Gorgias to Plato – Guided Reading C

 

Gorgias to Plato – Guided Reading C

The Apology, Socrates’ defense speech, describes the trial held against him by the citizens of Athens on charges of corrupting the youth and denying the gods. Socrates, who is about to be sentenced to death, continues to stand firmly by his principles and argues for his righteousness. Even after his verdict is delivered, he does not regret the way he defended himself and continues to claim his innocence. In his trial, after calling Meletus to the witness stand, Socrates presents the position that a person should consider only whether his actions are just or unjust, and whether his conduct is that of a good man or a bad one, without weighing the dangers of life or death. His position is supported by ideas that arise in the dialogue Gorgias.

The dialogue Gorgias centers on the question of the knowledge of justice and the nature of rhetoric. It depicts the conversations of Polus and Callicles with Socrates at Gorgias’ house, beginning as an inquiry into the essence of rhetoric. After the opening exchange with Gorgias, the dialogue shifts into a discussion with Polus.

At the heart of his conversation with Polus, Socrates raises the position that committing injustice is worse than suffering it, and that failing to receive punishment is worse than facing it. This view places “the good” and “justice” as absolute ideals that we must strive toward — with “the good” as the ultimate purpose of our actions. Only in this way can we reach true happiness. “Socrates: … the wrongdoer is always more wretched than the one who suffers wrong, and he who escapes justice [is worse off] than he who receives it” (p. 327). This position contrasts with the sophistic claim presented by Polus at the beginning of the dialogue: that “the good” is not an ideal but something relative, changing according to circumstance. These conflicting views reflect the ancient debate between the Sophists and Socrates, especially regarding rhetoric, which was the domain of the Sophists. The rhetorician, whose main role is in matters of state and law, must — according to Socrates — act in accordance with the good and the just, to which all actions must be directed. If a rhetorician uses his position to weigh the balance between suffering wrong and committing wrong, and chooses to commit wrong in order to avoid suffering it, then such behavior, for Socrates, is contemptible.

This position grows out of Socrates’ claim that rhetoric is a form of flattery. He uses analogy between different domains to explain the nature of rhetoric in his philosophy. Rhetoric and judgment are parts of the art of governance: rhetoric, he says, is flattery, while judgment strives for justice. Alongside these, Socrates sets cooking and medicine as parts of the art of caring for the body: cooking is flattery, while medicine insists on health and balance. “Socrates: … I call that practice flattery … one of its parts is cookery … and another part of this same flattery I call rhetoric” (p. 300). The argument Socrates makes in the Apology corresponds precisely to these ideas about rhetoric.

“Are you not ashamed, Socrates, that you devote yourself to such a pursuit that now brings you to the danger of death?” (p. 221). In this part of the Apology, Socrates presents words that might have been spoken against him in relation to his conduct in the trial. He could have used rhetorical flattery to save his life. But Socrates would have been ashamed had he acted like those rhetoricians who adapt “truth” to circumstance and do not direct their actions toward the good and the just. He is willing to accept any sentence in order to give an account of himself, rather than avoid accountability and plead for a lighter punishment. He prefers to suffer the injustice of a death sentence than to commit injustice by bending the truth to avoid suffering. His judges and accusers expect him to act like any other man in his place — and especially like the Sophists — avoiding suffering and refusing to accept judgment. But this behavior is shameful in Socrates’ eyes, since it would mean committing injustice and betraying the truth.

At the end of the Gorgias, in his final exchange with Callicles, Callicles suggests the possibility that Socrates might be put on trial and condemned despite not having done wrong, by some wicked person. “How sure you are, it seems, that none of these things will ever happen to you … that you might not be dragged to court, perhaps by some villain …” (p. 385). Socrates draws an analogy between this imagined scenario and the trial of a physician in a court of children, with a cook as his accuser. The children, judging the physician’s deeds, would see that he gave them bitter-tasting medicine and performed unpleasant treatments, and would ignore his true contribution to health and balance. The physician could not defend himself in such a court, for the judges would not understand what guided his actions, and he would be unable to deny the accusations, since he had indeed done those things. In the same way, Socrates finds himself in a trial where his judges and accusers are guided not by the good but by what is pleasant. He has no way of speaking in his own defense: “… directed toward what is good and not what is most pleasant, and since I refuse to do what you praise … I will have nothing to say in court” (p. 385). For Socrates, the pursuit of the good is the true art of politics: “… I alone, I may say, am devoted to the true political art, and engage in public affairs with none of my contemporaries” (p. 385). His focus, however, inevitably puts him in conflict with the state. While his judges deal with the conventional matters of law, crime, and punishment, Socrates deals with the true affairs of the state — and these do not match the normative definitions. This conflict leaves him speechless before his judges.

Two criticisms are raised against Socrates. The first is that he cannot defend himself because of this very conflict over the definition of the good with the authorities. Socrates’ answer would be that he directs all his actions toward the good, and therefore has no need of defense. A person who does not act out of a striving for justice, however, will need defense — which is why his judges expect Socrates to defend himself. The rhetorician who prefers committing injustice over suffering it requires flattering rhetoric to justify this choice. There is, however, a rhetoric that is not flattery, a rhetoric under the art of governance, which is used not for political gain but for the sake of the good and the just. Yet such rhetoric can only exist in a state that itself defines the good in this way. Socrates cannot defend himself, because doing so would mean not aiming at the good but at his own survival — in other words, preferring to commit injustice rather than suffer it. Socrates claims that this is precisely why he avoids involvement in Athenian politics.

The second criticism is that if Socrates truly deals with the true affairs of the state, then he is obliged to engage — or at least intervene — in Athenian politics. If you are an expert in public affairs, you are duty-bound to practice politics. This criticism is harder for Socrates to answer, since it places him in a paradox. On the one hand, he is committed to directing his actions toward the good, and therefore refrains from Athenian politics. On the other hand, if he is indeed an expert, he is obligated to engage in politics in order to spread the good among the people and make Athens better.

Socrates ends the dialogue with a myth from Homer about the world after death. The story tells of the process through which the laws of the gods learned from their mistakes. In the past, human judges judged the dead at the moment of death, sending them to one of two afterworlds: the Isles of the Blessed (paradise) or Tartarus (hell). These judges sentenced the dead according to earthly data such as status or lineage. When the gods saw that people whose souls were stained with wrongdoing were reaching the Isles of the Blessed, they decided to change the system. Human judges were replaced by gods. From then on, people would be judged stripped of all earthly attributes, clinging only to their souls, which would be examined by the gods — for only they can see the soul and its purity. The lesson is clear: humans cannot judge a soul, for they are biased by external appearances and social status. In the end, the soul itself stands to the true test. No matter how much power or wealth you accumulate, in the end your soul will stand exposed before the gods, unable to defend itself.

The choice between committing injustice and suffering it may not be tested in daily life, where society usually gives the impression that suffering injustice is worse. Socrates, however, resists this belief, clings to the truth, and in his death stands against injustice and wrongdoing. He does not fear the verdict, knowing that his soul cannot be judged by human judges but only by the gods. This is the philosopher’s test: will he betray his ideal to avoid suffering in this fleeting life? If the soul is indeed immortal, as Socrates assumes, then choosing to live according to the good is unavoidable and must be the philosopher’s duty. The myth offers an optimistic perspective on the philosopher’s motivation: though it is only a myth, the ideal good that Socrates understood is the same thing that countless people everywhere and always strive toward. Whether they call it Allah, liberty, or bread, they are all aiming at the very same thing — the good and the just.

The conversation with Polus comes after Socrates’ initial inquiry with Gorgias about the nature of rhetoric. Socrates tries to direct the discussion toward his main concern: justice. After Polus and Gorgias attempt to define rhetoric as “the most pleasant of the arts,” Socrates begins comparing rhetoric to other arts. When asked himself about the essence of rhetoric, he replies that it is a kind of experience-based expertise in producing pleasure and delight — just as he defines cooking. The connection between the two, according to Socrates, lies not in the arts themselves but in their relation to greater arts from which they borrow their practices.

He relates cosmetics to gymnastics. Gymnastics, whose main goal is the improvement and balance of the body, produces as a by-product a fit and well-shaped body. Cosmetics takes this by-product and elevates it as the goal itself. Thus, as in our own time, the worship of a slim and beautiful body stems from judging appearance, rather than its original purpose: maintaining a healthy and balanced body. A similar relationship exists between rhetoric and governance. The true purpose of governance is to create justice among citizens. In The Republic, Socrates defines justice as harmony and balance between the classes. Like gymnastics, the political art has a harmonic aim, but its purpose has been eroded, becoming instead a by-product of rhetoric. Rhetoric does not aim at justice and political balance but sanctifies the beautiful, winning argument. For Socrates, however, the winning argument is not good unless it contributes to the state’s ultimate goal: harmony. Rhetoricians misuse the tools intended to preserve order in the state, justifying the deeds of wrongdoers for the sake of the victorious argument.

The analogy between cooking and rhetoric shows that both share the same aim: pleasure and enjoyment. While the cook’s purpose is to delight the diner, the physician’s purpose is to heal the patient. Medicine may taste bitter in the short term but leads to health and long life. It is easier, however, to prefer the chef over the doctor: the chef creates special and tasty dishes, often at the expense of the eater’s health (animal fats make food delicious), while the doctor attempts to restore balance to the patient’s body (dieting, treatment) without concern for immediate pleasure.

In the same way, rhetoric uses argumentation to prove claims that are not necessarily just, aiming only at victory, regardless of the injustice caused to a citizen who loses his wealth or freedom in court to a rhetorician. Judgment, on the other hand, seeks to decide between justice and injustice, aiming to create true justice in the state — and therefore will reject arguments that bring about injustice.