270–271
Phaedrus
Phaedrus. Very likely, Socrates.
Socrates
Socrates. At any rate, any other mode of procedure would be like the progress of a blind man. Yet surely he who pursues any study scientifically ought not to be comparable to a blind or a deaf man, but evidently the man whose rhetorical teaching is a real art will explain accurately the nature of that to which his words are to be addressed, and that is the soul, is it not?
Phaedrus
Phaedrus. Of course.
Socrates
Socrates. Then this is the goal of all his effort; he tries to produce conviction in the soul. Is not that so?
Socrates
Socrates. So it is clear that Thrasymachus, or anyone else who seriously teaches the art of rhetoric, will first describe the soul with perfect accuracy and make us see whether it is one and all alike, or, like the body, of multiform aspect; for this is what we call explaining its nature.
Phaedrus
Phaedrus. Certainly.
Socrates
Socrates. And secondly he will say what its action is and toward what it is directed, or how it is acted upon and by what.
5
Phaedrus
Phaedrus. To be sure.
Socrates
Socrates. Thirdly, he will classify the speeches and the souls and will adapt each to the other, showing the causes of the effects produced and why one kind of soul is necessarily persuaded by certain classes of speeches, and another is not.
Phaedrus
Phaedrus. That would, I think, be excellent.
