ABSTRACT
Reviewing a recent debate between Professors Michael Warren Tumolo and John Peterman on the relationship between philosophy and rhetoric in Plato’s work, I identify and address certain logical errors in the authors’ articles regarding definitions of concepts. By subsequently returning to Plato’s text, I recover the working definitions of the concepts that are discussed and I show how to capture the distinction between philosophy and rhetoric in a way that fits the conclusions Plato himself reaches. In contrast, deconstructive renderings of Plato’s views like the ones practiced in the reviewed articles risk either losing the distinction between rhetoric and philosophy altogether or forcing a distinction that is not Plato’s.