Gorgias

Gorgias most potently reveals his thoughts on the nature of rhetoric on page 19 – 20, when he declares: “Think of a community – any community you like- and I assure you that if an expert in rhetoric and a doctor went there and had to compete against each other for election as that community’s doctor by addressing the Assembly, or some other public meeting, the doctor would be left standing, and the effective speaker would win the election, if that is what he wanted … It’s inconceivable that a professional of any stamp could speak more persuasively in front of a crowd than a rhetorian on any topic at all.”

What Gorgias has revealed here about his profession is that it is nothing more that the art of presumption, of dolling up, of deception. Gorgias is no different than a con artist, or a telephone salesman. While rhetoric may very well be an art form, it is an art form only in relation to other art forms. In other words, if there were no doctors, being able to speak and act like a doctor holds no value. Gorgias is not judged on his skills in reality, but on his skills to sell his skills, regardless of whether or not those skills exist. He believes that this is true power, the ability to make people feel, and connect, and understand, and believe what he is saying, even if what he is saying is false or wrong. To Gorgias, that is what makes rhetoric such a powerful tool. To Socrates, however, it is nothing more than an empty pseudoscience, void of any real power or ability.

“By in front of a crowd, you meant in front of non-experts, didn’t you? I mean a rhetorian wouldn’t be more persuasive in front of an audience of experts, of course. (23)” Socrates poises this question to Gorgias, who has no choice but to agree. In this short beginning of this passage, Socrates has already defeated Gorgias’ main argument. He has called Gorgias’ bluff – that the rhetorian doesn’t have a profession to himself, he merely appears to be in a state of knowing and power. The person who uses his persuasive power foolishly and ends up making empty, false arguments is just a chatterbox. Truth, and the search for truth, is a much higher goal than trying to abuse, or manipulate truth.

Polus takes up Gorgias cause and brings it a step further, in his argument over whether or not it is just to harm another person, or to be harmed. Polus argues on page 49 that it is less desirable to have a wrong committed to him, but that it is more desirable to commit a wrong to someone else than to be punished. “Which do you think is worse, doing wrong, or having wrong done to you?” “Doing wrong” “Well isn’t it worse, given that it is more contemptible?” “Certainly not.” Here, we see that Polus is representing a form of ethical egoism, that whatever advances his position is the correct course of action. Socrates counters this by claiming a sort of “natural balance”. Just as good things are more admirable, so too is performing a good deed to someone else. It becomes apparent, to Socrates, that just as a doctor aids the physically ailed body, the Judge aids the morally decrepit mind. He points out that happiness is a journey – people don’t perform an action out of happiness, but rather to achieve happiness.

“Now, imagine two people both of whom are physically or psychologically in a bad state. One of them is receiving treatment and is being freed from his badness, while the other isn’t, and so still has it. Which of these two people is worse off?” Socrates uses this example to prove his point that being punished is in the best interest of the criminal. My objection to this line of thought is that medical treatment is natural, and objective. Punishment is subject to laws of men, which are not universal or based on morals or psychology.