Charlie Rivas

Rhetoric 103A

Kwan Hua

8 October 2016

The Paternalistic, Understanding Qualities of Socrates

              In Plato’s Protagoras, Socrates’ young friend Hippocrates, wishes to learn the art of rhetoric from Protagoras, a sophist, whom is known as the “wisest of all men.” However, Hippocrates first seeks the guidance of Socrates. Thus Socrates ends up accompanying him, which leads him into a dialogue with Protagoras, revolving primarily over the ability to know and teach virtue.

            Protagoras as a text, can be broken down into three main dialogues. The first occurs in the beginning, when Socrates encounters his companion. To this companion, Socrates narrates his encounter with Hippocrates, which transforms into the second dialogue. The third dialogue, often considered the most important, develops when Socrates encounters Protagoras. However, although the first two lack a Socratic dialogue, they are still important, since Plato uses them to imbue Socrates with an understanding and paternalistic ethos, whom has a genuine care for the youth. It is this ethos that justifies Socrates' ability to guide the youth. To be clear, Socrates claims to know nothing, however, this introspective knowledge, paradoxically hints that he knows something. Plato therefore constructs Socrates’ ability to guide and know others, always in relation to the understanding of the self, reflected on others, in particular, the youth.

            A paternalistic stance is taken with Socrates and Hippocrates. When Hippocrates first calls to Socrates, Socrates states, “I knew his voice, and said: Hippocrates, is that you? And do you bring any news?” Socrates asserts that he knew it was Hippocrates since he recognized the voice, yet he chooses remain ambiguous by asking if it is him, and even follows up by asking if he bring any news, again confirming that he knows who it is, and implying that he knows he brings news. Therefore, there is an understanding that Socrates intimately knows the youth, for the fact that he recognizes his voice and knows what potentially brings him there; this knowledge is plausible since it immediately becomes known, that Socrates was aware of Protagoras arrival, therefore, possibly aware of the news Hippocrates was bringing. Socrates then explicitly claims the following in regards to Hippocrates: “I who knew the very courageous madness of the man.” Socrates thus asserts that he knows the qualities and passions of a youth that he takes a paternal position over. Thus Plato, has imbued Socrates with a genuine care for the youth by constructing him with the ability to understand their passions and qualities.

Furthermore, the qualities/passions that Socrates claims Hippocrates has are those of madness and courage, however this madness and courage did not derail him from first seeking Socrates, rather than going directly to Protagoras. Socrates then asks, “I wonder whether you know what you are doing?” to which Hippocrates replies “and what am I doing.” Hippocrates is aware that Socrates hold knowledge about him, that he is yet to understand. Socrates then replies, “You are going to commit you soul.” Socrates then uses the consumption of food for the body analogous to the absorption of knowledge for the soul. Implying that he knows what is nutritious for the soul, and therefore vital to one’s health. Contrastingly, if he knows what is good, he knows what is harmful to the soul. Again, this knowledge is only in relation to Hippocrates, and stated in good will, through a paternal role. It can be assumed that even if he does not know the things he speaks about, it doesn’t matter since they are good willing and in relation to what he does know, and that is the intrinsic qualities (by qualities I speak of personality, characteristics, their human tendencies, etc.) of others. This assumption can be ascertained, by observing that Socrates seemingly chastises Hippocrates for going to Protagoras without consulting others: “You don’t consult your father, brothers or any of your companions.” Therefore, it is implied that Socrates isn’t his father, brother or a companion, then it must be inferred the Socrates is regarded as something higher, potentially wiser since Hippocrates takes his consultation in high regard.

            Thus, Plato uses the first dialogues in Protagoras to construct Socrates as a good willed, understanding, paternalistic figure. Since Socrates’ is capable of knowing and understanding himself, he is in reflection capable of knowing and understanding others. Therefore, he holds the self-asserted responsibility to guide others, in contrast to Protagoras who teaches persuasion, and that anyone is capable of "guiding" others. 

Plato’s Apology: Socrates’ Critique of Rhetoric

Josephine Chiang

Rhetoric 103a

GSI: Kwan Hua

Plato’s Apology: Socrates’ Critique of Rhetoric

This passage is from the Apology by Plato, which is Plato’s reiteration of Socrates’ trial. In the book’s original language, Greek, “Apology” aligns itself to mean “explanation” or “defense”. In this specific passage, Socrates executes an ironic critique of rhetoric that reveals the fault in the charges brought against him. He tactfully builds his ethos not through boasting his credibility as a scholar, but instead, through presenting himself as a common man in order to appear authentic. This passage picks up at the very start of the work and ends right before Socrates dives into defending himself against his old and young accusers.

Socrates doesn’t beat around the bush; he immediately attacks the rhetoric of his accusers, playfully saying “their persuasive words almost made me forget who I was”. However, his opening sentence seeks to do more than crack a joke: Socrates contrasts the man he actually is with the man they are branding him to be. In other words, he explains he was so lost in his accusers’ portrayal of him that he forgot himself.

After blatantly stating the accusations are “falsehoods”, Socrates decides to zero in on one particular argument of his accusers—that the jury should be wary of being deceived by the “force of [Socrates’] eloquence.” First off, Socrates makes evident the hypocrisy and irony in his accusers’ claim. He demonstrates it is not he who will use rhetoric to persuade, but his accusers themselves, who have executed an “oration duly ornamented with words and phrases”. The accusers are the ones who have been trained in speaking, and are using rhetoric to disguise the truth. Then, Socrates describes just how candid and ineloquent his own speech will be, comparing it to that of “money-changers.” He explains that his speech is plain because the current trial he is undergoing is the first time he has ever appeared in court. In this statement, Socrates is not claiming his innocence, but denouncing the crafty culture of the courts of law, with which he seeks to differentiate himself. By calling himself a “stranger” to the court, he is furthering his claim that he is foreign to the deceitful rhetoric of his accusers. This condemnation of rhetoric becomes ironic when readers realize that Socrates himself has executed a cunning introduction, asserting his innocence through appearing common, yet tainting the credibility of his accusers.

After his introduction, Socrates leaps into defending himself against his older charges. Again, Socrates reiterates the narrative that his accusers have denounced him for propelling falsehoods when the accusers themselves are the ones fabricating facts and impressing these lies into the minds of the young. He explains that he fears his older charges more because they have been instilled in people’s minds since childhood. He was depicted as being a Physicalist who “speculated about the heaven above and searched into the earth beneath”, and a Sophist, who “made the worse appear the better cause”.

Similar to his introduction, Socrates paints himself as the one at a disadvantage. He explains that these older accusations are difficult to fight because 1) these lies have been propelled for a long time during which he could not answer to all of his accusers, and 2) these “slanderers” are not alive and in court to answer to Socrates’ objections, preventing him from effectively proving himself innocent. With this, he launches into his detailed defense.

 It is important to remember that the Apology is not a transcript of Socrates’ trial, but a documentation of the trial written by Plato. While the text shows wise compositional elements from Socrates’ speech, these elements could have very well been stylized by Plato. This could explain why Socrates’ rhetoric appears ironic as Socrates himself uses rhetoric to execute his defense.

Rhetorical Precis, The Iliad

Irene Chen

Rhetorical Precis

In the first book of The Iliad by Homer, Agamemnon and Achilles argue over the claim of Briseis, Achilles’ prize, after Apollo attacks the Greek Army by request of the father of Chryses, Agamemnon prize of battle, whom Agamemnon had refused to return.  In anger Achilles attacks Agamemnon and reasons why he should keep Briseis and why he should leave the army if not.  This epic opens with that rage-- the rage of Achilles which eventually ruins the Achaean army.

Achilles uses the pathos of the Achaean Army’s hardship and suffering, and subtly positions himself in that army as if it to divide them into one group against Agamemnon.  He speaks for them as if the voice for many by beginning with this with a rhetorical question to doubt Agamemnon’s leadership and passion, “With what heart can any of the Achaeans do your bidding, either on foray or in open fighting?”

Achilles then switches to first person to explain his own narrative of relevance in the war, as he claims he has no reason to be in it except for the fact that he wants to be.  He has not been wronged by the Trojans in any way and is in fact, geographically very distanced from them.  He plays his role and part in the Trojan War as a favor to the Greeks, and not an obligation or necessity of his own.  

He then switches back to third person to place himself with the army again, creating a connection between him as an individual soldier amongst many to form the “heart” of the Achaean force.  “We have followed you, Sir Insolence!” he exclaims, further creating the disparity between the army of “we” and their leader.  He then continues, “for your pleasure, not ours”.  Here Achilles it clear, Agamemnon’s selfishness amongst amidst everyone else’s selflessness.  

Then, Achilles states everything that Agamemnon has done wrong to him-- “You forget this, and threaten to rob me of the prize for which I have toiled, and which the sons of the Achaeans have given me.”  First, he reminds Agamemnon that very importantly, he does not need to be there to help him.  Then with his next statement, he claims what is his, and what he has earned, rightfully.  Agamemnon may be king, but the act of taking what is earned is theft.

Achilles then goes on to say that even the prizes he has earned in battle is never better than what Agamemnon “earns” solely for the fact that Agamemnon is king.  Furthermore, Achilles contrasts Agamemnon’s heart, skill, and character to his own, drawing upon his upon his own ethos as he is is known to be the best warrior-- “though it is my hands that do the better part of the fighting”.  Agamemnon may be most valuable in royalty, but Achilles is most valuable in battle.

Further contrasting Agamemnon’s greedy and distasteful character Achilles continues his argument of his own selflessness by expressing his gratitude for taking whatever prizes he gets for the labour of his fighting, no matter how much less that Agamemnon’s, for Agamemnon's share is “far the largest”.

He then ends stating “Now, therefore, I shall go back to Phthia; it will be much better for me to return home with my ships, for I will not stay here dishonoured to gather gold and substance for you.”  While he does say this as if a declaration, it serves more as a threat and as a punishment as a result of Agamemnon’s disrespect for him.  Because of the association he creates with the Achaeans before as well, it is implied that those who stay will continue to gather gold and substance for Agamemnon, whose reputation here, Achilles has destroyed.

Hecuba and Agamemnon

            "Hecuba, I feel compassion for thee and thy son and thy ill-fortune, as well as for thy suppliant gesture, and I would gladly see yon impious host pay thee this forfeit for the sake of heaven and justice, could I but find some way to help thee without appearing to the army to have plotted the death of the Thracian King for Cassandra's sake. For on one point I am assailed by perplexity; the army count this man their friend, the dead their foe; that he is dear to thee is a matter apart, wherein the army has no share. Reflect on this; for though thou find'st me ready to share thy toil and quick to lend my aid, yet the risk of being reproached by the Achaeans makes me hesitate." -Agamemnon

            In Hecuba the titular character is on a quest to achieve revenge against Polymestor for the murder of Hecuba's child, Polydorus. Much of the play is Hecuba arguing in a court of sorts that revenge is justified and in the selected passage above Agamemnon replies to her argument in a political fashion. The essence of his statement is that while Hecuba may have moral superiority, he does not want to act out of political expediency.

            Agamemnon begins his statement by offering a consolation to Hecuba, he proclaims to "feel compassion" for Hecuba, her son, and all the misfortune inflicted upon her, as well as her "suppliant gesture" which demonstrated Hecuba's appropriate feminine humility. He continues his statement by admonishing Polymestor for his behaviors, specifically calling Polymestor "impious" which was an incredible insult for the ancient Greeks. Agamemnon also states that he, "would gladly see yon impious host pay thee this forfeit for the sake of heaven and justice." This opening into the statement is Agamemnon attempting to console Hecuba and prepare her for an answer she does not want to hear.

            Agamemnon goes on to say that while he would prefer to see Polymestor punished, he can't do so without it appearing to be biased due to his relationship with Hecuba's daughter, Cassandra. Agamemnon then further reinforces his denial of Hecuba's request by referencing the loyalty that Polymestor has amongst the men of the army as well as stating that those who were is "foe" are dead. Moving beyond the problem of appearances Agamemnon brings up the larger reason he is unwilling to help: politics. To drive the point that Hecuba is powerless and Polymestor is not he even states, "that he[Polymestor] is dear to thee is a matter apart, wherein the army has no share." Which boils down to saying that the army simply doesn't care. Agamemnon is afraid that should he permit revenge for Hecuba, he will have the army turn on him and be a victim of Polymestor's popularity. Agamemnon then ends his statement with a recap of his main point, while he would love to help Hecuba achieve vengeance, he is hesitant due to the reproach of the Achaeans.

            Overall Agamemnon starts his statement with an message of sympathy for Hecuba but then pivots to the political reasoning as to why he is unwilling to help her at that moment. He is nervous that should he permit Hecuba to achieve her revenge that it would be seen as nepotism due to his romantic involvement with her daughter, Cassandra, and in retaliation Polymestor's supporters would reject the decision and revolt in his name. Agamemnon's speech is therefore and attempt to stand morally in support of Hecuba while remaining neutral in the realm of action the through lack of action in hopes that this will appease the army, Hecuba, and perhaps his own conscience.

The Apology and Socratic Non-Wisdom

David Zhang

Rhetoric 103A

Jerilyn Sambrooke

Socratic Non-Wisdom

Plato’s The Apology describes the paradoxical notion of Socratic wisdom - that he who is wise knows himself not to be wise. When the Oracle at Delphi declares Socrates to be the wisest in Athens, Socrates immediately sets out to try and refute this claim by producing one wiser than he. What he finds after interacting with poets, artisans, and statesmen is that the Oracle actually illustrates a meta-wisdom, the notion that all wisdom in men is nothing. It is this argument that Socrates presents as a refutation to the accusations of corrupting youth and atheism. He tries to show his accusers, the sophistical ‘ones who know’, as operating on the pretense of knowledge.

The passage begins with his encounter with the politicians. After some discussion, he comes to the conclusion that the politician he chose to examine ”‘was not really wise, although he was thought wise by many, and wiser still by himself.” Socrates tries to point this out to his interlocutor and is met with contempt, a contempt which perpetuates itself across his later encounters with the poets and the artisans. Each time, Socrates discovers a sort of arrogant presumption of wisdom. And each time, his open disdain for such presumptions and manner towards those who espouse such presumptions creates more and more animosity.

For Socrates, this wholly unjustified contempt is the real source of the charges leveled against him. In reality, there is no corruption going on - what has really happened is that his constant questioning has hurt the pride of Athens’ many prominent statesmen, poets and craftsmen. This offense, according to him, is a misunderstanding. He does not “imagine that he himself possesses the wisdom he finds wanting in others”. In fact, the very thing that makes him wise is his acknowledgement of his lack of this wisdom - that only “the Gods are wise”, and that he is just an illustration for the only wisdom men can possess: an admission to the fact that they can possess no wisdom.

Socrates describes the divine mission assigned to him thus: to prove the meta wisdom of non-wisdom in any who presume themselves wise. While this makes him no friends, he does so out of obedience to the divine Oracle, a devotion that stands as a refutation to his atheism, as well as out of a personal duty to promote virtue in the Athenian citizenry. As such, the offended “young men of richer classes” who seek to imitate him eventually stumble upon this truth and are unable to swallow it - instead of being angry with their own supposed shortcomings (which are not really shortcomings at all, but a true wisdom), they direct their anger towards Socrates and create all sorts of “ready-made” accusations about philosophers in general. These accusations are precisely the ones put forward in the trial: that philosophers teach atheistic ideals that “make the worse appear the better cause”. Meletus and gang, according to Socrates, are just hiding behind empty slander in order to escape a deeper truth that is fundamentally incongruous with the Sophistical disposition of “one who knows”, a prevailing ideal within Athenian society.

In the end, Socrates makes a larger point about rhetoric and its detrimental effect upon Athenian society. Rhetoric and sophistry presupposes the erroneous notion that men can be wise and that they should share their wisdom. The very fact that Meletus even finds Socrates so threatening and needs to go to such lengths to condemn him is, for Socrates, solid proof  enough for his argument that Meletus and the others with him are actually insecure about their own lack of wisdom. This insecurity, in of itself is borne out of the expectation that wisdom is an additive thing to be possessed, along with the other virtues. In reality, it is a subtractive expropriation, something that those who claim to “know” find fundamentally troubling. For what is “to know” if “to know” is “to know nothing?” It goes along with Socrates’ larger profession as a gadfly, that which provokes but does nothing to prescribe. Without the comfort of a substantive knowledge, everything is void and nothing is certain.

Precis on Apology

Eric Zhang

Rhetoric 103A / Fall 2016

Section 106 / Jerilyn Sambrooke

Precis on Apology

This paper is on Socrates’s response to “ancient” accusations in the Apology. Before he begins his argument, he states the accusations plainly: “Socrates is an evil-doer; a meddler who searches into things under the earth and in heaven, and makes the worse appear the better cause, and teaches the aforesaid practices to others”. Socrates proceeds to refute two of these accusations directly: that he is “a meddler who searches into things under the earth and in heaven” and that he is a teacher of these corrupt practices.

To refute the accusation that he is a natural philosopher, a serious accusation as it implies atheism, Socrates compares the nature of the charges to the character Socrates in The Clouds. In the comedy by Aristophanes, he is caricatured as a man who engages in ridiculous inquiries, some of them scientific or “natural”. Socrates argues, “Such is the nature of the accusation: it is just what you have yourselves seen in the comedy of Aristophanes”, meaning that the attribution of the activities of natural investigation to himself is just as ridiculous and fictional as the caricature in the play. Socrates states that he knows nothing of natural philosophy, asking the audience members if any of them have ever witnessed him speaking of such subjects. No witnesses step forward, and from this, Socrates concludes the refutation of the first “ancient accusation” and declares that the following accusations will be shown as similarly false.

To refute the accusation that he is a teacher of corrupt practices, Socrates does not show that his subject matter is uncorrupt, but instead argues that he is simply not a teacher. Rather than offering further evidence that he is indeed not a teacher, Socrates continues his argument by stating that even if he were a teacher, it would not be a crime to be so but an “honour”. Interestingly, we know for certain that he was indeed a teacher, and Socrates perhaps takes this route to avoid acceding anything to his accusers while still defending himself to the audience that knew him to be a teacher. He mentions the names of several prominent teachers of the day, Gorgias of Leontium, Prodicus of Ceos, and Hippias of Elis. Socrates further states that there is indeed another such a teacher in Athens and recounts an anecdote of a conversation with Callias about the education of his son. In the anecdote, Socrates makes an analogy of the education of a young man to the training of a young horse. By analogy, just as it is not a crime to hire a trainer for a young horse, so it is not a crime to hire a teacher for a young man. Socrates then concludes that he does not possess the requisite wisdom to be a teacher anyways, and therefore cannot be guilty of the accusation against him.

In conclusion, Socrates in these defensive arguments against “ancient” accusations has created an excellent foundation for which he will attack the other accusations against him. His concluding remarks in the second aforementioned refutation are used to transition into remarks about the reasons for such false accusations. It is here where Socrates tells the story of Chaerephon at Delphi, and this mention of the Oracle will then be used to refute the later accusation that he is an atheist.

Posted for Charlie Lu

Hecuba: The Will of the Many 

“Hecuba, I feel compassion for thee and thy son and thy ill-fortune, as well as for thy suppliant gesture, and I would gladly see yon impious host pay thee this forfeit for the sake of heaven and justice, could I but find some way to help thee without appearing to the army to have plotted the death of the Thracian king for Cassandra's sake. For on one point I am assailed by perplexity; the army count this man their friend, the dead their foe; that he is dear to thee is a matter apart, wherein the army has no share. Reflect on this; for though thou find'st me ready to share thy toil and quick to lend my aid, yet the risk of being reproached by the Achaeans makes me hesitate.”

    In Euripides’ Hecuba, the author recounts the anguished tale of Hecuba in which she lost everything – her home, her daughter, and her son.  In his writing, Euripides examines the choices one makes in relation to their will and the people that surround them.  Through his text, Euripides makes the compelling argument that the actions people choose to make are dictated not by what they want, but rather by the influences of others.

    To show how what he, Agamemnon, wants is at odds with the will of the others, this passage dictates both his desire to help Hecuba and his hesitance to go against the army. Agamemnon speaks, “I feel compassion for thee and thy son and thy ill-fortune…”, here Euripides lists out the sympathies Agamemnon feels for Hecuba, showing the reader how deeply he connects with her, as he commiserates with one grievance after another.  Agamemnon then goes on to state “…I would gladly see yon impious host pay thee this forfeit for the sake of heaven and justice…” The Greeks’ faith was heavily based in the Gods, and to be described as ‘impious’, or irreverent to the Gods truly depicts how much Agamemnon agrees with Hecuba’s desire for justice. Yet, in the next breath he juxtaposes his desire for justice with to avoid “…appearing to the army to have plotted the death of the Thracian king for Cassandra’s sake.”  This statement reveals the deeper intricacies of the plot, as beyond what he is discussing with Hecuba, an attempt on the Thracian king might appear as if he is following the will of the enemy – Cassandra.  The way Euripides describes it as ‘plotting’ creates a sinister connotation to this possibility to help reinforce to the reader the duress he is under.  Furthermore, his usage of “sake” calls back to the previous line, drawing parallels between killing Polymester for “the sake of heaven and justice” and “Cassandra’s sake”, illustrating the different perspectives that will be judging Agamemnon.  Agamemnon himself admits, “For on one point I am assailed by perplexity”, Euripides’ choice of using assailed shows the situation Agamemnon, one of being under siege from all sides, and if he were to support one side the other side would fall, leaving him in a state of perplexity, unable to commit to following what he wants to do. Agamemnon concludes that he wishes to lend his aid, yet is afraid of reproach from the Achaeans.  The language Agamemnon uses shows how conflicted he is, torn between what he wants to do and the will of others.  From this short writing, Euripides solidly builds the argument that people are unable to do what they wish, but instead their choices must follow the desire of those around them.

Posted for Samuel Coromandel

Phaedrus, on love, expounding upon the Lysias scroll

In Phaedrus, the humble Socrates shows off his rhetorical talents by entertainingly fabricating supplementary arguments for Lysias’s argument on love and relationships - that one who has affairs with a lover is worse off than one who has affairs with someone who doesn’t love him. Phaedrus, who adores Lysias and is in love with his idea that love – when it comes to relationships – is toxic, acquires a scroll of Lysias’s mellifluous speech and argument on love and relationships. In recounting the scroll, Phaedrus provokes Socrates to build upon Lysias’s argument. Though reluctant at first, Socrates erupts into making the compelling and sound argument that one who is in a relationship with a lover is paradoxically unrewarded and punished because being in a relationship with a lover gone with passion entails the withdrawal of reason and therefore, the surrender of that which is good and best, for that which is bad and worst. 

Before indicating the role that a lover plays in a beloved’s life, Socrates sets the stage for his argument by distinguishing between a lover and a non-lover to give an idea of the sickening nature of the lover. He explains that the lover is led by a “natural desire of pleasure” while the non-lover is led by acquired opinion (Phaedrus). When the non-lover is led by acquired opinion in combination with reason, he follows the principle of temperance and is lead to the “best” (Phaedrus). Much to the contrary, when the lover is led by desire, “which is devoid of reason,” he follows a principle of excess and is dragged down to “misrule” (Phaedrus). The lovers desired excess takes many forms - for instance, the form of “gluttony”- and overcomes the tendency of opinion towards right, leading one astray to the “enjoyment of personal beauty” by what Socrates calls “supreme desire” (Phaedrus). Essentially, Socrates argues excess to be the enemy of reason and temperance and therefore, the vile principle which causes one to be led away from what is right and best, i.e. towards what is wrong and worst.

The stage set, Socrates ardently dives into how being in a relationship with a lover is grueling by arguing that the lover will engulf his beloved, stripping the beloved of wisdom and reason and leading him towards what is worst by making him like himself, someone taken with the desire of pleasure and ignorance. This idea is introduced by Socrates’ profound proclamation: “he who is the victim of his passions and the slave of pleasure will of course desire to make his beloved as agreeable to himself as possible” (Phaedrus). Socrates argues that when it comes to affairs, the lover, twisted and “employed in reducing his beloved to inferiority,” can’t endure any superiority from his beloved or he’ll be unhappy himself (Phaedrus). Therefore, because the beloved is superior to the lover in the sense that he is not overruled/consumed by desire of pleasure and steeped in ignorance, Socrates argues the lover must make the beloved as ignorant as he is, thus making the beloved like himself. To do this, Socrates claims that the lover must drain the beloved of reason and that which is good by keeping him “out of society,” deprived of “parents, friends, money, knowledge, and of every other good,” so that “he may have him all to himself” (Phaedrus). Furthermore, Socrates argues that the lover will compel the beloved out of fear to forgo what Socrates deems “divine philosophy” which is the encapsulation of all that is reasonable and good, marking the worst of all grievous wounds the lover can inflict to the beloved (Phaedrus). Ultimately, as the lover is a slave to his pleasurable desires, Socrates argues the beloved is a slave to the lover – the beloved is a “delight to the lover's heart, and a curse to himself” – and therefore, that the beloved is indirectly a slave of the lovers ignorant and pleasurable desire which leads the beloved to the worst (Phaedrus).

In the spirit of estrangement from what is reasonable, right and best, Socrates goes on to explain how a relationship suffused with ignorance between the lover and the beloved is unpleasant, unrewarding and leads one to what is worst, even at its end. Socrates argues that there are stages that the lover goes through during and after a relationship. During the relationship, the lover is mischievous and jealous of the beloved. Later, the lover is borderline abusive and “mighty disagreeable,” being of old age, saying detestable, atrocious things about the beloved despite whether those things are praiseworthy or not (Phaedrus). Here, Socrates implies that the beloved endures the lover’s borderline abusive behaviors because as aforementioned, the lover has taken away his means of escaping the relationship – his friends, family, possessions and his reason, reason which would direct the beloved away from the desires of pleasures and ignorance which keep him bound to what is worst, the lover, and towards what is best, liberation. At last, after the relationship, Socrates argues that as the lovers love runs dry, he “perfidious[ly]” becomes distant and no longer provides the beloved means of affection, changing “pursuit” of the beloved to “flight” from the beloved (Phaedrus). Socrates ends his account with how the beloved, robbed of reason as a compass towards what is best, endures a terrible relationship and is left in an abysmal place, desperate for the lover he sold his soul (reason) for and alone. 

Though having his differences with Lysias, Socrates has successfully formulated a scintillating argument of Lysias’s which validates why a relationship with a lover taken with passion is devoid of reason and therefore leads a beloved to the worst. Ironically, Socrates shows that even in love – especially in love – if one loses sight of reason and that which is best, one will find himself without love and at a miserable end.