In the Phaedrus, Socrates introduces for the first time (at least in our short 4 week time period in this class) the notion of natural ability. Prior to the Phaedrus, I sense that Socrates, in describing how to be a good rhetor, leaves the door open for any type of person to become a good rhetor. To achieve this status, all one needs is to seek out and discover truth and be virtuous. However, in the Phaedrus, Socrates shifts the equation a bit and adds natural ability as a prerequisite to becoming a good rhetor. He states, “If you have a natural ability for rhetoric, you will become a famous rhetorician, provided you supplement your ability with knowledge and practice” (546). I interpret or equate the phrase “knowledge and practice” with Socrates’ demand for rhetors to discover and know truth and to behave/act in a virtuous manner; however, that alone is not enough as one must have the natural ability for rhetoric as well, but what does that mean exactly? One example that Socrates discusses is having keen discernment or the ability to make things out. He states, “Justice and self-control do not shine out through their images down here, and neither do the other objects of the soul’s admiration; the senses are so murky that only a few people are able to make out, with difficulty, the original of the likenesses they encounter here” (527). The ability to discern or make distinctions between unclear things, i.e. being able to tell the difference between what is real and what is an imitation, would help a person become a good rhetorician, but as Socrates again reveals here “only a few people” are able to achieve this, which raises the question for me, is the ideal, or the right/correct way, that Socrates describes in his dialogues even applicable to those who need it most, i.e. those w/out natural ability? Without this ability, his words and lessons would seem to be wasted on such people. If we believe that Socrates was a critic of democracy, distrusted “the herd” or the mindless and unthinking members of society, and thought that good, wise, or great men should only be rulers, then the idea regarding natural ability would seem to match such beliefs. However, the tone of his previous dialogues that we read seem to suggest that the opportunity to become a good and virtuous rhetor is open to more than just the elite. I’m interested in seeing how or whether he pushes this additional requirement of natural ability further in his other writings.
As a last comment, I noticed another shift in the Phaedrus when compared to his other dialogues that we read. In the opening sections of the Phaedrus, Socrates mentions how he is “devoted to learning” but that “landscapes and tress have nothing to teach [him]—only the people in the city can do that” (510). What I’m interested in knowing is how many people Socrates actually thought could teach him something. Up to this point, he has been very adversarial and pompous in his dialogues, and refuses to back down from anyone. This suggests to me that he thinks very little about what others believe and thus they have little to teach him. However, in the Phaedrus, Socrates reveals a need, on his part, to be in a community to learn, but who makes up his community, 1 or 2 people? Tying this back in with the idea of natural ability, does Socrates only want to learn from people of such ability?