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.

Too old to rate. Reading this in a yellowed library book, with edges of the pages flaking off and falling into my lap as I read, Gorgias made a strong argument, more unintentionally than intentionally, for the uselessness of rhetoric. Time has turned Plato's wisdom into despotism and Socrates' humility into a shield to hide his philosophy's flaws behind. Does Plato still offer anything to teach us today, not merely as history but as genuine philosophy? A lot of what he says are certainly good points -- for instance, that it's better to suffer evil than to do it -- but his reasoning seems shaky to a modern reader (or at least this one). Strangely enough, Plato's main value may be literary -- he does a great job of sketching characters simply by the way they argue.

I enjoyed Gorgias more than Meno, the other Platonic dialogue I've read, mainly because it seems like a more complete work and, unlike epistemology, modern science hasn't affected early thought about ethics or rhetoric much. Plato's brand of ethics is in many cases abhorrent to the modern min, but it was what every philosopher since has responded to, so it's important for anyone interested in the meaning of good to understand.

nunca he sufrido más con un libro

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.

It's Plato so it's obviously going to be remarkable from a literary standpoint. Plato idolizes his deceased mentor Socrates in this absolutely profound dialogue which is centered around rhetoric: its meaning, its use, its significance, and most importantly its moral implications. Socrates, throughout the dialogue, delves deep into the world of moral truth and eternal goodness. This dialogue, as its own unique genre of literature, explores how temporary pleasures contrasts heavily with actual goodness produced usually through pain or hardship. Temperance, evil, power, and corruption explode off of this central contrast and manifest specifically through Gorgias' and Socrate's view on the morality of persuasion in rhetoric. These themes are both universal and heavily thought provoking, providing the reading with philosophical inquiries that might have been overlooked before. It is an absolutely fantastic dialogue that CLEARLY influences philosophy and literature through the entire span of history. The parallels between Dante's the Divine Comedy in the 1300s and Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Gray in terms of the soul's physical manifestation of sin and vice (as presented throughout the dialogue) are uncanny. Plato's brilliance ought to be much appreciated through this rich dialogue.

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.

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.

3.5 ⭐️!

Arme Polus en Callicles, ze zijn een beetje zielig

Plato's outstanding dialogue on politics, the good life, and how to - or how and why not to - participate in a political system.

Men do bad when they do what they merely think best, rather than what they most deeply desire.

That seems to be the central point of this long dialogue.

The age-old question is: how to get men to follow their true Will (i.e. Self, rather than ego).

Does the dialogue answer it?

The answer it gives appears to be: Engage in the combat of life, live as well as you can, and then, after death, you will attain the Islands of the Blessed, and not the realm of the wretched, Tartarus.

n  But that doesn’t answer the question of how to distinguish between the desires of ego, and the true Will!!!n

“Pues si hay estas dos clases de retórica, una de ellas será adulación y vergonzosa oratoria popular; y hermosa, en cambio la otra, la que procura que las almas de los ciudadanos se hagan mejores y se esfuerza en decir lo más conveniente, sea agradable o desagradable para los que lo oyen. tPero tú no has conocido jamás esta clase de retórica.”

RIP platón menos mal que en Atenas no había podcasts