Plato’s Phaedrus is a dialouge between Phaedrus and Socrates in which they discuss an upcoming speech that Licymnius is involved in. The begin to discuss the art of Rhetoric which according to Aristotle’s Rhetoric means, “Rhetoric is the counterpart of Dialectic.” and according to Wikipedia, “Rhetoric is the art of discourse, an art that aims to improve the facility of speakers or writers who attempt to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations.”

In both Phaedrus by Plato and Aristotle’s Rhetoric there is a focus on political writing and the art of persuasion. The ability to argue for or against something by the writer is considered to be a good attribute. And that Politicians should not be ashamed of being good writers because, according to Socrates in Phaedrus, “The disgrace begins when a man writes not well, but badly.”  That to me identifies the argument of the paper, which is what makes a writer or writing good? and this could be directly related to blogging because it is important to understand the art of persuasion and using it for your advantage especially in a court room, however using “non-essentials” as in Aristotle’s Rhetoric, ”The arousing of prejudice, pity, anger, and similar emotions has nothing to do with the essential facts, but is merely a personal appeal to the man who is judging the case.” I believe what he is warning against is using the art of persuasion in a negative matter by talking about things that don’t matter, trying to change the image of something or someone by provoking a specific emotion in the judge. And in Pheadrus, Socrates adds that, “The deceiver must know the truth, because he has to find a likeness of the truth; he must learn to deceive by degrees. The art of disputation, then, is not confined to the courts and the assembly, but is one and the same in every use of language; this is the art, if there be such an art, which is able to find a likeness of everything to which alikeness can be found, and draws into the light of day the likenesses and disguises which are used by others?” In this part he argues that if you decide to take on the art of persuasion for a deceptive purpose that you as the deceiver must know the real truth in order to find something that the audience will relate to and ultimately fight for.

I find these two reading to be very interesting because not only do they reflect on something that is so prominent in today’s courts it also highlights the dangerous that could come from it. They talk about the ability to be well spoken and that is very important especially when writing a blog because in a sense it is like a public speech. That one has to be able to persuade his audience to agree with him or even disagree with him if that is his intention, and that as the writer you have to have total control over what you are saying and what emotions you intend and do evoke.