In an extended question-and-answer dialogue with Gorgias, Socrates tries to nail down a definition of the art of oratory. On pp. 16-17, Socrates wrests an important concession from Gorgias: oratory teaches persuasion about right and wrong, an area where knowledge may not be possible. This is an important point for the sophists—in some areas of human existence, we cannot know absolutely what is true. In these arenas, all we have are opinions and arguments. Shortly thereafter (pp. 18-19), Socrates gets Gorgias to admit that the orator must use the powers of persuasion for moral ends. This leads to an interchange about how the orator stands in relation to right and wrong (pp. 23-6). One might argue that Plato is not fairly presenting us with the perspective of a person who believes that moral questions have no final answer. When he concedes that the orator must be a good person, Gorgias begins to step away from the antifoundationalist notion that there is no ultimately determinable answer to questions of right and wrong. How can we know when someone is being a good person if we cannot know what is the good? Socrates will eventually play the part of a foundationalist in this debate, arguing that we can know the good and that the orator should learn to pursue truth and not persuasion. Gorgias plays the part of an antifoundationalist, but he does a poor job of it. What could Gorgias have done differently in this first part of the dialogue? How could he have better defended the notion that Socrates’s distinction between knowledge and belief (p. 16) does not apply to rhetoric?
Submitted by longaker on Tue, 01/17/2006 - 8:14am
Login or register to post comments
Longaker RHE 330D
response to Gorgias
the place where Gorgias went wrong, was allowing Socrates
to use "good" and "bad" as something concrete when in fact there is no way of trully defining what is a "greatest good" or something which is "bad". Good and bad
are as concrete and objective as love or freedom. Rhetoric is the skill of using language effectively and persuasively which really has nothing to do with knowledge or belief. In fact, Gorgias when asked about doctors being orators he should have said yes, if they where taught to use language persuasively and effectively. When Socrates said that oratory had "nothing to do with art" and that it was like "cookery" , "a nack aquired by routine". Gorgias should have asked Socrates: Then do you consider painting an art or pandering? it too is a "knack aquired by routine" is it not?
I agree that Socrates treats
I agree that Socrates treats "good" and "bad" as self-evident, concrete terms, and that he doesn't consider the inherent subjectivity of these qualities. I also agree that many skills and "arts," even the "finest" ones, can be acquired through routine. What makes oratory different? There seems to be an underlying assumption that oratory is a skill reserved only for the elite.
While reading the dialogues, I was also interested in how often two concepts are pitted against eachother: good vs. bad, honorable vs. shameful (when Socrates challenges the very definition of oratory), belief vs. knowledge. The introduction to the dialogues explains that the issues raised--virtue vs. pleasure, for instance--are argued in a very polarized manner. You can have one or the other, but you can't have both. But there must be a gray area when discussing such abstract concepts. Religious fundamentalists would argue that the line between belief and knowledge is a bit more blurry than Socrates thinks; they might also argue that belief does not require a thorough understanding.
An argument about the very foundation of right and wrong can never truly be won. At several points in the dialogue, I was reminded of a line from Hamlet: "[T]here is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."
Redefinition
A reinterpretation of one of the definitions in Socrates' dialogue on rhetoric might untangle what seems to be the fundamental contradiction in Gorgias' presentation of his art. Socrates proves that an art requires technical skills pertaining to its execution, as well as an understanding of what is good in the context of that field (i.e., for doctors, what is conducive to health). One is led to assume from this that each art is aimed at the good (in a universal sense as Socrates believes) when perhaps Gorgias might have agreed to the different idea that the good in each art is independent, and relative only to itself. Thus when Socrates argues that because rhetoric aims at persuasion it must address right and wrong correctly, he jumps ahead of himself. Gorgias might argue that the good in rhetoric consists merely in the quality (and therefore effectiveness) of persuasion--regardless, and independent of, the end toward which it is used. Rhetoric would then truly be the art of persuasion, not the art of persuasion of right over wrong (which brings in the complications regarding belief/knowledge and a rhetor's duty; there would no longer be any inconsistency in a rhetor being able to use his art morally or immorally).
A modern-day Polus argument model
In the beginning of the text, Polus attempts to argue in glace of Gorgias in response to Socrates' question as to what art he is learned in and what are the qualities of his trained art form. As Socrates points out, Polus never answers the question directly and instead goes on a tangent as if Gorgias' art had been dishonored. Polus not only circumvents the question, but upon the completion of his answer Socrates easliy defuses whatever pride he may feel at the answer he had just given by reminding him that in no way had he addressed what had been asked of him. This small segment of the argument reminds me of modern discussions on cable news shows and other privately owned media outlets that have free-reign as to what they report and how truth is filtered and displayed for the public. This week I have been watching Fox News and CNN to compare the slants in both news broadcasts. I personally am more annoyed by FOX news because of shows such as Hannity and Holmes, and Bill O'Reily because of the effort that the hosts go through to cast anyone that is a democrat, "non-American," crazy liberal, anti-traditionalist, ungrateful citizen whom have any independent thought from their established truths. Just watching a few minutes on Bill O'Reily made me wonder how one finds the vocabulary of "un-American," and "crazy liberals" such vocabulary in segments that have nothing to do with politcal parties but some how every issue comes back to the sweeping ideology of liberalism. For instance, on an episode of Hannity and Holmes (one moderate and one conservative), the two host had one of the ministers from Mexico on the show. The more conservative host (I believe Hannity) started out by asking if America has a problem with illegal immigrants. The guests replied, "Yes, there is a problem with people from Mexico going over into America without the proper paperwork." Hannity spent the next 5 mins badgering the guest about defining those persons in America without citizenship as "illegals." He continued to say "So they are illegals." And the guests would reply "they are in America without the proper paper work." Beyond the politics of word choice and how powerful they can be in dehumanizing people as illegals, the origrinal issue the guests was brought on to discuss was completely diverted because it was turned into a showcase of a basic breakdown to reiterate that more and more "illegals keep coming." This type of dialogue driven by hidden motives and underlying messages displays Polus' argument model where issues are not addressed, but politics and pride eclipse what really matters.
Disussion Leader Post: Gorgias 3-39
Where Gorgias went wrong: is there a difference between knowing and believing? Yes, but if something is the truth then you can both know and believe that it is the truth. To better defend his position on rhetoric he should have discussed how one can both know and believe something to be true. There is right and there is wrong believing the truth is different from knowing the truth. Belief requires understanding. Knowing on the other hand, does not. I know that books have pages on which there are written words but if the words are written in French or in Latin I will not understand the words on the pages. I could sound them out even convince myself that I know what they are supposed to sound like; but if I do not understand the meaning of the words, their sounds are of no value to me. But if this book is written in English, or simple Spanish, then I can know and understand the words, and if it aligns with the truth then I can believe it.
Belief and knowledge have nothing to do with what is true or false. Truth is an absolute standard, that does not change. I know what is false because I have first know the truth. With rhetoric an orator is presenting to an audience an idea, they are then responsible for testing this idea against the truth. If it aligns they are then free to believe this knowledge that is presented to them. But if stands in opposition of what they understand to be the truth then it is up to them and them alone to disbelieve it. An orator can use persuasive words and well turned phrases, but the choice to believe or to disbelieve lies with the individual alone.
Gorgias stated that oratory is for the greatest good because it conveys power to he that wields it. Socrates thought that its power was greatest when used on an ignorant crowd. However, I disagree. In order to utilize the ultimate depths of power one must rely on the truth. If you are gleaning your power from the truth you will then have the greatest effect on those masses which also know the truth. For if they say are ignorant of the truth (which no man truly is -- for within the soul of every man or woman God has placed a conscience by which they can test their actions against his standard of perfection. ) they are only deceiving themselves in an attempt to ease the pain their conscience gives them for standing opposed to God’s standards.
The final place in which Gorgias should have picked apart Socrates logic was when he drawing his conclusion that knowledge of something makes you a master (for lack of a better term) of it. He gave the example if you know of music then you are a musician, hence if you know of right you are righteous. A musician is not someone who has knowledge without understanding of music. I may know a melody well enough to sing its chorus but to be a musician I must understand the individual notes, harmonies, majors, minors, arpeggios and scales in sum all the characteristics of the notes to string them together to make a pleasant melody. In the same way knowledge of right does not automatically make you righteous (its defined as a desire to do right anyway). Most students would agree that cheating is not right – but you don’t have to look far before you’ll find a student who’s done so. Everyone agrees that murder is wrong but just last semester several students were murdered. Those persons that killed them knew that murder was wrong yet they committed their crime anyway. Knowledge of what the standard of right and wrong does not automatically entail the possessor thereof will automatically adhere to it. As such Gorgias was right to add a loophole such that if his students do not use their skill of stringing words together, much as a musician strings notes, then it is the student and not his teacher who should be held responsible.
In short I agree with Gorgias that each man should be held responsible for his actions alone. No one else made him do as did. As human beings we have free will and the power to choose. We should then adhere to the standard of truth within our own souls and take responsibility for our own actions and stop blaming them on others.
response to leader post
"Where Gorgias went wrong: is there a difference between knowing and believing? Yes, but if something is the truth then you can both know and believe that it is the truth."
Truth: is there really truth? How can we know that something is true? What standard do we have to test all things for truth or falsehoods?
"To better defend his position on rhetoric he should have discussed how one can both know and believe something to be true. There is right and there is wrong, believing the truth is different from knowing the truth. Belief requires understanding. Knowing on the other hand, does not."
I don’t understand this example. I would think that knowing something would require an understanding of that topic, whereas believing something would not. If I believe that there is a higher power, I don’t necessarily understand the way in which this higher power works or even what this higher power is, but I believe in the existence of this higher power. However if I have knowledge that there is a higher power, that would require that I understand what this higher power is and how it works.
"Belief and knowledge have nothing to do with what is true or false. Truth is an absolute standard, that does not change. I know what is false because I have first known the truth. With rhetoric an orator is presenting to an audience an idea, they are then responsible for testing this idea against the truth. If it aligns they are then free to believe this knowledge that is presented to them. But if stands in opposition of what they understand to be the truth then it is up to them and them alone to disbelieve it. An orator can use persuasive words and well turned phrases, but the choice to believe or to disbelieve lies with the individual alone."
Once again: what is truth? How do we find this truth? You state that no man is ignorant of the truth because God has placed a conscience within us so that we can test against His standard of perfection. How can this ‘standard’ be tested against something in a constant manner that would show truth and falsehoods? When we are children we understand that stealing from a store is wrong, but when we are adults stealing from a grocery store to feed one’s starving family might be viewed as wrong by some and right by others. In this case, the ‘truth’ is hazy at best. If the ability to tell right from wrong and truth from falsehood is only within us, how is this ability voiced so that an orator might be able to teach it to his students?
Response to jgal713
I liked the comment that society today is "full of Gorgias' description of an orator". Orators are not being righteous if they give belief without knowledge to their ignorant audiences. Advertisements today give all kinds of belief without knowledge that our society accepts without questioning the information.
Leader reply post
The discussion between Socrates and Gorgias brings up valid arguments about the foundations of morality and how a society reacts to each other's beliefs. I definitely agree with Socrates in that there is a distinction between "conviction based on knowledge, which must be true, and conviction based on belief, which can be either true or false." When faced with my own life issues, I endure conviction when something I did was knowingly wrong. I usually do not even question my actions or why I am feeling convicted. It was wrong. But if my friend came up to me and told me he believed I had done something wrong, I would immediately analyze my action to decide if I had actually committed a wrong action. If I feel I did, I am wrong. If I feel I did not, I defend myself and do not endure conviction. This also brings up thoughts versus feelings. The orator, in essence, is acting upon what he thinks to be best, but since it is his thoughts, they are his feelings, not foundational thinking. Therefore, the orator is operating based upon his subjective feelings, which, as stated by Socrates, can be either true or false.
Unfortunate for Gorgias, Socrates makes the point of conviction based upon knowledge or belief after Gorgias has already gone down the path of an orator based upon persuasion, which would be the orator's own personal beliefs. I think that Gorgias' reasoning behind such a strong belief in oratory is completely valid, but, as stated in the author's notes, he dug his own grave with his words. By him saying that oratory is the ability to persuade the masses and having an ignorant crowd would be easier to persuade than experts, Gorgias is stating that an ignorant orator has the most power with regards to persuasion. I think, especially in society today, that the world is full of Gorgias’ description of an orator. Society feeds into lies that are not even persuasive anymore. We have become a bunch of information hoarders, eager to know the latest fact about every topic worthy of a conversation. This is both in fault of the orators, who read their “audience” and know how to persuade through advertising, persuasive speech and etc., and society, who would rather just accept something as fact rather than challenge and assess the claim. Change must occur. An orator cannot be consumed with gathering an audience and being righteous if he is using his power for self-gain and the spread of ignorance. Socrates collapses this belief by pointing out that the quest for truth should be the goal of the orator.
In my opinion, one should never have the quest to persuade as a role in life. I know that is an extremist opinion, but if society plays the role of discovering truth, then the orator’s job of delivering truth would be much timelier. But, based upon one of Gorgias’ descriptions of an orator, the orator must not use his power for his advantage and must be in a constant pursuit of knowledge. Furthermore, societal masses must not be so naïve in an effort of which to avoid being taken advantage through persuasion.
--Julieann Galloway--
I think that Gorgias starts
I think that Gorgias starts off on the wrong foot by describing the worst case scenario: swaying an ignorant crowd to make ignorant decisions even in the face of someone with knowledge. As stated in the commentary, this did not seemed to be forced by Socrates but boastfully volunteered information by Gorgias. It turns the focus towards the effect of the orator using persuasion to form convictions for no apparent honorable reason. It's not about knowledge. Gorgias shows no discomfort at acknowledging the defeat of an expert with knowledge in the face or a really good speaker. Gorgias himself draws unnecessary attention to the vulnerabilities of oratory and how it could go wrong. I imagine sometimes it is a good tactic to do this, but I think he would have been better to go another route and dwell on the good, right uses of oratory.
This also lends him very vulnerable to the later attack by Socrates that the "art" really stands for nothing. Gorgias has established a very superficial notion of the purpose of oratory: power. In this light, oratory is not as honorable as legislation, medicine, training, and the like. It doesn't appear to strive toward any kind of progress or improvement. It is just showing off for no apparent reason with no real use of knowledge or right or wrong.
For what it is worth, I think that expert knowledge could always be seen from a different perspective, and orators could be trained to think critically about the knowledge presented by experts. This would have more value than oratory as discussed here.
I agree that this is where
I agree that this is where Gorgias first messes up. By saying that "an orator will be more persuasive than a physician in the subject of health 'in a crowd'" makes it seem like only the ignorant would believe the orator over the professional. Gorgias states that rhetoric is "the art of persuasion," and by saying so takes away all credibility that whatever is being said is actual truth and knowledge. If he would've said that rhetoric is the art of persuasion REGARDING WHAT THE ORATOR KNOWS TO BE TRUE, I think he would've had a stronger case and point.
Even worse, think about the
Even worse, think about the entire premise of the debate. Socrates and Gorgias both have a professional stake in the argument, seeing as if Gorgias wins, it's a victory for the orator. But if he wins, then, it is on the strength of his rhetoric alone. Can Gorgias even possibly win an argument so rooted in logic? Instead of outflourishing Socrates, Gorgias necessarily deflates his own argument. The "oratory-will-get-you-anywhere" argument stands against a bumbling opponent, and sure, eloquence will get you far, but the strength of an orator (as the strength of modern writing) lies in his ability to communicate more effectively, not to put on a more effective masquerade.