Aspasia from Menexenus

     I don't believe I have ever been fully equipped, intellectually speaking, to decode just what it is these philosophers are trying to convey with their presumably consequential stories and methods of teaching.  As we talked about in class, I've had trouble in the past understanding why this knowledge is relevant and, in turn, why I should care.  From what I can tell, there are an outstanding number of points being made, making it hard for me to wrap my head around any one in particular.  Of course I'll try for the sake of understanding the Rhetorical tradition.
     I noticed a number of key concepts in reading Aspasia/Socrates from Menexenus.  The first was in regard to who was to be elected to speak at the funeral of multiple fallen soldiers.  Socrates argued, at least to my understanding, whoever was elected to speak would be in representation of the dead and of the community in which they resided.  This representation was, however, misplaced.  The candidates for election were those of considerable wealth, noble standing and/or high rank.  Realistically, those foot soldiers in battle were commoners with the possible exception of their group leaders.  How could these influential speakers truly represent these men without somehow distorting how they would naturally be perceived?  When you think about it, they really could not.  If this falsity is instilled at the get-go, any perception born from it would be deceptive of the truth.  This got me thinking of political agendas and conspiracy theories, but that may be a tangent I do not want to go off on.  Anyone seen the Tillman Story?  I see the connection with these fallen soldiers in ancient Greece.  What really happened to them?  How can we know if someone is speaking for them, as they can obviously not speak for themselves?
     Another point that popped up in this short reading was Socrates' republication of the speech he heard Aspasia rehearsing.  Because her speech was so compelling, Socrates was able to remember word for word.  The interesting part of this excerpt, however, was Menexenus' response to Socrates' presentation of Aspasia's speech.  He said, "I am very grateful to her or to him who told you, and still more to you who have told me" (63).  This situation brings up an interesting discussion of intellectual property and original authorship.  Where does it all begin?  This instance reminds me of academic writing in school where students are asked to include multiple outside sources within their documented arguments.  Quoting, or even simply referencing an idea becomes a debate in and of itself.  How can these sources be appropriately cited if what is being alluded to has an unclear origin?  Obviously the material we use was based on even more material from sources unknown.  Of course we have procedures and formats to fall back on, but how legitimate are they really?  Though Aspasia was the writer of her own speech, Socrates was given a portion of credit for doing nothing but memorizing and relaying it.
     All of these questions are disconcerting.