Phaedr.
If trying would avail, then I might; but at the moment I can think of nothing.
Soc.
Suppose I tell you something which somebody who knows told me.
Phaedr.
Certainly.
Soc.
May not "the wolf," as the proverb says, claim a hearing"?
Phaedr.
Do you say what can be said for him.
Soc.
He will argue that is no use in putting a solemn face on these matters, or in going round and round, until you arrive at first principles; for, as I said at first, when the question is of justice and good, or is a question in which men are concerned who are just and good, either by nature or habit, he who would be a skilful rhetorician has; no need of truth-for that in courts of law men literally care nothing about truth, but only about conviction: and this is based on probability, to which who would be a skilful orator should therefore give his whole attention.
And they say also that there are cases in which the actual facts, if they are improbable, ought to be withheld, and only the probabilities should be told either in accusation or defence, and that always in speaking, the orator should keep probability in view, and say good-bye to the truth.
And the observance, of this principle throughout a speech furnishes the whole art.
Phaedr.
That is what the professors of rhetoric do actually say, Socrates.
I have not forgotten that we have quite briefly touched upon this matter already; with them the point is all-important.
Soc.
I dare say that you are familiar with Tisias.
Does he not define probability to be that which the many think?
Phaedr.
Certainly, he does.
Soc.
I believe that he has a clever and ingenious case of this sort:-He supposes a feeble and valiant man to have assaulted a strong and cowardly one, and to have robbed him of his coat or of something or other; he is brought into court, and then Tisias says that both parties should tell lies: the coward should say that he was assaulted by more men than one; the other should prove that they were alone, and should argue thus: "How could a weak man like me have assaulted a strong man like him?" The complainant will not like to confess his own cowardice, and will therefore invent some other lie which his adversary will thus gain an opportunity of refuting.
And there are other devices of the same kind which have a place in the system.
Am I not right, Phaedrus?
Phaedr.
Certainly.
Soc.
Bless me, what a wonderfully mysterious art is this which Tisias or some other gentleman, in whatever name or country he rejoices, has discovered.
Shall we say a word to him or not?
Phaedr.
What shall we say to him?
Soc.
Let us tell him that, before he appeared, you and I were saying that the probability of which he speaks was engendered in the minds of the many by the likeness of the truth, and we had just been affirming that he who knew the truth would always know best how to discover the resemblances of the truth.
If he has anything else to say about the art of speaking we should like to hear him; but if not, we are satisfied with our own view, that unless a man estimates the various characters of his heaters and is able to divide all things into classes and to comprehend them under single ideas he will never be a skilful rhetorician even within the limits of human power.
Themes
◆Cosmic Dualismtheology
Ontological opposition between two primal principles (light/darkness, truth/lie, spirit/matter) as the fundamental structure of reality.
The passage establishes a fundamental opposition between truth and probability as competing values in rhetoric.
Augustinian and Plotinian doctrine that evil has no positive being of its own but is a lack, distortion, or absence of the good — denying ontological dualism while preserving moral seriousness.
Cowardice is described as a 'weakness' that distorts truth and requires lying to overcome.