The Gorgias @ 463 lays out contrasting visions for the training of a statesman, an empeiria (knack) leading to empowerment and a techne (art or craft or skill)
Claude's Gloss is Aristotelian rather than Platonic
Techne (τέχνη) is an Ancient Greek word meaning "art, skill, or craft." Some key things to know about techne:
- It refers to a practical knowledge or skill, often in a specific domain like medicine, music, rhetoric, etc. Techne is knowledge that allows you to make or produce something.
- It was contrasted with episteme (scientific knowledge) and phronesis (practical wisdom, prudence). Techne was more practical and concrete, while episteme was more theoretical.
- The word is the root of "technology" and "technique." The ancient Greeks saw techne as an application of knowledge to create things or accomplish goals.
- Techne was linked to Arete (virtue, excellence). The Greeks felt excellence in a practical craft required both skill and moral wisdom in how it was applied.
- Examples of techne include medicine, shipbuilding, sculpture, rhetoric, and more. These involved trained skill and expertise.
So in summary, techne refers to the skilled knowledge, craft, or art required to produce something or accomplish a goal. The concept was central to Greek philosophy's view of human excellence.
leading to enlightenment. Sophists offer training (Plato called it rhetoric) in the ability to persuade the gullible crowd (populism?), promising wealth and power. Philosophers offer training (dialectic) in the ability to educate the select few (aristocracy?), promising righteousness and justice.
Within the contrasting pair of empeiria and techne is the dichotomy of soul and body
| Sophistry (demagogue) | Philosophy (pedagogue) |
| Rhetoric (flattery/persuasion) | Dialectic (instruction/knowledge) |
| Oratory (power) | Justice (discipline) |
| Cosmetics (appearance) | Gymnastics (reality) |
| Confectionary (pleasure) | Nutrition (health) |
Plato's primary complaint in The Gorgias is that what he calls rhetoric, the pedagogy of sophists, creates rhetors (orators or today we would say politicians/lawyers), people who have a knack for deluding the masses for personal gain. The pedagogy of the philosopher, dialectic, by contrast, creates philosophers, people with knowledge of right and wrong, justice and injustice.
The problem with these dichotomies is that they lead to a philosopher being all but equipped to be a leader because while he knows right from wrong and so will always do the right thing (if we accept the assertion that a person who knows right from wrong will always do what is right), he doesn't have what it takes to lead the ignorant masses because dialectic only works one on one and requires a student with the mental discipline required to think dialectically. You can't perform dialectic on a crowd. This is where The Phaedrus comes in.
I think there has been a tendency, perhaps because of apparent similarities between Plato and early Christianity, to read the dialogues as though Socrates is a kind of saint, misunderstood but right. On this reading, Polus is a twitchy young man on the make, seeking money and power and self-indulgence and luxury. And Callicles is the outcome of such a pursuit, powerful, rich, connected, but boorish and contemptable. However, if we read The Gorgias from a more decentered position, it is possible to see Polus as just a stereotypical young man of wealth and privilege and Callicles as the man Polus longs to be one day, the epitome of the successful citizen (a mench and a macher). Polus has a long way to go before he gets to Callicles' station in life, but Callicles has a legitimate and ultimately prophetic warning for Socrates, a warning wrongly dismissed by people who read Socrates like some kind of martyr to higher knowledge.
The Gorgias:
[485] But when I see an older man still engaging in philosophy and not giving it up, I think such a man by this time needs a flogging. For, as I was just now saying, it's typical that such a man, even if he's naturally very well favored, becomes unmanly and avoids the centers of his city and the marketplaces -- in which, according to the poet, men attain "preeminence" -- and, instead, lives the rest of his life in hiding, whispering in a corner with three or four boys, never uttering anything liberal, important, or apt. ... You're neglecting the things you should devote yourself to, Socrates, and though your spirit’s nature is so noble, you show yourself to the world in the shape of a boy. You couldn't put a speech together correctly before councils of justice or utter any [486] plausible or persuasive sound. Nor could you make any bold proposal on behalf of anyone else." And so then, my dear Socrates—please don’t be upset with me, for it’s with good will toward you that I'll say this -- don't you think it's shameful to be the way I take you to be, you and others who ever press on too far in philosophy? . . .You'd come up for trial and face some no good wretch of an accuser and be put to death, if death is what he'd want to condemn you to.
Socrates' method of instruction, his pedagogy, leads ultimately to accusations of sacrilege and of corrupting the youth. As we tell it, instead of justifying himself in court he lambasted his accusers and judges, arguing that rather than being exiled he should be paid a daily stipend for his service to the city. He chose a grand and defiant exit rather than appealing for sympathy or even understanding. It was left to Plato to apologize for his mentor. And if he hadn't and if his apology hadn't resonated with later, Christian, writers we would know little of Socrates and what little we know would lead us to think he was merely a minor pain in the ass.
Plato, in other words, may have been arguing a more subtle point than most people notice. Callicles had a point. Knowledge without practical wisdom is useless. Dialectic without rhetoric is just mental gymnastics. Given that Plato wrote The Phaedrus many years after The Gorgias, he may have felt the need to clarify his own position and perhaps differentiate it from Socrates'.