Plato- Sophist Reflections In the Collected Dialogues of Plato: Gorgias, Plato hides behind the mask of his teacher, Socrates, and dismantles Gorgias by means of precisely that which he so adamantly argues against rhetoric. Maintaining an air of acerbity throughout, Socrates advances one leading question after another, so that he might prove his point that Gorgias and his fellow Sophists are an unjust bunch that make a mockery of rhetoric, which Plato proposes to be a sham art. Socrates (Plato) begins by inquiring as to the scope of Gorgias art just what is it he professes and teaches? (p. 230, Gorgias). Once it has been revealed that persuasion is that which the art concerns itself with, Socrates advances toward the end of discrediting the field of persuasion as a whole. He tricks Gorgias into conceding that knowledge and belief are distinctly separate in order that he may disprove rhetoric s accuracy at displaying true knowledge. He is then able to coax Gorgias into admitting that rhetoric solely concerns itself with right and wrong, and that rhetoric, since he who practices does not possess equal knowledge with the field experts, must accordingly convince an audience of laypeople wrongly. whether he does not know what is right or wrong, noble or base, just or unjust, but has contrived a technique of persuasion in these matters, so that, though ignorant, he appears among the ignorant to know better than the expert, (p. 242, Gorgias). Eventually Socrates (Plato) is outright in admitting that he believes rhetoric to be no art at all, but rather imposturous and deleterious to society. As a side note, Plato was a member of the Greek Aristocratic society, (p. 59, Herrick). The emergence of the Sophists is purported to have threatened the Aristocrats for several reasons. Namely, by offering education to anyone who could pay the fees, regardless of social standing. I believe that this underlying tension played a pivotal role in the dialogues penned by Plato concerning the Sophists in general, causing him to be less than objective in his stance. What is the nature of rhetoric? Does rhetoric by its very nature tend to mislead? What happens to a society when persuasion forms the basis of law and justice? (p.58, Herrick). Plato asks some pressing, apt questions, to be sure. When I began deliberating on just what I might write concerning the topic, I felt certain that I would advance Platonist viewpoints. Yet as I read and reread the materials, my thoughts shifted. I began to answer the aforesaid questions for myself, so that I might better assimilate the materials and thus better respond to the task at hand. In doing so, I was called upon to join the Sophists. Thusly, I thought it necessary to formulate a response wherein Gorgias requests that Socrates join him for round two, in order to make his case for the Sophists merit. The following dialogue is my continuation of Gorgias.
Socrates! What a pleasure it was to converse on our last occasion. To experience the delectation once more? Well, I am certainly the beneficiary! [Chuckles] No, it is I who reap all the benefit! I am thus delighted to meet again. What is it you wish to discuss here, so publicly? Do tell. As you may lucidly recall, Socrates, we met not so long ago, at a dinner party. On this chance meeting, I agreed to a question and answer discourse, wherein my responses would remain stalwart in their brevity. Inasmuch as you were allowed to postulate, assert, and make your claims, o esteemed Socrates, I fear that several of my own assertions lacked breadth with which to elucidate fully. Therefore, it is my request that we revisit our exchange in order that a deeper understanding of the matter may be brought upon us all. You intrigue me. Pray tell, do you wish to implement constraints with regard to what length response I utter in return? I should think it fair. No. Should not our discourse continue into the night, if right understanding were the consequence? Then I am at your disposal. For if I am to be enlightened in the process, how might I justifiably refuse? Excellent. Let us begin with words, and provide clarification as to their inherent relationship within the field of rhetoric. Now as you may recall, on our last rendezvous you made the understandable misstatement that rhetoric is one of the arts that achieve and fulfill their function entirely through words, (p. 234, Gorgias). Misstatement? Well, as I remember, you agreed, Good Sir! Please, explain yourself, then. Most assuredly. Rhetoric concerns itself with the words of men. That cannot be disputed. And yet, such a simplified explanation will not suffice. As you said yourself, certain words concern themselves with their respective arts to a varying extent: bodily conditions to gymnastics, calculations to arithmetic, and remedies to the field of medicine. Yes. Now, there exists contrast in purpose between rhetoric and gymnastics, rhetoric and arithmetic, and rhetoric and medicine. Do you not agree? That is precisely my understanding. In keeping with this line of reasoning, one might advance the idea that the purpose of gymnastics is to cultivate leanness, flexibility, and
strength of the physical body. The purpose of performing calculations is to advance understanding of mathematics, while the undisputed purpose of medicine is to treat and hopefully to prevent disease. Indeed. The purpose of rhetoric, then, is to influence and persuade the audience to whom its words are directed, to a predetermined end. Ah, yes. I concede here. And I ll ask again, do great men concerned with varying arts not also take an interest in persuasion? They most certainly do, Socrates. And those men just so happen to be using rhetoric. They may be quite apt in the art, and not wholly aware of their forte! Why, Socrates, you yourself are quite the adept rhetorician! [Audible gasps flood the large audience] Surely you jest. Please do not take offense for my having said so; rest assured that I make such a statement with the best of intentions. You are a talented, persuasive instructor. One of the greatest, perhaps! As a philosopher and teacher, your purpose is to research and assimilate information, and thereafter relay that which you know as fact. Do you concur? Yes, I suppose that I do. Moreover, you are concerned with teaching your students right from wrong, and determined to exert a positive influence upon their lives so that they might use yours and other right philosophies well into the future. Isn t that also true? Yes, it is. And yet, the art itself, that of philosophy, does not aim to persuade, but more so, to inform. Most assuredly. And here I rest my point. Rhetoric is the art of speaking well, the art of persuasion, the art of making a profound impact upon a chosen audience, all the while making use of proper words in doing so. There is an aesthetic component to it, much like one might make use of poetry. Yet rhetoric is not confined to the poetic, although there are commonalities. Likewise, rhetoric is not limited merely to the philosophic, although considerable influence is elicited here too. Rhetoric is therefore both an art unto itself and also an action used within each of the arts, when the occasion calls for it. And what of the ethical
implications? Of course we must examine this arena, if we are to fully understand the rhetorician, and his art. Go on. As we previously discussed, civic discourse and law courts make ample use of rhetoric currently. Your logic was hence led to the conclusion that rhetoric is concerned with right and wrong. At the time, I agreed with you. I must admit that I conceded without properly deliberating. I wish to withdraw my original answer, if you ll allow me to expound. Certainly! I should not wish to silence you, by any means. Teachers such as myself aim to confer our students with right- doing. In truth, our overriding aim is for each student to leave our classroom a decent, principled man. Our lessons reflect this. And yet, there are unfortunately students who will take questionable action in the world, and some of our ethical lessons will fall on deaf ears. I daresay that these immoral students may hold equal power with their upstanding counterparts. So, while right and wrong are certainly part of the curriculum, we cannot exert eternal power over each student to ensure that his rhetorical use remains proper. It is beyond our scope. Ah! So you ll admit that the trait of morality is inborn, and is therefore impossible to bestow? Not necessarily. I believe that the matter is not so black and white as this, Socrates. In some cases, yes, I ll agree. Yet there are students who have joined my school beginning in more of the ethical grey area, who have taken amiably to the virtuous components therein. I do not believe there is tried and true answer concerning the realm of morality. There are a small number privileged with immovable ethical clarity, although most students require a little cajoling. I will admit that there are a few of the debauched sort who may profess to morality when in fact they are little concerned with its arousal. Have you not experienced this yourself? Yes, I ll admit that I have. So you can appreciate the ability to bestow some with morality, yet not others? I suppose that I must. In light of this concession, let us now consider knowledge and belief, as this was a matter which took on some importance in our initial discussion. When we spoke of the matter previously, you first advanced the assertion that knowledge and belief are not the same, is that correct? Yes, you are right.
At which point, you proceeded to identify two forms of persuasion, one producing belief without knowledge, the other knowledge, coming therefore to the conclusion that rhetoric is a creator of a conviction that is persuasive but not instructive about right and wrong, (p.238, Gorgias). Yes, that is also true. It was then your purpose to infer that while rhetoric aims to convince, it only does so by persuading belief, and being that belief and knowledge are not and cannot be the same; the rhetorician is unable to impart true knowledge. Here, Socrates, I disagree. First, there exist instances in which belief may be influenced by correct knowledge. In this case, knowledge and belief are one. Second, a rhetor may opt to instruct with regard to right and wrong, and in that case, would disqualify your previous claim. Furthermore, the apt rhetorician, as I previously stated, could persuade more thoroughly than even the most qualified expert, all other factors equal. In this I mean to say that in order for the rhetorician and the qualified expert to be on an even playing field, he would need to devote some time to studying the matters which would be discussed. The rhetorician is not superhuman, nor does he possess all knowledge. What gives him the edge is his ability to read and therefore evoke emotion of his audience as he speaks. He convincingly conveys the knowledge to his audience in a manner that the expert does not necessarily know how to do. Why? Because the expert was trained in his field of expertise, no more, while the rhetorician was trained in rhetoric. His scope is endless because all the rhetorician need do is accumulate the necessary knowledge as he goes, as such needs arise. Any one field does not bind him; he is not so specialized as to have become a silo unto himself. I hope that this sheds light on the previous notion that rhetoric aimed to convince the unknowing audience with mere belief. The moral rhetorician would never aim for such. I see your point now, Gorgias. While there are aspects with which I might disagree, you are steadfast in your support of your art. I respect you for that, and I will admit that I have enjoyed our discussion. Let s do this again soon, shall we? Yes, let s do. Let me also say that I appreciate your willingness to entertain our role reversal for the purposes of illustrating my points. May we all be instructed by Socrates goodwill. [Audience disperses. End scene]