.
M: And now we are talking about dialecticians ( philosophical debate ) - not rhetoric - ( the art of effective and persuasive speaking or writing - which might lack sincerity or meaningful content ? )
But both can implant ideas in other minds - for better of for worse - and the Persuader is then Happy, Very Happy to have a Legacy and Offspring/shoots.
BB, do you simply just want to show the words of the ancients - implanted in your mind - or discuss with others your unique interpretation of them. So far, the soil is quite dry....and the leaves of this plant ( me ) are beginning to curl at the edges. Perhaps, some cross-fertilization of the natural kind ie ordinary language and exchange ?
Writing or speaking, the different modes of discourse which are adapted to different emotions and how to arrange and dispose of words.
M: Yes indeed
Socrates believed, the rhetorician must be accomplished to handle arguments according to rules of art of teaching or persuading. For not to know the nature of justice and injustice, and good and evil, and not to be able to distinguish the dream from the reality, even though he or she have the applause of the whole world. He believing neither poetry nor prose, spoken or written, is of any great value if, only recited in order to be believed, and not with any knowledge even the best of writings are but a reflections.
M: This is getting tedious. You are over-feeding me Socrates - this is too much and yet not enough. Where is your voice ?
The true way of writing, words are comprehensible and faultless as possible and thoughtful in character or manner are in the bosom of the philosopher.
When I talked earlier of the quantity and quality of interaction- what do you think I had in mind ?