When reading Plato I constantly see parallels and likenesses between Socrates and Christ. I was going to pursue this as my first conference paper, but I realized after conducting some preliminary research that this has been done to death. However, one aspect of Phaedrus did interest me, and it relates to power and representation. In the Prologue to Phaedrus, John Michael Cooper argues, "Socrates criticizes severely those who take their own writing seriously—any writing, not just orators’ speeches. Writings cannot contain or constitute knowledge of any important matter. Knowledge can only be lodged in a mind, and its essential feature […] is an endless capacity to express, interpret, and reinterpret itself suitably, in response to every challenge—something a written text once let go by its author plainly lacks: it can only keep repeating the same words to whoever picks it up" (507).
The portion that I find fascinating is that “writing cannot constitute any knowledge of any important matter” (507). I wonder how severely Socrates would chastise us for devoting our lives to the study or writing, especially since such a large portion of those who study writing would argue there is no absolute truth, or at the very least that it cannot be represented linguistically through the use of signs and signifiers. It is ironic that what we know of Socrates and his arguments come from a form he belittles and mocks stating, “that if Lysias or anybody else ever did or ever does write…a political document which he believes to embody clear knowledge of lasting importance, then this writer deserves reproach, whether anyone says or not” (554). We see throughout the dialogues that Socrates values dialectic as the only means of obtaining truth. Writing, it would seem to Socrates, is the art of arguing for a foregone conclusion decided before the writer composes. It is not a means of arriving at truth but a means of eristic persuasion. Dialectic is the means of arriving at truth at any particular instance or situation. Writing is for winning, but dialectic is for discerning truth. Writing seems to be individual, and oratory communal, but they seemingly serve the same purpose to Socrates which is to persuade either by misrepresenting the truth of the matter, or blatantly hiding the truth.
Ultimately, I think the crux of the argument in the Socratic dialogues is representation. Representation plays a pivotal role in who wields power. Those who have the power define meaning or truths wield tremendous authority. Socrates is arguing for his means of the representation. Socrates argument with rhetoric or persuasion is a power struggle meant to decide who will ultimately control the means of rendering the truth of matters. Representational power is seemingly held by those in privileged positions, and are protected and kept by those with power. What makes this situation strange is that the power of representation is rarely or never held by teachers or educators such as Socrates. The fight to label and name things is a constant battleground where people and bodies are marginalized and pushed aside, and this no different with Socrates. Socrates form of representation is elitist and authoritarian while rhetoric is democratic and inclusive. Socrates himself states, “If you have a natural ability for rhetoric, you will become a famous rhetorician” (546) which implies that there is some sort of divine right or innate ability only a few possess where as anyone can seemingly learn the “knack” of rhetorical persuasion. Ultimately, he came down on the wrong side of the power struggle, and those with representational control put him to death to end the threat to their supremacy. It is ironic that which Socrates distrusted most—writing—is eventually what saved Socrates from marginalization and lead to his martyrdom as a philosophical immortal.