Arme Polus en Callicles, ze zijn een beetje zielig

Μη μπερδεύεστε, το ένα αστεράκι είναι μπόνους για τις παραπομπές στην ηθική και τον εσχατολογικό μύθο. Τρία ήθελα να του βάλω.

Ah... idealists. As admirable in their ambitions, they're often far from what reality serves us up. In that regard, this outline of a conversation shows us the faulty thoughts of what steams from people believing in the objective good.



Gorgias is an exchange between Socrates and the sophists Gorgias, Polus and Callicles. Each taking their turns, they question each other about politics, the value of rhetoric, the pitfalls of power and the importance of virtue.

The most baffling thing about this to me was how much of an idealist Socrates was. He makes the controversial statement that to commit an injustice is worse than to suffer one, even if you're never caught for it. The idea behind this being that it'll corrupt the soul and only punishment will relieve the pain caused. When Polus hears this, he's infuriated, because think of a murder: can the murdered really be better off than the murderer, who at least goes on living? It's a highly philosophical idea and Gorgias keeps moving about on this level.

My problem with Socrates is how he believes in the objective good. It's a lovely idea to think that there's good and evil and if only people strive for the former everything will turn out great. I admire this way of thinking, but as the other three realists in here know too well (though they never quite bring it up that explicitly), the world works differently. What you believe in will strongly impact your morality and what you consider to be for the best, after all and to say that no one does wrong without being aware of it is unfortunately not reality-based.

This also explores the question of whether oratory is of benefit or harm. Today, this is best understood applied to lawyers – it's their job to use rhetoric means to defend and persuade other people. Does this mean, a rhetorically versed person is more powerful than a doctor? The doctor might provide a diagnosis, but it might be up to the person with good persuasion skills to make the patient take his medicine.

I considered this a difficult read – this is one of Plato's longer pieces and there's an abundance of themes to unpack and without a narrator, you're out on your own when it comes to moving from word to word, questioning whether the speakers are making valuable points or whether they're falling for rhetoric traps. But the point might be to make us think for ourselves – Gorgias ends as abruptly as it begins, never clarifying whether Socrates managed to convinced his partners or whether they all separated begrudgingly. Either way, it's crazy to me how relevant and applicable this still is hundreds after its publication.

review for l'éloge d'hélène only :')
i paid 17 euros for 5 pages of analysis that i could have easily found online for free. and that's on bad decision making!! ;)
gorgias' essay was definitely interesting -- the arguments were well organised and the writing was convincing -- but i personally did not find his ideas to be groundbreaking in any sort of way. so it was good while it lasted but since i've been reading a significant amount of philosophy-typed-nonfiction for school in the past fews weeks, i must say that this essay was on the lower part of the "yay-i-love-humanities-reads" spectrum.

I’m inspired again by Socrates’ clear pursuit of truth and ability to sustain a long train of thought. Great book.

:’’|

This dialogue, man. (Socrates, man.) What is going ON? I don't understand what Plato is doing to my brain, but I think I like it. I feel all twisted about when I read Socratic dialogues, like I'm pretty sure Socrates is right but he definitely made me violate some of my internal moral logic to get there. Probably. He also never answers his own questions (what is justice? how is the tyrannical soul different from the philosophical?). I am tempted to read Callicles as saying something Plato thinks, but he's for sure at least offering a critique of 'Platonism' as we typically talk about it that must be addressed for anyone desiring to call himself a Platonist. Why doesn't might make right? Outside of a Christian context that turns suffering on its head in the Greek philosophical tradition, I don't know how to answer that. I wish Socrates answered more clearly.

I don't know what to think about Plato, but I always like thinking about him.

Cuvintele nu-și au însemnătatea acum, tocmai fiindcă rostul lor nu va veni și nu este dat doar din rostire, ori de rostirea dată de ce zic eu aici, acum, fără a sta să mi-o expun alăturea argumentelor. Dar nu mă pot abține și cred că e de ajuns să citim și să vedem; și pe dreptate că, cel puțin aici, Platon își merită pe deplin înțelegerea în temeiul dreptății, odată cu sensul dat de natură și legea ei, și nu numai, după mine.

I think the most interesting idea explored in this book is Socrates' contention that it is better to be wronged by others than to do wrong to others.

retorik yapma, adam gibi konuş

I feel the need to point out that while my ISBN matches, my book only has 149 pages (as opposed to the supposed 224, according to goodreads). I dunno what I'm missing out on, but as far as I can tell my book contains all its parts.

This book makes a lot of complex arguments, and at times I found it hard to follow. There were several occasions where I had to read passages and even whole pages over again because I got lost in the arguments. I think the instances where Plato chooses to have Socrates restate previous arguments in the interest of clarifying his upcoming statements was very helpful, even if it wasn't deliberate (but I guess we'll never know, will we?).

The introduction and interpretive essay were both very helpful in my understanding of the text. It was nice to get to the end of the dialogue and then be able to read an essay that effectively summarized the arguments. It also helped with my confidence about whether I had properly understood/absorbed the text. These aspects make this edition of the Gorgias dialogue very worthwhile.

I find that reading this dialogue has helped with my understanding of rhetoric as a concept, an application, and a practice. I can see how this text is still part of contemporary conceptions of rhetoric. On the other hand, the views on justice are still a bit fuzzy to me, but that's to be expected from an intangible ideal.

This is about Rhetoric and to what purposes it can be put: making a person better, more just or only for one’s gratifications. The dialogue is structured around 3 conversations of socrates with gorgias, polus and calicles. Certainly the last one is very long (half the book) and very winding and repetitive.

But this last conversation is compensated and followed by the beautiful myth about the judgement of souls by 3 judges who look at the soul and can see how ugly or beautiful the soul is. Based on this evaluation one is sent to the garden of bliss or the Tartarus . The condemned are to undergo punishment for their own purification or as example for others, is very comparable to Dante’s hell/ purgatory.

The essence of the dialogue is summarised towards the end: that doing what’s unjust is more to be guarded against than suffering it, and that it’s not seeming to be good but being good that a man should take care of more than anything, both in his public and his private life; and that if a person proves to be bad in some respect, he’s to be disciplined, and that the second best thing after being just is to become just by paying one’s [c] due, by being disciplined; and that every form of flattery, both the form concerned with oneself and that concerned with others, whether they’re few or many, is to be avoided, and that oratory and every other activity is always to be used in support of what’s just.

But I enjoyed much more the dialogue Phaedo for it’s content, condensed dialogue and beautiful images