Plato Grogias
My first major takeaway from the readings this week is that the idea of the dialectic as exclusively a two-person activity is fundamentally different from how I considered the dialectic process being something that takes place within one’s own mind. I did have a foggy idea about how the Athenians used to go about this dialectic as interpersonal exchange, either publicly or within their early schools, but somehow I decided that since this isn’t widely practiced anymore, there must be some version of it still taking place. I convinced myself, I guess, that the dialectic is still alive, just occurring as one internally debates an idea and tries to think critically through opposing views. That may be a valuable process to an extent, but an actual exchange with another human is much more likely to reveal our blind spots. I may try to convince myself that I can fully consider all sides of an argument, but confirmation bias can be stronger than my desire to be fair and open-minded. My own confirmation bias may even act as a self-protection mechanism evolved to keep me from the discomfort of finding out that I am wrong. Recognizing that I may not be able to overcome my bias is a step in the right direction, but getting the other side of an issue from another intelligent person (preferably that holds the opposing view) is better than trying to internally manufacture the position myself.
There is no doubt that debating with an intellectual partner (like Plato does) is respectable way to go about the process of seeking truth—but who can find that partner today? It seems our public spheres for spirited debate are now social media platforms, not exactly full of well-intentioned philosophers and critical thinkers. The people I see who are inclined toward debate also tend to be inclined toward highly emotional responses. Perhaps, that has been the case for millennia and that is part of what Plato shows us. Either way, there are intelligent people out there today issuing opinions and having civilized conversations, but these people seem to be rare—perhaps because of their lack of popularity and “influencer” status.
Where do we see the dialectic taking place today? Brooks and Capehart? Breaking Points?
“If you can't define them [family, friendship, respect], then you can't value them either positively or negatively.” (Pullman)
Could we possibly just define them in terms of their perceived value to us at the moment—even if our understanding of what they are is weak and vague? The value could change over time (more or less valuable) with an increased understanding of the concepts.
“…words that by convention are accepted as absolute values, words like family and friendship, and patriotism, and god, and truth, and justice must all be defined before they can be valued, and those words don't readily admit of absolute definitions unless they are dictated by some authority, a church, an administrative council, or an army.” (Pullman) Good point.
(Pullman)”The problem with dialectic is it encourages thought but it does not guarantee conviction, and most people get lost in the distinctions.” Is there anything (good, trustworthy) to guarantee conviction? If not, is dialectic the best we can do?
*AI note: Can AI help with the dialectic? This probably depends on how credible/trustworthy the AI is, but the same issues apply to any source we include/engage with in the dialectic. The trust we have in our preferred AI systems is crucial, and I see plenty of evidence that GPT 3.5 cannot be trusted. Still, validating and verifying are part of the research process, and I see a close relationship between the research process and the dialectic. I have viewed research as almost a type of dialectic process if not just a significant facet of the modern internal, individual dialectic.
(Pullman) “… it's not so much money as money proportional to needs and desires that creates leisure. If I don't need much food, shelter, clothes, etc. I don't need much money.”
Thoreau: “That man is the richest whose pleasures are the cheapest” https://quoteinvestigator.com/2021/04/24/richest-pleasure/
Did Epicurus say something similar?
Are we using the terms dialectic and invention interchangeably?
I sometimes worry that there isn’t anything we can add to these long-established theories and ideas about rhetoric, but the context of AI/LLM development and use does seem to demand from current scholars at least the consideration of new approaches and reconsiderations of established theories and practices of rhetoric.
A note on forms of argument to avoid (logical fallacies): An overreliance on witnesses/testimonials/quotations can be a detriment to an argument, especially when these are illogical appeals to authority. But shouldn’t outside sources add to an argument assuming there is evidence of originality within the argument elsewhere or in how it arranges outside sources? Don’t we want our arguments to be built on the work of the best arguments that came before?
Definition of Rhetoric from James Nichols Jr.: “…rhetoric is the crucial link between philosophy and politics…”
This means that one who understands rhetoric can and should develop a decent bullshit detector. Having a decent bullshit detector seems valuable because it could keep a person from being misled away from the truth or what is good and toward dangerous political ideas/extremism.
(Paraphrasing Nichols, from Preface to Plato Gorgias) It’s either persuasion or force to get groups of people to cooperate in a society. The argument for the value of rhetoric is an argument for non-violence over violence.
Is the work Gorgias more concerned with the ideas of justice and philosophy than rhetoric? Probably not, but maybe there has been a push to see it that way.
452d Soc: …what is the greatest good, Gorgias?
Gor: …the cause of freedom for the individual and the [ability to] rule over others…it is being able to persuade through speeches…454b in law courts and among mobs…and about those things that are just and unjust.
Ruling over others doesn’t necessarily strike me as virtuous or the greatest good. And if Gorgias is right, then we have to define justice.
Don’t blame the teacher of rhetoric if the student uses it unjustly: 457c “It is just, then, to hate the one who uses it incorrectly, but not the one who taught it.
This brings up a good point about what responsibility teachers have for their students. Maybe if teachers got to choose and dismiss their students at will, as I assume the Athenian teachers could, then the teachers would have more responsibility for what their students do.
470e …the noble and good man and woman are happy; the unjust and base, wretched.
What about when the unjust person is wholly convinced (wrongly) that what they do is just? Can that person be truly happy? Falsely happy?
The goal of Socrates was to figure out what rhetoric is. He may not have been successful, but from the text, we should understand that there are two basic ways to think about rhetoric:
1. Rhetoric without dialectic (informed by philosophy) is simply persuasion with no concern for what is just and good.
2. Rhetoric, when informed by “proper” dialectic and, therefore, philosophical implications of goodness and justice, can be the art of persuading others toward what is just and good.
481b rhetoric has use for the evil doer, not the one who does not do evil.
If the rhetor seeks only to persuade for their own good (regardless of what is just), then this may be true.
Politics is the art of producing justice, according to Socrates (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DT3xYF0EHyI)
Recap:
What does Gorgias teach? “the most admirable of the crafts”(Polus)
“the source of freedom and rule over others” (Gorgias) “the greatest of human concerns” (Gorgias)
What does Socrates teach? He has an unjust student, Alcibiades.
Socrates argues with Polus about three key terms:
(From ChatGPT 3.5)
1. Definition of Rhetoric:
• Polus initially defines rhetoric as the "greatest of arts" and insists that it's the art of doing whatever one wants. He claims that it's a powerful skill that allows individuals to dominate others.
• Socrates challenges this definition and argues that rhetoric is not an art but a knack or a form of flattery. He insists that true arts aim at what is genuinely good and beneficial, while rhetoric often persuades people to do what is not truly beneficial.
2. Definition of Injustice:
• Polus attempts to argue that doing injustice is preferable to suffering injustice. He believes that doing injustice is an act of power and therefore more desirable.
• Socrates questions this definition and argues that it is not in one's best interest to do injustice because it leads to harm to the soul and results in a lack of self-control. He contends that true power is the ability to act justly and maintain self-control.
3. Definition of the Good:
• Throughout their discussion, Socrates and Polus touch upon the concept of the "good" and whether pursuing power, as Polus suggests, is equivalent to pursuing the good.
• Socrates argues that genuine good is connected to moral virtue and the well-being of the soul, whereas Polus believes that power and satisfying one's desires constitute the good.
What makes a ruler fit to rule? Strength, intelligence, sense of justice?
“Freedom and happiness come from recognizing the rules do not apply to you.” (Great Books Prof)
What is the life of pleasure? Satisfying our endless desires? Self-control and moderation? Serving others?
Person with the leaky jar vs. full jar. Which is better? Is there a difference between happiness (fleeting?) and contentment (less fleeting?)
Are there differences between good and bad pleasures? “…good pleasures are those that lead to a harmonious and just life. He [Socrates] argues that bad pleasures are associated with uncontrolled desires and the absence of wisdom. …pleasures of the soul, such as those derived from knowledge and wisdom, are superior to bodily pleasures, which are often fleeting and lead to excess.” (GPT 3.5)