Plato Grogias
Note: I try my best to summarize the text on the major key concepts and arguments, but since this is such a dense text, I do feel I wrote a little more than I normally would.
“Gorgias” by Plato is an interesting discourse of morality, oratory practice, and happiness. The discussion begins with a dialectic conversation led by Socrates with Gorgias. I understand that this style of speech is meant to incur the truth, but the way Socrates questioned Gorgias reminded me a bit like interrogations done by police, because of the leading questions and the way he pressures Gorgias to both answer in shorter form than he is used to, yet begs for further explanation (also to Polus later on). I would say that is the weakness for this particular practice of persuasion (or “finding truth”) as it feels more like a tactic of coercion (at least in this case).
In this first portion, they are debating what it means to be an orator, if this practice is what people really need to find true happiness, and if oratory truly is its own separate craft or merely just a skill every discipline must learn. Additionally, Socrates leads into the distinction of conviction-persuasion and teaching-persuasion with the question, “Would you like us then to posit two types of persuasion, one providing conviction without knowledge, the other providing knowledge?” (27). Furthermore, Gorgias makes the claim that orators use conviction-persuasion, and that one can teach persuasion to cover any subject, even if one is not an expert on the subject, based on simple rhetorical and speech strategies. They also argue for a bit on the subject of teaching oratory and if the teacher of oratory should be blamed for the wrongdoing of their pupils with the craft, until Socrates comes to the conclusion, “So, I’m afraid to pursue my examination of you, for fear that you should take me to be speaking with eagerness to win against you, rather than to [458] have our subject become clear” (30). Socrates hopes to find not common ground, but again, the ultimate truth (which he believes he already knows). This is an admirable belief, but I do believe that many times, a single conversation cannot shift a person’s view without evidence, thorough explanation, and ultimately, more time.
The argument dissolves into a re-evaluation of oratory practices being based in justice, since they are mainly meant to be utilized in the courtroom. It is argued that orators can teach justice, and thus, they should understand the difference between the just and unjust. However, this leads to the question of if orators COULD use their craft to commit unjust acts or claims. I personally would argue that yes, anyone with the art of persuasion can use it wrongfully as again, speech is POWER. Power can be used wrongfully and rightly, and just because one knows what their duty is to society does not mean they will do so (as I believe human nature dictates more of our actions than we would like to believe). After all, can you teach someone to be good, and then expect them to always be good? Socrates will later refute the claim that oratory skills are powerful, but his argument seemed long-winded and without a point in this particular case (instead, he just seems to be belittling Polus a lot), so I stand by my stance still. I think he doesn’t necessarily mean these people DON’T have power (taking away another life is an immensely huge power one can have), but that sometimes what they must do for their perceived “good” is not something desirable.
Socrates argues further that oratory is actually a “knack” meant to induce pleasure and flattery rather than elicit justice or truth, as oratory shapes the image of politics. Further on in the discussion, Socrates discusses with Polus the choice of either suffering an unjust act (having little power) or committing an unjust act (having thus more power) and which of these is considered “better”, “more shameful” or “less evil”. Socrates stands on the side that he would rather suffer the act, as those who commit heinous, unjust acts must be miserable beings even with their immense power, while Polus refutes this claim. I found Polus’s example of Archelaus rather interesting, since he is an example of a truly awful man who is undeserving of his power and sovereignty, yet he is not truly “miserable”. Socrates responds to this example by again ridiculing Polus for his oratorical tactics and responds on the way orators shape arguments in the courtroom, “There, too, one side thinks it’s refuting the other when it produces many reputable witnesses on behalf of the arguments it presents, while the person who asserts the opposite produces only one witness, or none at all. This ‘refutation’ is worthless, as far as truth is concerned, for it might happen sometimes that an individual [472] is brought down by the
false testimony of many reputable people” (46). Again, Socrates places all of his value in truth, but I don’t agree (not with the example, but the idea that this way of working legal systems is ineffective– it is the most effective way we can judge people as of now). Although we all may want the truth, how are we to stop others from lying? How is one even supposed to tell if their witnesses are lying or not? If you don’t know a wrong is happening, then your subjective truth is still intact.
And again, how are we supposed to make sure our teachings of right and wrong are actually executed by our students? I don’t think that is something any philosopher can guarantee, so I will stand along with the orator-politicians as being necessities in legal and political settings. Again, human nature beats out teachings, in my eyes, so conviction-persuasion will always be necessary for settings like these.
Back to the question of shame, I think committing the act is definitely more shameful, so I suppose I agree with the law, but suffering an unjust act is still shameful if you have the power to fight back. I never want to blame victims, but if you DO have the ability to act and stop an injustice, then I think it is your duty as a citizen of modern society to speak up and stop the “evil” from further growing.
The men also discuss the quality of the soul along with the three main indicators of happiness and health: “one’s finances [wealth and poverty], one’s body [health and beauty], and one’s soul [justice]” (54). I think this is a fair way of judging one’s quality of life, the amount of “evil” they possess, and happiness. I do agree with Socrates it is best to never “contract” evil to begin with, but it is always best to treat any failing factor in your life to achieve future happiness and to hopefully leave all evil behind. And I agree that those who are in charge of delegating punishments for wrongdoing have more of a responsibility than the ones who did the unjust act, and thus, they should be punished if they KNOW the act was wrong more harshly than the executor of the act. This is because this reluctance to act leads to more injustice in society, and anarchy and chaos should not be tolerated. That’s why the most important part of the legal system is to have well-trained and diplomatic judges with proper, unbiased (as much as is possible) juries.
This is just a side note, but I find Socrates' tone to be condescending and rude at times, especially towards Polus. I just felt like it was something to note, because it makes me NOT want to side with his argument, and it shows his persuasive techniques are a little weaker than the others (maybe he should take notes from the orators…). I don’t think reminding your opponent that they are younger, more impulsive and foolish really helps your argument. Callicles notes this in one of his longer speeches when he states:
“As a result of this admission he [Polus] was bound and gagged by you in the discussion, too ashamed to say what he thought. Although you claim to be pursuing the truth, you’re in fact bringing the discussion around to the sort of crowd-pleasing vulgarities that are admirable only by law and not by nature.24 And these, nature and law, are for the most part opposed to each other, so if a person is ashamed and doesn’t dare to say what he thinks, [483] he’s forced to contradict himself. This is in fact the clever trick you’ve thought of, with which you work mischief in your discussions: if a person makes a statement in terms of law, you slyly question him in terms of nature; if he makes it in terms of nature, you question him in terms of law” (61). I think this is an ineffective way of arguing because I don't believe Polus ACTUALLY changed his perspective, he simply was in a situation full of pressure and didn't know what to say to Socrates' enduring questions (I guess he did win? But only based off of appearances). Socrates will later on claim his argument was fair, and he will doubt Callicles because he does not stick to the same definitions, especially of what constitutes as "better" (is it strength? intelligence? wisdom? what makes one person better?). In this same monologue I quoted last by Callicles, I also agree that philosophy is good ONLY in moderation, and I believe true philosophical thought does need perspective from the real world, so you can't stay in your books all day or be alone all day long pondering the larger questions. A person can get so lost in their own thoughts, and with too much reflection, I find that many of life's biggest questions tend to run circular (and thus, there was no reason to be philosophizing for so long, as it ended up at the same spot).
Lastly, I think the biggest thing to discuss from "Gorgias" is the difference between acts that cause pleasure, and those that are good, and if they are in fact the same thing (hedonism). I do find Callicles argument here a bit off putting as he claims that any man who is good in bravery and intelligence deserves "to allow his own appetites to get as large as [492] possible and not restrain them" (70). I think some desires we have as human beings (and essentially, as animals) can be harmful to us, unjust in the eye of law and/or nature, and consequently, could damage our souls. We must persuade our own desires and convince ourselves to do what is best for our own souls and the souls of others. Socrates also comments on this matter and states rather simply, "Because it turns out that good things are not the same as
pleasant ones, and bad things not the same as painful ones. For pleasant and painful things come to a stop simultaneously, whereas good things and bad ones do not, because they are in fact different things. How then could pleasant things be the same as good ones and painful things the same as bad ones?" (78). I whole-heartedly agree with this stance as I believe it supports my claims. Socrates goes on to claim:
"— So also a soul which has its
own order is better than a disordered one? —Necessarily so.— But surely
one that has order is an orderly one? —Of course it is.— And an orderly
soul is a self-controlled one? —Absolutely.— [507] So a self-controlled
soul is a good one." (89)
Order and organization of one's soul seems to be the best way to battle harmful, bad desires, according to Socrates. I agree, from a Christian perspective, as I constantly must practice self-control to not commit sins and to keep myself in line from pleasures that are not good to my soul. I find organizing my beliefs and practicing through this self-discipline of reminders and order helps me to be a better person overall, as I keep my convictions in line (they cannot easily change). Socrates then takes on the role of the "true politician" (a person who wishes to make souls good too) and ends on a tale by Homer reiterated by Socrates with his own agenda aligned. He shares how our bodies are separated from our souls after death as two separate pieces of evidence of how we lived our lives, and after death, "Those who are benefited, who are made to pay their due by gods and men, are the ones whose errors are curable; even so, their benefit comes to them, both here and in Hades, by way of pain and suffering, for there is no other possible way to get rid of injustice" (109). I believe in due punishment, so I think it is fair to say that people who have done bad on Earth must pay for their actions if just or unjust. It does seem Socrates has humanities' happiness at the heart of his arguments, so I can appreciate him for this sentiment, but I think it is important to evaluate all of the aforementioned topics in a real-world setting with actual, possible solutions.