Isocrates says in p.335 that he views a philosopher as one who occupies himself with the studies from which he will most quickly gain insight. In other words one who studies how to reach the answers quickest. Isocrates also believes that one should love oratory, and the stronger the man's desire to persuade his hearers, the more zealously he will strive to be honourable, which is different from Socrates who thinks that oratory is nothing but pandering and that one should not look to persuade his hearers, only for truth. I found a few things which where in common like when Isocrates says that those who do evil suffer the most (Socrates in gorgias makes the same point), they also agree on defining terms to ensure everyone is following the same path.

"I consider that the kind of art that can implant honesty and deprave justice in depraved nature has never existed and does not now exist"...
This seems to be a major difference because it goes against the main idea of Socrates' philosophy. He is basically saying that Socrates' ideas are not only wrong but that they don't even exist. I could also be wrong but i thought I found some similarities from what Socrates' and Isocrates say about philosophy. Wouldnt they both agree on this quote, "It follows then, that the power to speak well and think right will reward the man who approaches the art of discourse with love of wisdom and love of honour." Am I wrong about this?

Isocrates' and Socrates' have similar positions on those who do wrong and their temporary gain of any advantages. On page 341 of the Antidosis, Isocrates makes the argument that it is false to believe that "people who rob others or falsify accounts or do any evil thing get the advantage ... for none are at greater advantage in throughout their lives than such men... none are more miserable than they." I think where the two contrast is what they think philosophy is good for and other ways to enhance the mind to prepare for learning from great teachers on this subject. Socrates' idea is of these deep discussions about life and subjective words such as love and other definitions he seeks to learn more about. Isocrates has more of a purpose to why young men should invest in his teachings because their return is in what they are guranteed to become (by Isocrates' standards that is).

I think that Isocrates definition of philosophy is a combination of several ideas: 1) natural ability plus cultivation of eloquent discourse by teachers such as himself whom only desire to teach students things that will make them honorable and intelligent; 2) those without natural ability can still learn a substantial amount about mental powers if they are willing to work hard and have thediligence to attain techniques which they are not pre-disposed to being talented at; 3) additional exercises of training such as learning subject matters (i.e. grammar) which are not used later in life, but give them the mental exercise to be prepared for philosophy; and the fruits which are produced from young men who invest in learning respectable teaching (i.e. great leaders, and the rich history of the people of Athens and their unequivical superiority in oratory and acts of persuasion. My idea of Isocrates teachings are a combination of ideology to which only exceptional citizens are taught, in addition to a system of "rearing" the students so that the fruit of the teacher's labor is manifestation of what great things the pupil does in society.

First of all, your use of alliteration made me happy.

I liked the advice Isocrates gives on p. 333, and I believe it narrows down his view of philosophy itself: "I... advise young men to spend some time on these disciplines, but not to allow their minds to be dried up by these barren subtleties, nor to be stranded on the speculation of the ancient sophists" (333). Isocrates recognizes the value of philosophy, but discourages students from becoming too engrossed with the art for the art's sake. It has some practical value and practical application, according to him; just look at what statesmen have accomplished using philosophy (315). But Socrates focuses more on the usefulness of philosophy in terms of bettering oneself (ignoring much of the practical application).

One interesting (and vaguely Socratic) thing Isocrates does on p. 307 is to introduce an idea--"everyone does everything which he does for the sake of pleasure or gain or honor"--and then describe philosophy in terms of that statement. He specifically describes the three things that motivate people to act before continuing with his argument; I like to think that would make Socrates proud. The argument itself also goes in an interesting direction--Isocrates argues that sophists would get no pleasure, gain, or honor from corrupting students.

I don't think anyone has talked about p. 332 yet, which is (IMO) one of the more provocative statements in a foundationalist's eyes. "I do not...think it proper to apply the term 'philosophy' to a training which is no help to us in the present...but rather I would call it a gymnastic of the mind and a preparation for philosophy." This is, in a way, the reverse of the Socratic view where philosophy is the Truth-knowledge that underlies techne. Here, philosophy is the most pragmatic point on the continuum, and it seems its end is necessarily to pertain to current events. Hardly the coffee-shop standard to which we've held elenchus (which, itself, was further down the pragmatism continuum than philosophy)--no, no, our coffee shop musings are just mental gymnastics. So philosophy, to Isocrates, is the mechanism by which we can take informed action. I guess these days we define it more by the Socratic mode, otherwise we might think it a more useful practice. (Ha, take that Philosophy majors)

One thing I really liked about Isocrates was the clarity expressed in his arguments and his ability to effectively outline his thesis and reasoning behind his statements. I really liked how he pointed out that the mind's 'training' is philosophy, which "prepares the mind to become more intelligent". Since I believe there is a clear distinction between the mind and the body, and I also agree that the mind is of greater worth than the body, I agree with Isocrates' statement.

I think Isocrates defines philosophy as an expression of the mind, which he says philosophy will invoke. I believe in this statement because philosophy is an aspired art with which not everybody is gifted. Isocrates notes this with his three clear guidelines for being successful at any art. He says one must (1) have a natural aptitude for what you are pursuing, (2) submit to training and master the knowledge of their pursuance, and (3) become versed and practised in the use and application of the art. I think both Isocrates and Socrates practise this. They both have a natural talent in oratory and expressing the thoughts of their minds and they both are 'versed' in oratorical experience. The difference lies, in my opinion, in #2. Isocrates says, "I speak in the same terms both when I was at the height of my career and now when I am ready to retire from it." He does not change. Socrates does, and has. Through his Platonic dialogues, one can sense his 'arrival' at truth. He speaks with a condescending tone, like he 'knows better' than everybody else. Because of this, it is easier to listen to Isocrates' claims because he does not pander his words.

The differences i noticed b/t Socrates and Isocrates was first in their emphasis and use of definitions. We all know how important definitions are to Socrates, and at first glance they appear to be equally as important to Isocrates for he says : In the first place we must determine what are the objects that make ppl venture to do evil for if we define these correctly we will be better able to determine if the charges against me are correct. p. 215-219
the second difference b/t these two is their emphasis on the importance of the soul. Socrates seemed certain that because he had lived a good life he would be rewarded for it by the Gods in the next one. However Isocrates seems less certain that there is an afterlife or that what he does now will effect that one. (I got this from his last defense on page 321 when he said: that if it be true and the gods concern themselves with human affairs, i am certain that they are not indifferent to my cause)

Isocrates describes philosophy as doing for the mind what exercise does for the body. He states that in order to be trained in philosophy, one must:
“Impart all the forms of discourse in which the mind expresses itself. Then, when they have made them familiar and thoroughly conversant with these lessons, they set them at exercises, habituate them to work, and require them to combine in practice the particular things which they have learned” (p. 290-291).

Isocrates does believe that education is essential, but he puts much weight on natural ability. However, he maintains that “both of them (natural talent and experience&practice) combined in the same person might produce a man incomparable among his fellows” (p. 295). This I think is what the above post was talking about with Isocrates' dedication to education in regards to philosophy.

I agree with Christien's statement that Isocrates' view of philosophy is much more this-world oriented than Socrates' view. I would support this with the quote that “when any danger threatens the city, they seek counsel from those who can speak best upon the question at issue and act upon their advice” (p. 323). Unlike Socrates, Isocrates believes that the education of philosophy is important not only for one's individual learning experience but to also benefit the state as well.

Isocrates states more than once that man’s ability to speak and use wisdom place us above animals and barbarians. With this in mind, I think that by “philosophy” he means the ability to reason, to find the best course of action in different situations. On page 327 he says, “With this faculty we both contend against others on matters which are open to dispute and seek light for ourselves on things which are unknown”. This is accomplished by what Isocrates phrased “a cultivation of the mind”, which is basically study, training, and experience. He seems to take great pains to pair wisdom with the ability to speak eloquently within the idea of “philosophy”, and I think this leads to the main departure from Socrates meaning of “philosophy”. With Isocrates philosophy leads to an action that imparts blessings or righteousness on society (which is why the ability to move others is so important), unlike Socrates’ pursuit of good that seems above the activities of man, especially in the Phaedras. Isocrates’ philosophy seems more earthly, less inclined to consider the gods – even though he does give them brief mention.

Socrates’ philosophy focuses on this independent pursuit of the good and truth to make one better or worthier. In the Gorgias he takes great pains to claim that the persuasion of man has little significance to him unless it is connected to the capital "T" truth. Isocrates’ philosophy focuses more on the common good of man by using a well rounded education and the ability to use speech and persuasion. It is as if Isocrates believes that if a person were to have the appropriate ability for speaking, adequate study, and solid experience then the good will follow, but I could be wrong. It then becomes a bit confusing when he explains that a teacher shouldn’t be punished when their student uses the teachings of the discipline for evil. Still this is how I see Isocrates views on philosophy; they are tied to education. Through education, the youth of society can be trained on how to lead a decent, honourable life. If you learn to speak well and think right, you will love to do the right thing.

The main similarity between Socrates and Isocrates in regards to philosophy is the idea that the righteous and faithful have the advantage. Isocrates’ ideas seem to me much more bound to society and earthly happenings, but he does touch on the soul as well. Again on page 327, he says, “discourse which is true and lawful and just is the outward image of a good and faithful soul”. To this effect, Isocrates still places great importance on education to achieve this. If I read him correctly, no person has a set amount of mental capacity. He believed that anyone could benefit from this course of study, not only is it possible for a person to grow their intelligence but to also use this to benefit their day to day lives. Isocrates agrees with Socrates that philosophy isn't just for the courts or government but for the home in one's private life. They both seem to agree that philosophy makes one a well rounded person.

Ultimately Isocrates sees philosophy as a way to come to conclusions on living, either at home or in government, through the study of wisdom and the ability to speak well. The components are wisdom through education, eloquent speech, and positive effect on the way humans interact with each other, the common good.