The metaphysical battle between philosophy and rhetoric spanned centuries, transcended generations, and divided the loyalties of even the reconcilable of minds. The former claimed to be the art that discovered truths and condemned the latter as derivative and illusory, whilst the latter professed indifference and ridiculed the former for taking itself so seriously. The origin of this clash is difficult to pinpoint, but all might agree that the great inquisitive mind of Socrates, ever intent to flesh out the truth, had poured fuel into the fire that threatened to burn rhetoric and its practitioners.
The criticisms are not completely unwarranted. Much emphasis is always placed on the ease with which rhetoric can be used to obscure the truth, and abused to subvert and coerce, by exerting the intoxicating power of speech upon easily-swayed minds. Indeed, even I must seek to distance myself from those sophists with outlandish boasts, claiming to know all things under the sun, and teaching all for but a paltry fee. Philosophy, in contrast, can only be pursued by those that are good and just, for the purpose of determining truth.
Lately, I’ve heard rumblings that instances of this dichotomy may be found between other disciplines too – that of physics and engineering, the latter a field that I have chosen to call my intended profession.
If Socrates were to ask me to define the both of them, I would be fairly confident in the response I could offer. It can be said that physics takes the role of philosophy, in that it attempts to determine the governing principles of the universe and expresses them in the absolute language of mathematics. Now, it must be noted here that mathematics is just a language, such as English or Latin or Greek, but is particular, precise, quantifiable, and succinct. Note the examples below.
The wave equation, which describes a wave propagating along a medium (e.g. air, water, wood):
The Euler-Bernoulli equation, which describes the deformation of a beam under loading:
And finally, Newton’s law of gravitation,
All such physical principles of our universal have been revealed by the tireless work of physicists. Now, you may wonder where subjects like chemistry and biology belong in relation, but for simplicity’s sake I will group all such sciences under the heading of physics, as it was only in modern times that science experienced such segmentation. It is also noteworthy that in the days of Newton and the Royal Society, scientists called themselves natural philosophers.
Then, does engineering belong with the likes of rhetoric? In the simplest and most general of terms, engineering is the application of physical principles. Using the wave equation, engineers construct theatres in which sound can reach all members of the audience and build cars whose engines are dramatically quieted to accommodate passengers. Using the Euler-Bernoulli equation, engineers build towers and ensure that if 100 people stood on the top floor, the structure wouldn’t so much as budge a millimeter. Using Newton’s law of gravitation, engineers can build planes and spacecraft and scheme to leave the confines of Earth behind us in a trailing plume of smoke and dust.
Where does engineering fall astray? By harnessing the principles of combustion to develop bombs and other incendiary devices to maim and kill. By converting chemical energy to mechanical energy in order to construct machines used to systematically strip the earth of its resources. By concocting sinister poultices with the sole intention of harming those that are tricked to imbibe them. Of course, let us not forget an improper or incomplete education in physics would more oft than not result in collapsing bridges, sputtering engines, and sinking ships.
Why do the physicists not cry foul at the devious uses of their hard-gained work, like so many philosophers had at the rhetoricians? It is perhaps easier to see in a discipline that uses a language so explicit. To be an engineer, you must understand all the fundamental principles. You are just like a physicist, except your immediate task is to discover methods to utilize existing principles, not to discover more principles. Only the foolish would hark to such an inconsequential distinction to sow discord in this mutually beneficial relationship, and such people would likely make poor physicists and poor engineers.
Engineering is a tool to be utilized for benefit or for harm, depending on the wielder. It is by no means inherently unjust. Its correct usage depends on a broad swath of education that addresses the ramifications of wielding a power as potent as the very secrets of the universe.
Just so, an aspiring rhetorician must receive a broad education in order to perceive the just use of the power of speech.
Socrates chose a truly pure path: he did not risk corruption by wading into the public fray, but his ideas are left unexplored and at the mercy of time. He had power at his fingertips, but chose not to use it. As a result, much of his work and wisdom is lost to us. A question had once been posed during class regarding why Plato chose to defy his beloved mentor in writing a host of treatises. I believe it to be this: Plato recognized that in order for philosophy to benefit the world at large, it must be taken into the public sphere of rhetoric.
Without engineering, the principles uncovered by physics can never be harnessed to benefit the world. Vice versa, without physics, engineering would only stumble blindly through a world full of intricate and elegant truths. Likewise, truths determined by philosophy cannot be implemented in policy without rhetoric.
Aristotle put it most aptly: engineering is the counterpart to physics, just as rhetoric is the counterpart to dialectic. The relationship between them is that of duality, not dichotomy. Without one, the other cannot function.
Linda's Isocratean Reflections 
