"Gorgias" begins with Socrates speaking to Callicles and Chaerephon about Gorgias. Socrates
has heard of Gorgias' ability to answer any question presented to him and Socrates wished to find him in order to challenge this claim. Gorgias presents himself in a
proud and boastful manner saying he is an orator and “a good one, if you want
to call me what, in Homer’s phrase, ‘I booast myself to be’” (p. 6). In a back
and forth dialogue of questions and answers, the two men discuss the art of
oratory. They come to the conclusion that the object of oratory (rhetoric) is
the persuasion of others. Out of this definition comes the important question
of whether people are persuaded by the truth or by flattery. Gorgias holds that
a rhetorician is more convincing than an expert in a subject area because
people are convinced by flattery. Polus, a student of Gorgias, enters the
conversation with Socrates to defend his teacher. He and Socrates discuss the meaning of
power and whether it is always good for the person who holds it. In addition,
they discuss the differences between committing wrongs and being punished versus
committing wrongs and escaping punishments.
In
reading the first half of the book I felt a theme of competition. Tensions were
high throughout most of the dialogue with the quick back and forth responses.
Socrates originally seeks out Gorgias because he wants to test his skills,
which demonstrates a feeling of antagonism from the start. Later when Polus
defends Gorgias, Socrates belittles him by commenting on his young age,
sarcastically remarking how the young folks should correct the old folks
like himself when the mess up their words. I found myself picturing a modern
day athlete who thinks he is the best at a particular skill and feels the need
to challenge anyone who claims to be able to outperform them. For example, in
the most recent Seahawks game, Richard Sherman (Seahawks) and Michael Crabtree
(49ers) ended in the game in a brawl because Crabtree had previously claimed he
was the best receiver and Sherman was determined to outperform him. He did so by
deflecting a touchdown pass intended for Crabtree. The two players ended on the
game on a heated note with Sherman claiming he was in fact, the best corner in
the league. In a similar way to how these two players have challenged each
other verbally and on the field, Socrates is challenging other rhetoricians
through the Socratic method.
The
actual structure of the work is interesting because it is arranged like a play script with character’s names and their quotes following after. I
think Plato was making a rhetorical move by structuring his piece like this
rather than writing his thoughts about oratory, power, and virtue in a
scholarly essay style. Instead of telling the reader what he thinks, he
presents his ideas through the voice of Socrates, his teacher. I believe this
is more powerful because it removes Plato from the situation and allows the
reader to have more freedom in determining whose ideas they agree with in the
different dialogues. For modern day students of rhetoric, the goal of the
subject is often to consider multiple sides of an argument and open up
discussion. By using the Socratic method, Plato is setting an example of how
dialogues can be conducted to discuss difficult concepts, a strategy that is
very helpful in many modern classrooms. In addition, I think using Socrates as
a figurehead for his ideas was a way for Plato to deal with the recent
execution of his beloved teacher because it helps bring him back to life, even
if only in written words.
Questions for discussion:
1.
Gorgias answers several of the questions shortly while Socrates elaborates on
his responses and often seems to be forcing Gorgias into certain answers. Do
you think Gorgias is being presented in a more negative light because he was
speaking less than Socrates in their back and forth dialogue?
2. Socrates and
Polus discuss wrongs that have gone both punished and unpunished. Do you think
it is worse for someone to commit a wrong and escape punishment or commit a
wrong and be punished?
I find it interesting that you related the format of this dialogue to that of a play. It makes sense, but I did not process that entirely throughout my reading of Gorgias. I am still unsure how I feel about Plato speaking through Socrates. Although this removes Plato from the dialogue, I cannot help but wonder if Socrates would agree with way he is represented by Plato or if Socrates would have had a different approach to the situation.
ReplyDeleteTo answer your first question, I do not believe Gorgias’ reputation is being tested because he is talking less, but is more rather being ruined because he is not properly defending credibility. He should not have easily agreed with many of the arguments Socrates made because he ended up contradicting what he had previously said, and made it easier for Socrates to control the dialogue and use what Gorgias agreed with to his own advantage.
You have asked great questions, I especially like the second one. I personally think it depends on the circumstances whether or not it is worse to commit a wrong and go unpunished or commit a wrong and be punished. All wrongs are not intentional so in these cases I believe the punishment would be the guilt that the unintentional wrongdoer feels through their conscience. However I feel punishment is necessary and can be used as a deterrent in situations where a wrongdoer had full intention to commit a wrong. I feel this way because the effect of a guilty conscience will not phase someone who purposefully intends to do wrongs.