Previous
Irony
Definition of Logos
Logos, along with ethos and pathos, is one of the three "modes of persuasion" in rhetoric (the art of effective speaking or writing). Logos is an argument that appeals to... read full definition
Logos, along with ethos and pathos, is one of the three "modes of persuasion" in rhetoric (the art of effective speaking or writing). Logos is... read full definition
Logos, along with ethos and pathos, is one of the three "modes of persuasion" in rhetoric (the art of effective... read full definition
Book 1
Explanation and Analysis—Socrates's Logos:
Logos, Greek for logic, is used in nearly every page of The Republic. As a work of philosophy, the entire dialogue is a series of arguments, and it is thus full of appeals to logical reasoning directed both at its characters and the reader. The distinction between attempting to persuade through rhetoric (like a sophist, who might make use of ethos or pathos) and attempting to persuade through logic, or through a series of premises, inferences, and conclusions, marks the difference between a sophist and a philosopher.
This distinction is somewhat ironic because Plato often uses rhetorical devices to make Socrates more persuasive to the reader and to the other characters in The Republic. Scholars disagree over the extent to which Socrates's arguments are valid and sound, or are even supposed to be valid and sound, as some argue Socrates makes intentionally fallacious claims to reveal weakness in arguments he doesn't actually believe in. Fallacious or not, logos is still drawn on heavily in these passages.
For example, in Book 1 Socrates asks Thrasymachus whether an eye has an end or an excellence. After Thrasymachus replies yes, Socrates asks whether eyes can fulfill their ends if they are wanting in their excellences and have a defect. They of course cannot: eyes that are wanting in their excellences cannot fulfill their intended end (seeing things). Socrates then asks if souls do not have an end just like an eye, but instead of seeing things the soul's end is to "superintend and command." Thrasymachus agrees with this, and likewise agrees that a soul without an excellence will not be capable of commanding the body accordingly. So Socrates asks, and Thrasymachus replies:
Then an evil soul must necessarily be an evil ruler and superintendent, and the good soul a good ruler? Yes, necessarily. And we have admitted that justice is the excellence of the soul, and injustice the defect of the soul? That has been admitted. Then the just soul and the just man will live well, and the unjust man will live ill? That is what your argument proves.
This instance of logos is significant because it is one of the earliest arguments for a just life being a good life—Socrates goes on to prove that the unjust man is unhappy and the just man happy, for those who live well are happy and vice versa. More importantly, it demonstrates the step-by-step logical reasoning of Socrates. This careful outlining of premises, inferences, and conclusions allows Socrates to start with a simple question—does an eye have an end?—and end by proving a just man lives a happy life. Understanding logos and how philosophers like Socrates make use of logic is crucial for understanding The Republic.
Related Themes:
