Plato Grogias

Plato, Gorgias
DIALECTIC:
Dialectic is a real-time discussion by means of question and answer where two people try to discover the validity of a statement, the meaning of a word, the value of a concept, or what one or the other or both mean by a given statement. The goal, ostensibly, is to discover accurate statements based on absolutely accurate definitions, out of which one can construct a stable and accurate worldview. Dialectic is not about winning; it's about learning.

MY VIEWS:
Dialectic thinking makes an individual see things from different standpoints. Dialectic thinking is based on the assumption that every situation has its opposite. It makes you understand the other side of things objectively. It makes you see that there is a mid-way to see things rather than what is right and wrong.
For example: The classroom discussions we have on a certain topic are also dialectic in nature.

Don't you think that dialectic can also have its own setbacks? It makes you overthink simple decisions of life. My dilemma is always what to cook for lunch or dinner !! Isn't this a limitation of dialectic thinking? It can also be time-consuming and frustrating at the same time.

Would we call the primaries which were held recently to be dialectic in nature or was it a debate?


PLATO'S GORGIAS
Plato's Gorgias is a conversation between Socrates and other orators, including Gorgias and Callicles. The main topic of discussion is the definition of rhetoric and how it should be used. The discussion also revolves around the contrast between rhetoric and philosophy. The scene is the house of Callicles.
The drama is a series of questions and answers termed "Dialectic."

Callicles:

He is one of the characters in Plato's 'Gorgias.'

Callicles believes that "the superior should take by force what belongs to the inferior, that the better should rule the worse and the more worthy have a greater share than the less worthy."

He also claims that "large cities attack small ones according to what's just by nature, because they're superior and stronger, assuming that superior, stronger, and better are the same."

He asserts that citizens should allow themselves to be ruled by powerful and strong individuals. For him, the qualities of justice are not important for a ruler; he just needs to 'possess intelligence, particularly about the affairs of the city, and courage.' He claims that the strong and powerful can do whatever they please, regardless of what is right or just.


"Rather, this is what's admirable and just by nature—and I'll say it to you now with all frankness —that the man who'll live correctly ought to allow his own appetites to get as large as [492] possible and not restrain them. And when they are as large as possible, he ought to be competent to devote himself to them by virtue of his bravery and intelligence and to fill them with whatever he may have an appetite for at the time."

He argues that even nature agrees with the fact that the powerful rule the weak and have a larger share than they do.

USE OF DIALECTIC :
Callicles makes strong assertions about power and morality. He convincingly puts forth his views without any evidence to support his claim. He makes an assertion that the strong should be able to do whatever they please but does not give any examples.

He uses poetic language and emotional appeal to convince others.

MY VIEWS:
Callicles, to me, comes as an arrogant person who feels that only the mighty and strong people have the right to rule and do whatever they feel like, whether it is morally justified or not.

I disagree with Callicles on the fact that leaders should be mighty regardless of their morality. I want to ask him if physical strength is the only attribute of a true leader.

Gorgias
He is an eloquent orator and believes in the power of persuasion. He claims that he is an expert in his craft called 'oratory' and is capable of making others orators, too.
In one of the dialogues, he argues that the skill to persuade is essential; sometimes, a proficient orator can be more convincing about a subject than a specialist in that particular field.

He has cited an example below to prove his point.
"Many a time, I've gone with my brother or with other doctors to call on some sick person who refuses to take his medicine or allow the doctor to perform surgery or cauterization on him. And when the doctor failed to persuade him, I succeeded by means of no other craft than oratory."

The orator has in fact, the ability to speak more persuasively than experts on a technical matter before a crowd of nonexperts (456a–c; 458e–9c). Since he produces "conviction persuasion" and not "teaching persuasion" (455a), the orator is required neither to know nor to speak the truth about the matters of which he speaks and hence can easily afford to be indifferent to the truth.

Gorgias' portrait of the orator shows some uncertainty. On the one hand, he maintains that the orator does not need to know what is just in order to persuade an audience that a given course of action is just. The orator's recommendation of it as just may reflect no more than his own self-interest (452e). On the other hand, Gorgias is concerned about the fact that oratory can be used unjustly, that is, in a way contrary to the interest of those whom, like one's parents, relatives, and friends, one has an obligation not to harm (456c–57c).
Here, I agree that the art of persuasion can be used negatively to convince others !! Words do have power!!

I think Gorgias is adept with the art of speaking and does not seem to use his speech unethically. However, isn't his claim that he can make anyone a rhetorician too far-fetched because it is not possible for anyone to do so?

A person needs to have a strong command of the language and possess critical thinking and analytical skills.

Polus:

Polus is a young man and seems to be very impulsive. He is of the belief that an orator can have ultimate control over everyone and can commit any injustices at his discretion.
He believes that orators are mighty and powerful.

"Don't they, like tyrants, put to death anyone they want, and confiscate the property and banish from their cities anyone they see fit?"


Polus's vivid description of the tyrant Archelaus advertises a life of unjust action as better, more advantageous, and therefore happier than a life limited by justice; although he concedes that doing what is unjust is more shameful than suffering it, he insists that the former is by far the better.

Polus had agreed that suffering what is unjust is less shameful than doing it, but had denied that it is better.


'"Don't orators, like tyrants, put to death anyone they want, don't they confiscate the property of anyone they see fit, and don't they banish them from their cities?"

Here, he makes a statement that an orator can kill someone or send anyone to prison whomever he wishes. It is indeed enviable to hold such a position and he does not care whether that person is just or unjust in his actions.

MY VIEWS:

Polus is a man with limited knowledge of life. He seems to be difficult to convince and Socrates had a tough time convincing him. I feel he is ignorant of the complexities of life and does not understand the result of the unjust use of power. He appears to be indifferent to others' views, is overconfident about himself and is inexperienced.
The ceaseless questions asked by Socrates made Polus all the more baffled and he seemed to buckle under pressure !! I know I would do the same ?

I disagree with his belief that a powerful orator is indestructible and can commit any injustice that he pleases. Really? How shallow?

Do you think that winning an argument is essential than being truthful?
I totally disagree with Polus in demeaning the power of rhetoric.
According to him, orators should be rulers but I want to ask him oratory is the only criteria for being a good ruler. Shouldn't they have expertise and morality beyond persuasive skills?


Socrates:

Socrates is an important character in Plato's Gorgias. He is a skilled debator who confronts the beliefs of Gorgias and Callicles. He emphasizes the importance of truth, morality and wisdom unlike the other orators. ( This might be too idealistic of an approach!!)

He goes against Callicles' argument:
Socrates argues "it's finer and better for me to be defeated by the truth than to win by a lie." Here we can say that he is in favour of honesty and justice over strength.

"Oratory doesn't need to have any knowledge of the state of their subject matters; it only needs to have discovered some device to produce persuasion in order to make itself appearto those who don't have knowledge that it knows more than those who actually have it."

Here he means that oratory is nothing but manipulation and does not require any skill.


USE OF DIALECTIC:
In Plato's Gorgias, Socrates uses the method of division to distinguish between rhetoric and other arts. He argues that rhetoric is concerned only with persuasion and knowledge. He cites examples that these traits are found in other forms of arts like athletics or. medicine
Through this method, Socrates is able to convince that rhetoric is not a true art as it does not have a specific subject matter but relies on persuasion alone. He argues that true knowledge comes from understanding the nature of things, rather than simply convincing others to believe in something.

DEFINITION:
Socrates uses the technique of definition and defines the word using its essence:
"Oratory enables its practitioner "to rule over others in his own city" (452d), because it furnishes him with "the ability to persuade" (452e) "

ARGUMENTS FROM OPPOSITES:
Socrates claims that living a just life is beneficial than ruling or seeking power. Living a just life He also suggests that everything in the world has an opposite and we should be ready to accept it. He used this concept to challenge Callicles’ beliefs and lays importance on justice and morality.

ARGUMENTS FROM EXAMPLES:
Socrates gives the example of medicine and it to rhetoric, suggesting that just as a doctor's main goal should be the well-being of his patients, the same way a rhetorician's main concern should be the welfare of the society.

He also gives an example of a tyrant to highlight the negative implications of seeking power without regard of morality. He further adds that even though the tyrants have immense wealth and power but, they are hated by others.

Socrates uses the dialectical method of questioning. He uses this method to highlight the inconsistencies in the arguments of other orators, such as Gorgias and Polus.

USE OF ANALOGIES:
"pastry baking, as I say, is the flattery that wears the mask of medicine. Cosmetics is the one that wears that of gymnastics in the same way; a mischievous, deceptive, disgraceful and illiberal thing, one that perpetrates deception by means of shaping and coloring, smoothing out and dressing up, so as to make people assume an alien beauty and neglect their own, which comes through gymnastics."

Here, Socrates compares rhetoric to pastry–baking by suggesting that the focus is only on the outward appearance rather than the actual content. Just as a baker makes the pastry appealing by decorating and beautifying it without focusing on the actual taste of the pastry, an orator can use
compelling language without the actual to impress others

His use of analogies was to grab the attention of the listeners so that they think critically about the similarities and differences between two distinct things. I think this was a smart way to challenge the students think critically.


PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR DIALECTIC:
Socrates is very candid in his observation of the facts and does not hesitate to go against the other orators.
He is also very patient, especially when it comes to having a discussion with Polus.
Socrates asks simple rather than complex questions.

MY VIEWS:

I think Socrates encouraged critical thinking and was able to counterargue and made the other orators like Gorgias and Polus to think about the inconsistencies in their arguments.

I feel that Socrates overdoes his part of questioning, which might have baffled the interlocutors. I think he misuses dialectic at times just to corner the other orators. This method of refutation, I feel, is to humiliate his opponents. ( I know I would be intimidated by this kind of interrogation)

Socrates, being a philosopher, uses the dialectic method to seek the truth. But can we find truth by this method?

I am intrigued by Socrates' belief that 'it is better to suffer wrong than to do wrong.' Would this hold true in today's world? I think he was too idealistic in his approach.

Socrates says rhetoric is "not an art, but the occupation of a shrewd and enterprising spirit, and of one naturally skilled in its dealings with men, and in sum and substance I call it 'flattery.'"

Here, I would like to question Socrates that you ridicule rhetoric as flattery but still use persuasion and emotional appeal in your speech. Aren't you using rhetoric, then? Is your philosophy dependent on rhetoric?