Perhaps Plato gives us this demonstration of poor public debate (by Socratic standards) to show us that we can only strive for better debate and possibly that perfect debate can never be had. It is in our very human nature to be competitive on some level, even if it is minute, and this hinders our sharing of truths and enlightening of one another. Moreover, I highly disagree with Socrates' statement that "truth can never be refuted". It seems that to Socrates, everything is very clear cut and black and white. This is a very unrealistic view of the world, and truth for that matter.

amy_lee

Callicles' argument unfurls the moment Socrates redefines it and refuses to let his opponent reclaim his meaning. Admittedly, Callicles doesn't make clear what he means by 'strong' and 'weak,' and his argument is too peppered with ad hominem. But I would have liked to hear what he really meant, originally, when he said that the weak create conventions. Callicles' argument would be particularly dangerous to the notion of this inherent 'good,' or inherent 'justice,' because it seems to assume something other than an innate good in people. It reduces good to a mutually beneficial societal agreement, with the laws of propriety set by people who fear that they will be raped of their principles by more dynamic leaders. Isn't Callicles really saying here that the reason we have "justice" (or "good") is self-preservation of the individual? Actually, I'm not sure, but that's what it sounds like he's getting at and if he were able to prove it, it could have been particularly damaging to Socrates. Perhaps therein lies Socrates' decision to move the argument sideways and catch Callicles on definition, lest the elder be entrapped and become a victim of his own methods.

Why would Plato provide us with a careful explanation of how and why to engage in good public argument and then show us an example of this practice going wildly wrong?
How else could we truly appreciate the benefit of "good public argument" if we don't know bad public argument.
Plato shows us bad public argument in an attempt to show us why it is important to follow the rules. If we follow the rules which we set, then , we are able to find this "truth" that socratic elenchus promises us. As I said in class, I don't see how truth can be found through discussion if the truth is not already known. I believe that by following the rules set forth, public argument does improve and concensus can be reached, but "truth" is not concensus. If we all agreed through "good public argument" that flapping our arms could make us fly, would this be true? It appears that Socrates would say it is, and if it turns out not to be true, Socrates would say that somehow we didn't follow the rules properly. touche Socrates.

Why would Plato provide us with a careful explanation of how and why to engage in good public argument and then show us an example of this practice going wildly wrong?

To be completely honest, I have not a firm grasp on why he would do this. Evidently he cares a great deal about the pursuit of right and wrong in regards to the development of the soul, and to this end the pursuit of truth is primarily important. Can Socrates really claim that his method of argument can result in an agreed upon truth? By his own admission it has not. In his little recap he lays out how Gorgias and Polus withheld their own arguments and beliefs by agreeing with him. There really wasn’t enlightenment there, just a defeat. As stated both in class and in the text, Socrates is really just as pandering as he claims the orators to be. So why would Plato show us the contradiction in “Socratic elenchus”? Maybe Plato sees the breaks in the method as a defense – to say that this interlocutor was not willing to be frank, or that one had no goodwill – when the argument does not end in the way he intended. If you have clear breakdowns, then fault or weakness will always be away from Socrates and his methods.

Socrates claims that he does not care about the opinions of the masses, just the person with whom he is talking. However, in the dialogues, he does not pull the truth from them or get them to truly believe his perspective. Instead he pushes them into capitulation or to frustration. I agree with the assessment in class, then, that he is no different than orators aside from the fact that oratory deals with mass opinion and Socrates just the one. His method seems flawed, but even so rules were set: knowledge, frankness, and goodwill that can always deflect attention away from this. Maybe Plato provided this because Socrates can quite easily lead a person into breaking one of the rules when content breaks down.

On the other hand, the commentary says that Plato supported some of the views of Callicles – in the power of an expert, “stronger” ruler, so it could actually be the reverse. Plato could be using this negative illustration of the practice to give a way of defense for some parts of the views of Callicles, arguments that he sees as essential to his version of the truth. If the principles have been violated then it still removes attention from content. The integrity of the fundamentals of authoritarianism can remain intact.

The idea that elenchus pursues truth and thereby helps the soul is tricky, because I have not seen an example where Socrates truly is on the defense and is truly tries to understand where the other person is coming from. His inconsistencies never seem to come to light – not that I can pinpoint any of them. I have no idea if there are, because the other person never really analyzes what he says on that kind of level, or if they have so far Socrates has not had any trouble moving the conversation away from that.

The reasons for which the dialectic format is conceptually appealing, I believe, are the same which prevent it from being an all-purpose tool for the resolution of truth. Although the poor argumentative skills and inconsistency or timidity of Socrates' opponents makes this less clear (how much more interesting would a dialogue between two men of Socrates' ability be!), good dialectic functions primarily to eliminate contradictions in definition. All the turning points where refutation occured were found when Socrates could extract an inconsistency in his opponent's argument. As pointed out by previous posts, however, the same practice was not applied to him. The necessary correlation between happiness and goodness was not attacked. The assumption that excellent administration of justice rested on a similar expertise to that of medicine was never investigated -- and it's quite a claim to make, especially considering the corrupting effects of power upon rulers, even philosophically inclined ones. And I think most would agree that granting "fine" and "shameful" double definitions was a mere rhetorical trick, and skipped conveniently around the distinction between what makes one happy versus what makes one good. My prediction is that a truly balanced dialectic between Socrates and an opponent would serve one useful purpose -- to boil down their conflict to basic differences in belief, likely between Socrates' foundational idea of good and Callicles' apparent pluralism, which values goodness and happiness independently (though not necessarily equally).

I think Platos’ contrasts of the two arguments between Socrates versus Polus and Socrates versus Callicles are two extreme forms of proper and improper conduct for public argument. Socrates versus Polus was a display of proper conduct for which Polus conceded those arguments he felt Socrates was correct in assuming, even in the face of how ridiculous his argument started out, however, Polus reached a point that he had conceded to so much of Socrates argument that Socrates was able to lead Polus into agreeing with everything that he said. I don’t agree that taking in everything your opponent has to say without questioning or challenging his arguments is proper conduct because there is no check and balance for what is assumed to be truth – it is rather stated and built upon to find the ultimate truth but the truth found cannot be true if there are false premises to the entire argument. Polus did a wonderful job of listening to his opponent, but poorly defending his own argument to follow in the circular argument Socrates presented as leading to prove that those who do wrong are worse off than those who suffer wrong. Polus does not have a clear point that he is trying to prove; moreover, Socrates begins the argument on page 41 as saying that the “greatest of all misfortunes is to do wrong.” On the next page Socrates lays out the main premise for which he will build upon: “if doing what one decides on is acting beneficially, then it is a good thing and this, I think is to have great power.” Socrates uses this to explore reasoning for when things such as robbing, murder, and other incorrigible crimes of the like are rightfully done; it is here that Polus concedes here where he should not have. Polus should have looked deeper into the cracks of his opponent’s arguments such as the idea that a person can decides to do evil and therefore it is right based on the logic of Socrates presentation. Based on the argument of Socrates, one must choose to act in order for it to be right and beneficial, but he doesn’t acknowledge that you can have a desire to do evil and fulfill that desire willfully. On page 43, Polus allows another imperfection to slide in Socrates’ argument when he does not question Socrates’ definition of happiness when it is suddenly forced into the equation of his argument. Polus does question the validity of someone being happy yet having done much evil as with the example of the young illegitimate son who was formally a slave and ascended his fathers throne by force, however, Polus should have furthered looked into this argument by bringing in the idea that the slave acted in his best interest to better benefit himself, which makes it right according to Socrates definition of the fine line between right and wrong in reference to controversial crimes used justly. Further in the argument Socrates goes on to prove his argument by his own rationalization in using the terms fine and shameful as the primary adjectives that correlate to good and bad. There are several inconsistencies in this argument because the adjectives used to base his argument in terms of feeling worse for committing wrong that being the victim of wrong cares different interpretations depending on the language used and the meaning of the language. For example, Socrates makes no reference to the idea of vengeance that the victim may carry out themselves against their attacker. Socrates corners Polus convincing him to change and “have a taste of the sort of proof I believe in” (pg. 48) Furthermore, the usage of words, vague definitions and circular meanings of fine (which branch in categories of pleasant, useful, or both) and shameful (which branch in the categories of being evil, painful, or both) are confusing to Polus who realizes that his is absurd, but he can’t disprove it because he has already conceded to much to disprove the truth Socrates has created based on the premises he has already built upon. This is a good argument by Socrates because he has out-smarted his opponent in his approach to getting his opponent to agree with him and his opponent basically lays down and accepts Socrates arguments as truth even though he has examples and witnesses which prove that Socrates’ argument is nonsensical. Moreover, Polus is duped but he does so gracefully. Callicles on the other hand, changes his argument four times in order to avoid conceding to Socrates round about argument that forced him to repeatedly contradict himself. In the earlier argument, Polus had nothing to say really other than to refute Socrates – he just did a poor job of questioning and challenging his argument. It is now Socrates who is the challenger and not the presenter, so he is probing and reasoning with Callicles by using his own argument against him and showing him where it is flawed. Socrates argument was not well proven, but it appeared so because he was able to continue without anyone reasonably challenging what he was saying with facts that prove his argument wrong. Polus did investigate the words and ideas the Socrates was presenting however unfounded they may have been. When Socrates was looking into someone elses ideas and argument, he was much better prepared to poke holes and test its validity: this is why Plato presents these two arguments to us.