PLATO, SOCRATES, ONG AND MACLUHAN

I turn over Plato structured his work as a dialog because this approach would have been the best course of study of written look that was similar to elaborateness. His teacher, Socrates, never talked his teachings d matchless written form. fetching this into consideration, conference, although it is a form of writing is the closest thing to rhetoric because people are conversing and expressing themselves as if they were speaking to one a nonher. through this, he would have been able to spend his judgments effectively and at the alike(p) time get his brain across. I think written dialogue is like communication because cites express themselves through words. One does not know what the character is thinking in their minds, like they do in novels. They raft only express what they say and how they say it is crucial because the violence of the point he is trying to get across is macrocosm spoken go forth loud. The tone is totally distinguishable because the ph rases, sentences and points are more strategic because nothing unless vernacular is mentioned. Yes, I found Phaedrus knotty to read because I thought it was really boring. Generally speaking, the wording was not difficult to understand, but I do not like reading dialogue.

Instead, I prefer reading novels because I feel like I am relating more with the character, kind of of being an onlooker who is audition to a conversation. I think the power of the reader in this dialogue is to simply be a critical audience. I mean, Socrates taught through demonstration. The reader is the one who reads the dialogue and comes to their own conc lusions depending on what they have read. A! lthough Socrates did agree more or less with Phaedrus, uses the same premise, but defines the term of love and approaches it differently. I think that is what... If you take to get a full essay, rule it on our website: BestEssayCheap.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: cheap essay