Socrates and Gorgias by Plato,

Socrates and Gorgias

Gorgias by Plato, is a dialog between Socrates and Gorgias, a famous rhetorical speaker whose specialty is persuasion and refuting standard ideas. In ancient Athens, the art of rhetoric and persuasive speech was considered one of the highest of ideals in the political sphere, and part of being civilized. The Gorgias dialogs are a set of arguments between Socrates, Gorgias, and Polus that define rhetoric, examine the basis of moral philosophy, and what place spirituality has within the constructs of the time period. Socrates is the cynic of the group -- always finding ways to ridicule and find fault with arguments presented. Socrates, within this dialog, posits that really, when all is said and done, all that really matters is the purity of one's own soul -- after all, the only thing we can really control is what we view in the mirror each morning.

Explain how Socrates refutation of Gorgias is supposed to work (447a-461b, but especially: 458e-461b). What key steps are there in the refutation? Could Gorgias have (easily?) avoided refutation? What key steps are the in the refutation? Could Socrates (or Plato) trying to make this refutation? Or is the whole thing just about making Gorgias look bad?

Socrates seems to represent, for Plato, the skeptical intellectual. Gorgias has given a public display of his skills, and even boasts that no one has asked him a "new" question in some time, pointing to the audience that there is nothing new to be debated. Socrates assures Gorgias that he is a capable man, and is just as capable of brevity as he is in oration. This seems to be Plato's admonishment of the arrogance of Gorgias and his school of rhetoric -- almost as if they were theater performers rather than speakers of higher art (449c).

The cynicism is bold and challenging, and the key steps Socrates takes is to remove the man from the message to ensure that Gorgias' argument proves false: "I think that what you're saying now about rhetoric is incompatible and inconsistent to a certain extent with what you originally said…. So I am worried about subjecting your views to a thorough examination" (458a). However, rather than simply trying to make Gorgias appear inept, Socrates is trying to focus attention on the nature and distinction of art and flattery. Socrates insists that the ignorant is more convincing among the ignorant (the crowd) and the expert among the expert (certain citizens and intellectuals). There is a difference, then, between art and craft -- art is philosophy and using one's mind, rhetoric is a craft -- yes, a skill, but a craft nonetheless. In point of fact, 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... flattery"(463b).

Gorgias seems more preoccupied with verbal victory than in any true and detailed investigation of the question at hand; he does not deny that his students might use rhetoric for immoral purposes of persuasion, or to let the guilty go free; but he says a teacher cannot be responsible for the actions of his students. For example, one would not incarcerate a trainer or soldier if the student killed out of hand; but that the trained teaches in good faith and must hope that the student, too, will abide in good faith (456d-457c). This is really the extent of Gorgias attempting to remove himself from Socrates' argument, but instead, pulls him deeper into the intellectual trap, for Gorgias has only one misgiving about the entire situation . . . he fears that the crowd of onlookers might be disinterested in two men trying to outdo each other in being wrong (458b-c). Thus, Gorgias proves two things: he cannot intellectually handle a multi-layered discussion and he needs an audience in order to perform -- the basics of dialog and intellectual discourse are lost upon him. If then, Gorgias needs an audience, Socrates must be correct in that rhetoric is a craft -- designed not for serious intellectual combat, but for pure entertainment value.

2.Explain and critically evaluate Socrates reasoning for the apparently preposterous claim that tyrants like orators have no great power (Gorgias 466a-468e). You should make sure that you take into account Socrates distinction between doing what one wants and doing what one sees fit. How does Socrates argue for this distinction? How crucial to Socrates argument is it? Is there any such distinction or is Socrates simply mistaken? or, even worse, is Socrates merely playing word games.

One of the primary claims within the entire dialog focuses on Socrates' view of the wielding of real power. He advances the idea that "orators and tyrants have the very least power in any of our cities" (466d). By putting rulers (tyrants) and practitioners of rhetoric into the same category, Socrates indicates that both groups, think they are doing what is in the best interest of themselves to further their means, but in fact the unhappiest person is the wicked one who does not meet with justice, rebuke, and punishment (472e).