Digər dialoqlarında olduğu kimi burda da Sokratın adından verib öz fikirlərini. Sokratın öz əsəri olmadığından Platonun əsərlərində verilənlər Sokratın yoxsa Platonun öz fikirləridir məlum deyil, yüz illərdir müzakirə mövzusudur. Məncə, Platonun gözündən Sokratdır. Yəni həm Sokratdır, həm də Platon.

Platonun ritorika sənətinə yanaşma tərzi digər əsərlərində olduğu kimi: dürüst və haqq yolunda gedildiyi zaman doğrudur. Əslində o ritorikanı heç sənət olaraq qəbul etmir, çünki ona görə əsas olan bir işi layiqincə yerinə yetirməkdir, onun haqqında gözəl danışmaq yox. Natiq peşəsində bacarıqsız olduğu halda asanlıqla gözəl nitqiylə başqasını aldada bilər. Qısaca sözdə yox, əməldə üstün olmaqdadır mərifət :)

Very painful to ready to dialogue technics used. But some good insight and view of the ancient GREC live.
Funny anecdote : got a conversation with an American woman working in Philadelphia about GREC philosophy in the airport

Gorgias is a Platonic dialogue between Socrates and sophists. Socrates begins by pursuing the nature of sophistry, specifically rhetoric. Gorgias argues that rhetoric, as a form of persuasion, prioritises conviction over facts. Gorgias asserts that rhetoric ought to be used for good, yet admits that one may not do so. If the latter, Gorgias proclaims that the teacher cannot be blamed. Socrates believes this is unjust. If one was a good teacher, they would instil justice into their pupil. Vis-à-vis politics, Socrates argues that the philosopher is the specialist in matters of justice. Philosophy, not sophistry, should therefore underpin a political education.

Although this is a fictional dialogue, it is important to recognise an empirical flaw in Plato's/Socrates' argument. Socrates taught Alcibiades, an Athenian statesman and general. Alcibiades acted unjustly. He was accused of aspiring to tyranny and fled to Sparta--Athens' enemy during the Peloponnesian War. Plato was also the teacher of many tyrants, including Dionysius of Syracuse. If the teacher is to blame for the actions of their students, therefore Socrates and Plato are culpable for the unjust actions of Alcibiades and Dionysius. Perhaps philosophers are not good teachers; perhaps philosophy does not guarantee justice.

Socrates contends that receiving injustice is preferable to inflicting it, as the latter harms ones soul, while the former does not. Socrates implicitly asserts that all souls are the same, and that harmed souls will be punished by the gods if they escape punishment in the mortal world. However, modern evidence suggests that tyrants--e.g., Alcibiades and Dionysus--are often sociopaths. Their 'soul' may therefore not be corrupted by acts of injustice. Additionally, Socrates readily admits that his judgment in the afterlife argument is based on Greek mythology. Such logic appears comparable to the sophist who prioritises conviction over facts.

Intertwined in this dialogue are several other themes, including temperance, ethics, and the pursuit of happiness. Compared to other Platonic dialogues where Socrates' postulations are met with agreement by his interlocutors, the sophists offer more rigorous rebuttals. The arguments presented can be esoteric at times and may require rereading. This said, Gorgias is reasonably short and provides a good introduction into Platonic philosophy. For deeper understanding, I recommend reading it alongside other dialogues concerning Socrates' trial and execution, namely Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Meno and Phaedo.

Gorgias é um dos livros centrais de Platão. Nele, coloca-se o papel do filósofo diante dos sofistas e a ordem da alma como a fonte para se julgar a política. O verdadeiro estadistas não é o que atende aos desejos do povo, mas o que permite que o povo se torne melhor. A desordem de Atenas tinha chegado ao nível que um homem como Sócrates, que afirma sobretudo a verdade, não pode ser tolerado pois o jogo agora é de aparências, de retórica. Górgias e seus seguidores tentam afirmar a justiça como a vontade do mais forte, mas pacientemente Sócrates os fazem cair em contradições insolúveis e reconhecer, de má vontade, que não possuiam a verdade.

O livro termina com o mito do julgamento dos mortos, em que Platão afirma que não há como ter um julgamento perfeito na terra pois nos deixamos guiar pelas aparências. Apenas após a morte, despidos de nosso corpo, poderemos ser corretamente julgados por juízes que também abandonaram seus corpos. A nossa vida corporal é feita de aparências e, portanto, a única fonte para ordem pessoal está na alma.

Por tudo isso Górgias figura como um dos principais diálogos de Platão. Para ser lido muitas vezes.

4.5*
I liked this one the best

Five stars due to the number of times I said WOW out loud while reading this dialogue.

Her ne kadar zaman aşımına uğramış bir sonuca bağlansa da Platon'un "Gorgias Ya Da Retorik Üstüne" eseri iyi ile kötünün ne olduğunu derin bir şekilde inceleyen, bunu yaparken de sanatın ne olduğunu açıklamaya çalışarak okuyucunun ufkunu açmayı başaran bir kitap. Sanatı daha çok politikanın vazgeçilmez aracı retorikle yani sözle etkileme sanatı üzerinden açıklamaya çalışan kitabın günümüzde bile hala devam eden sanat tartışmalarına ön ayak olduğu bir gerçek. Buradan kitabın politikaya da el attığını anlamak çok zor değil. Kısaca, bir nevi "Devlet"e hazırlık niteliğindeki eser, zaman aşımına uğramış yerlerine rağmen kesinlikle okunması gereken temel felsefe eserleri arasında.

03.02.2015
İstanbul, Türkiye

Alp Turgut

http://www.filmdoktoru.com/kitap-labo...

Gorgias is structured in three sections, each section consists of a dialectic argument in dramatic form. The main focus is rhetoric and its uses. What is rhetoric? Is the purpose of rhetoric to win an argument or get to the 'truth'?

Historical context: The 5th century saw the spread of Sophistry and the professional use of rhetoric. Law courts were public occasions, Sophists went around giving lessons in law court rhetoric with an end to instructing others on how to get power and hold onto it. Rhetoric was less important in Sparta where military power was paramount. Aristocrats, tyrants and monarchs didn't use rhetoric to get power they used it when in power. Socrates criticises Pericles and says that he didn't improve the citizens of Athens he just satisfied his own desires. Those desires was mainly that of material satisfaction. The long walls are mentioned and of course the Acropolis was constructed during Pericles time in power. Demosthenes is seen as the only real politician trying to improve matters.

The first part of Gorgias is the most interesting. “Speech is a powerful master and achieves the most divine feats with the smallest and least evident body. It can stop fear, relieve pain, create joy, and increase pity” - Gorgias. (Gorgias 31). Plato refutes this and says rhetoric is a vice, and uses the skill of lying to acquire money. Socrates says that rhetoric is not an art but flattery.

Part one deals with the question of whether or not the job of the teacher is to teach the pupil right and wrong? Or just to teach oratory and give the pupil an instrument. Are they or are they not responsible if the pupil goes out and use it in a criminal way? Is the teacher responsible? Is a system of professional ethics needed for arts, law and medicine?

Part two questions how and why oratory should be used. Should you use oratory in order to advance your objectives at the expense of others? Socrates discusses whether it is worse to do or suffer injustice. What is the good life? What is shameful (Aischron) and what is noble (Kalon). There is still the difficulty of language for the modern reader. There is no ancient Greek word for morality so we have to be careful with applying definitions to morality. There is a Greek word for ethics (ethos) meaning character.

Important questions concerning justice, good, pleasure and pain are discussed. Socrates is a slippery character and a pedant, you can almost hear the frustration in the replies of his fellow philosophers. Highly entertaining. This made me think about the way politicians use language to persuade citizens of the waging of 'just' wars and employ reprehensible terms such as 'collateral damage'.

I remember reading this a few years ago, but somehow I decided to rent and read it again and I have to say that I'm so freaking happy that I did. Now that I'm older and perhaps a little bit more mature, I now can digest the content and wisdom Gorgias (the book itself, duuuh) has to offer and I even enjoyed it more than I did back then. In the whole dialogue it's seems to me that it's pretty clear where I find myself, and sure some arguments took thinking as you go on(how could it not?), but it was so fascinating to see(or should I say read) how Kallikles turned the whole setting around with some here and there thought provoking and the kind of funny/bully way he puts it, in respond to Socrates way of thinking. I also think that Socrates shows a lot of his stoic thinking on this one and would not be surprised if he had influenced stoicism. Overall, this was a very good one and I sure have taken a lot more from it than I did a few years ago. I loved it!

Rhetoric is realm of arbitrary willing yadda yadda which is false appearance of will yadda yadda in the aimless pursuit of gratification in body and mind yadda yadda

However rhetoric can be used for good yadda yadda if it is used in the aim of justice yadda yadda in other words, discipline and punishment of wrong doing yadda yadda

Evil is a correlate of ignorance yadda yadda because knowledge in plato is NOT merely self attributed judgment but practical certainty in an goal directed craft that serves to preserve and maintain order and longevity and stability of life instead of immediacy of pleasure which is restless and endless unsatisfied.


This dialogue is cool because of Callicles, who is out of all Plato dialogues ive read is probably Socrates' most formidable rival in argument. Callicles defends a pseudo nietzschean(before nietzsche!) account of morality as a means for the weak to subdue the excesses of the strong, which he deems natural right, as opposed to the artificial law of the legislators of the city which produces. The only right is the right of conquest, and the only good is convenience of immediate pleasure seeking.

Socrates rebuts that a drive of pleasure seeking is restless and unstable, and causes one to live a life of anxiety and unsatisfaction

Callicles sees that a life which seeks to dull the lust of pleasure to be akin to seeking the death of pleasure and hence a "life of stone".

Socrates ends up convincing the interlocutors that even within pleasure seeking there are standards we seek by virtue of distinguishing good and bad pleasures, and that this distinction is precisely why pleasure should be seen as a means to a principle or end that is external to it.

Overall, pretty fun. Socrates provides a fun argument about how Statesmen have been failures at doing their job and that one should always be wary of them when it comes forging our path in the acquisition of truth and the good.

Important dialogue on ethics. Also the early roots of later Stoic philosophy, perhaps? Socrates insists, correctly, that it is better to suffer evil than to do it, and that the free-est man is one who is master over himself. He insists this against his opponent Callicles, who claims that the one who is his own master is still a slave, and that all desires and passions should be satisfied without delay or moral consideration. He espouses the idea too that the strong have a right to exert themselves over the weak, and that this right is natural. "Social Darwinism" and eugenics, really. The more things change the more they stay the same.

This is one of Plato's more interesting dialogues, if only because in this case the dialogue breaks down. Callicles just cannot seem to accept Socrates's notion that it is better to have evil done to oneself than to commit evil. He agrees with the questions which are put to him, but then he keeps going back to the notion that hedonism is really preferable to morality.

Socrates even looks forward to his own trial and death. At one point, he says:

You've already told me often enough that anyone who wants to have me executed will do so. Don't make me repeat my reply that it would be a bad man killing a good man, And don't go on about how he'll confiscate all my property, because otherwise I'll have to repeat myself and say: "He may take it, but it'll do him no good. He was wrong to take it, so he'll only put it to wrong use, which is contemptible -- or, in other words, bad for him."

Actually, besides Callicles, here are two other participants in the dialogue, namely the eponymous Gorgias and Polus, especially at the beginning.

It is curious that a dialogue that begins on the subject of rhetoric turns into one on the importance of being a good and moral person and encouraging others to be so.