Socrates attempts to prove his point through trickery and
mind games that resemble logic. His entire argument made through questions
follows a logical progression but rather than actual logic he uses trickery
that mimics logic. Questions are answered by using rational and logic;
therefore, it would be simple for these drunk men to believe Socrates speaks in
sound logic. His questions follow a somewhat long thought progression which is
where the audience captivated, get lost in his argument and believe it to be
logical. When asking questions of Agathon, he twists the words slightly so that
the only rational response would be to agree. His questions continue until he
ends up with his desired argument being the only plausible answer and therefore
Agathon must agree to Socrates’ idea. By constructing his questions
specifically, he confuses the audience. Socrates then draws from this confusion
changing things ever so slightly, so that Agathon will agree again. For example
on page 43 he states that it has been agreed upon that “he loves things which
he has a present need.” Slightly further down the page he restates that we have
agreed “ that he loves just what he needs and does not have” (43). Socrates
then builds off his qualified statement with his argument by saying that love
needs beauty and does not have it (43). This is a key statement for his overall
argument that Love does not come from beauty or good, but in reality his
argument we can see is based on a qualified statement that a room full of drunk
men could not pick out from the carefully worded questions of Socrates. This
trickery mimics logic because the process of which he attempts to prove his
point is by questioning, an act that draws on reason both in asking and answering,
but his questions are worded so they may only be agreed upon, and by qualifying
slightly previous statements he tricks his drunken audience into concluding
with his point of view.
I agree with Iska that Socrate's logic is so befuddling that it contributes to the acceptance of a drunk audience. His argument tactics seem to simply impose his point of view on Agathon by posing his points in tricky questions that Agathon is forced to agree with. His style juxtaposes that of Diotima, who speaks right after Socrates and questions him instead. Diotima takes careful time to explain her logic in length. "'That's rather a long story,' she said. 'I'll tell it to you, all the same,'"(203B). While Socrates relies on the prompt acceptance of his listeners, Diotima takes the time to clearly explain her reasoning. She also assures that her listeners understand her logic. She assures that "'it's clearer this way...'" before explaining her point in a different and more understandable manner. By her lengthy and concise explanations, Diotima shows deep understanding in her logic and encourages that in her listeners.
ReplyDeleteI noticed that too, Iska! You bring up an interesting point regarding Socrates' sly, offhand qualifications. Another way that he manipulates his listeners is through convoluted phrasing, as seen in his question, "So! If something needs beauty and has got no beauty at all, would you still say that it is beautiful?" Though it's not ridiculously complicated, it still would probably fluster a drunken audience, tripping them up with its repetition (especially if recited with a faster, or at least non-drawn-out tempo, as we can imagine). By dazing his listeners with his syntax, Socrates again employs sneakiness rather than logic to guide them.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Socrates slightly bends the context of the statements that Agathon agrees to in order to fit his own purpose, but I don't believe that to be a mind game. I definitely agree that he asks leading questions so that he can make Agathon agree with whatever Socrates wants him to agree to, but I think the term mind game might be going a bit far within the context of the book. Socrates' logic is perfectly rational and follows a logical train of thought.
ReplyDelete