A Few Good Men Represents the Dissoi Logoi and a Sophist
A Modern Take on a Lawyer and Their Way of Assessing a Situation
Have you ever considered how the Dissoi Logoi and an ancient sophist relate? Well, you are about to find out using the movie A Few Good Men. This movie, it follows Lt. Daniel Kaffee, LTJG Sam Weinburg, and Lt. Cmdr. Joanne Galloway. They are putting together a case against Lt. Jonathan Kendrick and Colonel Nathan Jessup, represented by Capt. Jack Ross. These men ordered Lance Cpl Harold Dawson and Pfc. Louden Downey to perform a Code Red against a comrade, Pfc. William T. Santiago. A Code Red is an act within the squad, where members take punishment into their own hands against someone else in their unit. Dawson and Downey took matters into their own hands. It ended with the killing of Santiago by accident. Lance Corporal Dawson and Private Downey assaulted Santiago in his sleep, taping him up and stuffing a rag in his mouth. Shortly after, to the two’s dismay, Private Santiago died of respiratory issues. This incident came about due to the problems Santiago had with his unit. He had fallen out of lines, isolating himself from his group, ratting on a fellow team member, and wanting to transfer. According to Dawson and Downey, he did not live by the code, Unit; Core; God; Country, but looked out for himself, individually. The man just wanted to get away, he should not have been in Guantanamo Bay. Even Colonel Jessup expressed his feelings about the matter by expressing how he ate breakfast 400 yards away from people that want to kill him. Santiago wanted to be transferred to a better place, where he could reach his full potential and enjoy his time in the military.
The Dissoi Logoi is something the ancients describe as a two-folded argument style. It labels situations as good and bad. It is the idea that something is beneficial for others, while at the same time, being harmful. The section I will focus on from the article titled Dissoi Logoi is the part titled, “Concerning Truth and Falsehood.” Let it be known that there is no true author to this writing. It is unknown. This section is the establishment of true or false nature, relying on one thing to be presented as true but false at the same time. Likewise, it can be false but could be true. When reading, it has a confusing nature but simply breaking it down and understanding what it has to say, creates a perspective of understanding. If something can be true, it can also be false. If something is false, it can then be true. I will put it in a perspective of understanding by relating it to football. For example, someone says Peyton Manning is the greatest quarterback of all time. Well, this can be true in their eyes, but what if someone were to rebuttal and say, Cam Newton. Both can be true; Manning was an amazing quarterback and broke many records concerning passing yards and touchdowns. Newton was a rushing quarterback and scrambled and threw for record-breaking years. It depends on how you look at it. But both can be false, Tom Brady has multiple Superbowl titles that could be claimed to trump either quarterback. Creating this relationship of true or false nature. Now, let us evaluate.
With all this in mind, you may ask, how does this relate to the Dissoi Logoi that has been established years ago in a different time to A Few Good Men. Let me tell you. Lt. Daniel Kaffee, LTJG Sam Weinburg, and Lt. Cmdr. Joanne Galloway were challenged with the case. The challenge was representing two men, Lance Cpl Harold Dawson, and Pfc. Louden Downey, being court-martialed, and charged with the murder of their comrade. This did not sit well with fellow defendant Galloway. She knew there was something more behind the story but could not quite figure it out.
Galloway knows there is a bigger problem at hand and its relation is to the term, Code Red. The only problem is the defendants must prosecute two higher-ranked military officials, Lt. Jonathan Kendrick, and Colonel Nathan Jessup. The issue is proving that the command came from these higher-ranked military men. The reason being is that Kaffee would be court-martialed for an allegation like so. The group must find answers to these problems and create a well-rounded argument of both sides in creating a perspective of understanding for the audience. The group is challenged with the understanding that Santiago was murdered. That is a fact. But must develop their argument to keep that in mind but also make the proper allegation against the higher-ranked men. This will show how the group went about becoming informed about the matter to make the proper claim with knowledge of the situation to deliver a statement of the true or false nature.
The way of establishing this two-folded argument is through addressing the situation that had occurred. It all started by Kaffee, Galloway, and Weinburg visiting Colonel Jessup and the bunch going down to Guantanamo Bay. While in Cuba, the three received information regarding the disclosed barracks and transfer information of Santiago. The group even received perspective on Colonel Jessup’s point of view on a Code Red. His perspective entails that on record he does not condone the action but off record cannot control what group members do to their “weak links.” The action of questioning these higher-ranked officials gives the defendants perspective on the situation with Santiago.
What followed the situation was the debate between Kaffee and Capt. Jack Ross. The two are the representatives of opposing sides for the case. They have information the other does not and share some factors but not all, to strike a plea deal. Like a magician, he never reveals all his secrets. This enables both sides to know where the case is heading, whether to be ready to go wheels up and be prepared for battle or be ready to throw the white flag. This shows the implication of the Dissoi Logoi, showing the interaction as an instance of knowledge. This knowing matter portrays the two of knowing the argument that is going to be made. Allowing them to discuss information as true or false. Enabling them to battle in the courtroom and conduct an argument that is two-folded in understanding what is going on with the other.
An aspect that must be achieved is the confession of Colonel Jessup ordering the Code Red. Kaffee, being a smart Harvard graduate, begins by focusing on the kind of leader Jessup was. He asks him questions about his commands being followed and whether anyone would ever break his line of command. Kaffee stumbles away from those questions and gets Jessup talking about something else, like his phone calls and the amount of stuff he packed for his trip to the trial by leaving Guantanamo Bay. This leads to insightful judgment by Kaffee, noticing that Jessup made multiple calls and packed a few outfits, while Santiago did not pack anything or make a call once he received his notice of his transfer. This was an instance of where Kaffee saw Jessup not ordering the transfer but ordering the Code Red as true, but Jessup not being involved as false. Kaffee gets worked up and begins to recall Jessup’s answer to the questions before. Jessup being flustered by the question of Kaffee asking if he ordered the Code Red. Jessup insisted that his orders are always followed and exclaimed that Kaffee could not handle the truth. Jessup breaks and confirmed that he did order the Code Red.
Kaffee, Galloway, and Weinburg created an example of the Dissoi Logoi. They assessed the situation and understood that there are factors intertwined. They had to deal with proving something false as true. As the Dissoi Logoi explains, something that is true can be false and something false can be true. Kaffee had to work with the facts of the situation and become an informed man. He had to address the situation and figure out what was facts and what was false. He established that Colonel Jessup was lying about his involvement by proving that he did not order a transfer but a Code Red. This was done through his use of Jessup and his ability to call and pack for his trip to the trial by showing Santiago did nothing. He created a different situation where he established something as true that being Jessup and then something as false that being Santiago. It assisted in the confession of Jessup and lead to his downfall.
Now, imagine overseeing a trial like this. Wanting to create an outcome in which your party comes out on top. What you must do is find the right lawyers or consultant for the case. This is where a sophist comes into play concerning A Few Good Men. A sophist is described as a teacher, more specifically related to philosophy and oratory skills. They are wise people and have great knowledge for their field. These ideas come from the ancient rhetorician, Isocrates in his work titled, “Against the Sophists.” Sophists can draw a crowd through their figurative language and ability to paint a picture for their audience. This plays into the idea being oratory masters. They cultivate people into believing their side of the story whether it be true or false. Sometimes making them hard men to trust due to their nature of being able to escape conflicted situations through their words. A sophist is hired to argue or debate and teach rhetorical strategies for others. A lawyer is paid to win your case, with whatever means of argumentation are needed. Now, let us evaluate Kaffee and Ross as sophists.
About Lt. Daniel Kaffee, he was a sophist who was somewhat invested, while not being entirely in the case until later in the film. Kaffee was an intelligent man. He was able to dissect a situation and have a general idea on how the trial would end. A sophist is paid to argue, as Kaffee was assigned to the case. Kaffee had this attitude of getting in then getting out because no matter what, he still got paid. It was not until he interacted with Galloway where he found a newfound love for law. This was due to Galloway pushing Kaffee to reach to his full potential and argue for something that he should care about. This matter of being a sophist took a turn. Instead of someone just being in it for the money, Kaffee pushed to reach the right outcome and gave all effort to reach it. This depicts Kaffee as a sophist who cares and is not just in it for the money, doing everything in his will power to win the case and give the best outcome for his clients.
In the other case, Capt. Jack Ross was the defendant for Colonel Jessup and party. He was confident and strategic in his communication and interaction with the opposing party and in court. Once in trial, he began to paint a picture, he stated facts and made them clear that they were facts. At that same time, he took a shot at Kaffee’s credibility. Ross made it known that he was going to try and paint this emotional picture in the jury’s head to try and sway them away from the truth and onto Kaffee’s side, sounds like a sophist, doesn’t it? Ross implemented tactics of truth and some falsehood but described it in a manner where it could be represented as the truth, also reflecting the Dissoi Logoi. This is important to recognize due to the value Ross brought to the table. He was a wise man, able to argue from a standpoint where he thought he would win. He was challenged with adversity but was getting paid to do what he did, so he stayed persistent and tried to poke flaws in Kaffee’s argument up the end. Arguing for something you do not believe in is something that was exemplified by Ross. He disclosed information with the opposing party to give them leads on how to find information on the case, whether it was intended or not. It led to the downfall of Colonel Jessup but was not intended to ruin his chances of winning the case. Ross thought the opposing party had no shot in changing the outcome that was predicted from the beginning. This goes to show the difference between a committed lawyer to a lawyer who is just in it for the money. It exemplifies sophists through the idea of being a sophist who wants to be rich or a sophist who wants to be rich with knowledge and give these teachings to others. Kaffee was pushed to reach his full potential and it led to the proper judgment to be made in the trial. Ross worked for the money and ultimately gave the tools to Kaffee’s team to win the case but not on purpose.
Both a sophist and the Dissoi Logoi are comparable to a modern-day lawyer through the movie A Few Good Men. This is because a lawyer must know all the ins and outs of his case. They must be able to outsmart and react in an efficient manner to get their desired outcome to a situation. In relation to A Few Good Men, Kaffee got his desired outcome by winning the case. Kaffee, Galloway, and Weinburg had to become informed people and know the argument that was going to come. They had to approach the situation by convincing the jury that this false statement is true. It being Colonel Jessup ordered the Code Red. It was Kaffee’s first time having to give everything he had to a case. This resulted in the prosecution of Colonel Jessup and the downfall of Ross. Kaffee approached the situation by visiting Santiago’s barracks and understanding his situation. Kaffee and Ross are prime examples of sophists due to their approaches in arguing during the trial. The trial ended with Dawson and Downey being found guilty of conduct unbecoming and having to be court-martialed, but not guilty for murder and conspiracy. The lesson learned from the situation was to stand up for those who are weak and to have their backs in time of need.