One of the first impressions I had of Plato’s and Gorgias’ conversation was the banter. With an entertaining rhythm, the two great thinkers kept a balance of respect, wit, and tension throughout the dialogue. It was quite pleasant to imagine them sitting in togas, surrounded by a hoard of listeners. I can imagine that one could of heard a mouse whisper as silence fell over the crowd. The atmosphere must have been incredible.
However, this is only the setting for the discussion. The main topic these two men discussed was Rhetoric. Specifically, they argued about whether Rhetoric is an art or a skill. Socrates led the conversation, posing many questions towards Gorgias. As Gorgias responded, he defended rhetoric as an art. One question Socrates asked was what rhetoric is concerned with. For example, the art of medicine is concerned with drugs and the art of carpentry is concerned with wood. But what is rhetoric concerned with? To this question, Gorgias responded that rhetoric is about words and oratory. Like a spark hitting gunpowder, Socrates immediately retorted by linking many arts with words and oratory. Thus, he reduced rhetoric to a “knack”. Although Gorgias acknowledged Socrates points, he didn’t yield to his conclusion. Gorgias said that there are still intrinsic attributes of rhetoric that distinguish it from other arts. He directed Socrates to the “divine” power of rhetorical persuasion. Because of this persuasiveness, Gorgias argued that rhetoric rules the other arts. As one might imagine, Socrates disagreed.
At this point, Socrates addressed another interesting part of the discussion. He declared that the Sophist’s oratory was a thin veil. It only pretended to have knowledge, but was mere craftiness of words. Matters of justice are implicated by this statement. Socrates believed that the sophists held unlawful power in the courtroom because they could swing juries without knowing the law. Gorgias never seemed to deny this, but rather marveled at the rhetorician’s ability to manipulate.
This section of Socrates’ and Gorgias’ discussion is a dense portion of literature that could be read many times over. It was exciting to watch as two heavyweights battled it out in prose. Not only was the discussion precise and thorough, it opened many rabbit trails for travel.
September 23, 2016 at 4:15 pm
Carter,
You’re quite right. In fact, Gorgias plainly acknowledges Socrates’ concern that this power of persuasion might be abused when he states on page 9 (452e), “In point of fact, with this ability you’ll have the doctor for your slave, and the physical trainer, too . . . if you’ve got the ability to speak and to persuade the crowds.” The orator “should use oratory justly,” Gorgias states a bit later in the dialogue (see page 15, 457b). But if he does not, then that is the fault and responsibility of the “misuser,” not the teacher. Teachers of rhetoric (the Sophists, in this case) and rhetorical training ought not to be considered inherently dangerous, according to Gorgias. How would you respond?
Regards,
COL McDonald
September 27, 2016 at 3:45 am
COL McDonald,
First of all, thank you for taking the time to respond to my post. In response to your question, I would most likely agree with Gorgias. Since rhetoric holds the power for both good and evil, I do not think it can be labeled inherently wicked. A possible example would be a firearm. By itself, it is a mere collection of atoms held together in a particular fashion. It is essentially a piece of steel. However, it has the potency to protect or destroy. Although this is a rather quick analogy, which I am sure has faults, I think it grants a helpful picture of the broader and more complex point I am trying to convey. To quote Proverbs 18:21, “Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruits.” Thus, a teacher of rhetoric who teaches for good, should not be held responsible for his student.
I apologize for the ambiguity of the phrase, “for the good”, but this forum has its limits. I appreciate your time.
Best regards,
Cadet Carter D. Johnson
September 27, 2016 at 11:52 am
Indeed it does. Perhaps this is a point to pursue in our discussions during class.
Regards,
COL McDonald