foundations of rhetorical studies

foundations of rhetorical studies
From what little you know about rhetoric thus far, why would Plato’s ideas about truth, justice, language (as presented by Winspear) be antithetical to rhetoric’s basic assumptions?
Be sure to quote directly from sources to help explain your claim. No place here for anything like a supposed, ‘objective’ writer. You are implicated in this writing.
Invention; Arrangement; Style; Delivery; Memory
Artistic appeals: ethos, pathos, logos.
Inartistic proofs: Law; Contract; Witness; Oath; Torture
3 rhetorical forms: epideictic (ceremonial or occasional); forensic (judicial, adjudicatory, debate, win/lose); deliberative (future action, negotiated, contingent)
Rhetoric = Probable truth, contingent truth, negotiated truth or knowledge, fit for the purpose truth, socially acceptable truth, and more.
Tell us how you see Plato’s ideas being directly opposite of what you know about rhetoric? Show us (by citing from text) where, if we look, we can see your point, see what you’re trying to tell us. This is NOT a 5-paragraph theme, and it ought not be an essay, in the ways you’ve been taught. Just answer the question. BS, in a rhetoric class, is about as effective as taking calculus when you’ve only passed algebra I; you’ll stick out immediately.