Plato's Gorgias 1

Plato wrote several dialogues depicting both his own ideas and an image of what Socrates could have been like. The Gorgias is just one of these dialogues.

The Gorgias covers a large range of ideas. From an explanation of the differences between an art and a craft, to the definition of rhetoric and its moral implications. Naturally, because this one of Plato's dialogues, there is also talk of what is good and what is truth. Gorgias is a true work of art.

    Many of Plato's works aren't simply philosophical ideas. Often they contain elements of history and art. The Gorgias is one such work that is just as much an interesting play as it is a philosophical idea. I think that's one of the most interesting things about reading Plato. 

    He writes in a way that almost feels Shakespearean. It's like watching a short one-act play. There's normally a sort of tee-up in which the characters are introduced (often very briefly). Then we quickly launch into a discussion about the topics at hand.

    No one really knows if Plato's writings are true situation that happened or fictionalized. Most historians seem to believe that everything written by Plato is some combination of the two. Realistic fiction if you will. This is important because it means that I won't only offer an analysis of the philosophy, but also of the situation in which Plato has put his characters.

The Situation in Gorgias

    The dialogue starts out in a way that is very much normal for Plato. There are a couple characters (here it is Callicles, Chaerephon, and Socrates) that begin in a way that feels like we're already halfway through the story. 

    Callicles is hosting a party and is very proud that one of his attendees is a renowned rhetorician named Gorgias. Socrates and Chaerephon have arrived after Gorgias's lecture, but Gorgias is a friend of Chaerephon and so easily agrees to have a private discussion with the three others. Another character named Polus interjects and joins the group.

    The dialogue follows the conversation of these 5 characters and, while by no means the longest work of Plato, is not normally considered short. To read it all the way through at a medium pace seems to take most about three and a half hours. 

    This is a fairly normal starting point for Plato. It's a very blank stage with no expectations that are set. This sets him up in a way that he can get straight to the point of the matter without dancing around topics. 

    However, Plato does something a little strange in the Gorgias. Often he has just one topic, but here he goes over several, and in a masterful and artistic way. One of the ways he accomplishes this is by hopping straight to Socrates's main question to Gorgias, 'What is rhetoric?' 

    That is the guiding question for much of the dialogue. This guidance is made abundantly clear by the scene setup. We start with a blank slate that is then hyper-focused on one singular question. 

    

    This analysis really only covers about a third of the work, I may do more on it in the future depending on how much people like this one. We'll now move into philosophical analysis.

Philosophy in Gorgias

    I suppose we should start out with Socrates's question to Gorgias. That is, "What is Gorgias's craft?" Gorgias's first response is "to answer any claim." At this point in time though Gorgias has just finished a long lecture and is presumably worn out. So we can take that answer with a bit of salt and assume that Gorgias was perhaps just being lazy.

    Even so, from that answer we could easily assume that Gorgias is at least acting prideful. He was a sophist and rhetorician, both of which Socrates seemingly had especially strong feelings about. Gorgias has been especially hard to nail down by modern scholars. One of my favorite theories is that he was incredibly sarcastic, so perhaps in his response he was indeed just being sarcastic and meant 'I can answer AnYtHiNg' instead of being serious.

    This is the more compelling interpretation to me. If he was indeed very sarcastic, then it would make sense that he was tired and his patience was wearing thin, so he made an especially outlandish claim specifically to provoke Socrates. This would indeed make the next section very interesting.

    Instead of Gorgias answering Socrates, Polus does. Polus states that Gorgias is a member of the most admirable craft. Socrates, being unimpressed by this deflection, shoots Polus down by reminding him that he didn't ask what the craft was like, but what it is. 

    If we follow the "tired and sarcastic theory" then it wouldn't be too far-fetched to assume that either Polus was trying to get Socrates to leave or is playing along with Grogias specifically to irritate Socrates. 

    In the real world we don't actually know that much about Polus. Most of what we know actually comes from this dialogue. We do know that he ended up being a teacher of rhetoric though. So we can assume that he is smart enough for that. (As a side note, rhetoric in Ancient Greek is all about persuasion. It might be considered closer to modern politics.)

    It is at this point that Gorgias begins his first discourse. He states that he is a teacher and practicer or oratory (rhetoric). Socrates then asks "what is oration." Gorgias answers by saying that oratory is knowledge and study of speeches and how to give them. 

    Socrates asks what the difference between oratory and regular speaking is. He also points out (perhaps more to Polus than to Gorgias) that everyone believes their craft to be the best. Gorgias responds by saying that oratory is all about persuading people, and that the power of persuasion is the greatest strength any person can have.

    It is then asked "What kind of persuasion?" Here is where the first key piece of information is gleaned. It is stated that there is a difference between persuasion of just and unjust, and persuasions of aesthetic natures. This will be addressed in my next section.

Conclusions From Gorgias

    Gorgias claims that oratory is the type of persuasion that educates on whether or not something is just. In a later post I may address more of what Socrates thinks about that, but right now I wish to share my thoughts.

    Can oratory really teach what is just, and does oratory really not have anything to do with aesthetics?

    To the first question, I think that persuasion can have no hold on what is just. As I have stated in previous articles, I believe that there is an absolute morality. I do not claim to have discovered it, nor do I claim that anyone else has, but I do claim that there needs to be one. 

    In a simple modus ponens,

1. If there is an absolute morality, then persuasion cannot educate on whether or not something is just. 
2. There is an absolute morality.
3. Therefore persuasion cannot educate on whether or not something is just. 

    The question now is why? The answer is that persuasion is all about subjectivity. When you are persuaded, your feelings about it change. In other words, your opinion about it changes. 

    So, let's say that perhaps you really like vanilla ice cream. Well, here I come along with my peanut butter chocolate ice cream. I am wholeheartedly convinced that mine is better than yours, and I come up with 13 different valid arguments to prove that I am right. 

    Not only that, but I can prove it with psychology and mathematics. From here you have two choices. You may either concede and now grow to love my ice cream more than you love vanilla, or you must reject my opinion and assert your own. This is what persuasion is. 

    Well it should be clear here that favorite ice cream flavor is a simple matter of opinion, so it has no moral standing to you or me or the universe what flavor you like. Persuasion is me trying to convince you that you are wrong. But, let's pretend that it does. Let us pretend that I could actually prove that mine is better than yours in the ways I said above.

    Not only that, but let's pretend that by proving it, I have made it so there is a moral consequence for not liking what is factually the best. So not only have I proven without a doubt that mine is better, but there are now ethical reasons for you to change your opinion. 

    This is no longer persuasion because there is no longer a choice for you. At this point, if you chose to still like vanilla, you are going to cause yourself so much damage that only a great fool would do so. This is not persuasion, this is enforcement. You are no longer entitled to an opinion in this matter because there is only one right choice.

    This is why persuasion can have no place on something that is absolutely moral. Persuasion is by definition about convincing something to change their mind when there is more than one option available. Therefore it cannot be able to teach about something that has only one option. Thus it cannot teach someone about what is just. 

    This brings me to the next question very nicely. Does oratory really have nothing to do with aesthetics? This is a much shorter answer.

    As claimed above, because oratory is about persuasion and persuasion cannot have any claim on what is just, then it seems like it can only have claim on what is aesthetic. That is to say, if persuasion is all about opinion, and aesthetics are greatly based in opinion, then oratory has greatly to do with aesthetics. If desired, I will expound my thoughts on that in a later post. 

Conclusion

    There is simply no way we can unpack everything in the Gorgias in one short post, and I do not wish you to be entrenched reading this for hours. Here we have not even covered the first few pages, but merely the first few ideas. 

    Please, ask questions and share your ideas:)