We should devote all our own and our community's energies towards ensuring the presence of justice and self-discipline, and so guaranteeing happiness.

So Socrates wanted to make Athens great again and along the way gave the pundits and consultants the what for. His argument is measured and allows the three stooges to defeat their own assertions in fits of bumbling exasperation. The virtues of work and health are explored with nary a word about the lamp above the Golden Door. This notion of moderation was embraced during the Enlightenment but has recently fell from grace Quoting The Tick, Evil wears every possible mitten. That said the argument of the good, the moral hinges here on a tiny necessity, the afterworld , a world of never ending happiness, you can always see the sun, day or night.

Well the current corruption of these words Good and Great have launched their own raid on the Dialogues. Plato asserts most of politics is flattery and power. Socrates knew that and wound up on a state sponsored trip across the Styx.

All we can do is resist. Resist.

I read this twenty years ago and participated in my first weekend retreat sponsored by the Basic Program of Liberal Education of The University of Chicago. It was an exciting weekend as we sat up past midnight discussing Plato's arguments for education and the power of the sophists represented by Gorgias. As part of the weekend we watched the film, Educating Rita, and it has become one of my favorites always bringing memories of that weekend and Plato's Gorgias.
The familiar saying of Socrates is that he only knows that he does not know anything. And he spends his time refuting his dialectical partners who claim to know something. This usually leads to the result that they admit they do not know what they claimed to, but also usually leaves the reader in the dark as the dialogue ends without any resolution or answer to the questions posed by Socrates. This occurs repeatedly with unsuccessful attempts to define temperance (Charmides), courage (Laches), or friendship (Lysis). It is surprising when, in a reading of the Gorgias, the reader finds a different Socrates who does claim to know several things. It is here, in the Gorgias, that we see Plato's own dramatic art at work, molding a new and improved Socrates to perform in a way that will display, perhaps, the views of Plato himself.
Plato's dramatic art is not unlike that of a playwright and several dialogues, including the Gorgias, have a dramatic progression and contain crises as plays do. The Gorgias as a whole can be seen as a fine example of Plato's art in the form of a dramatic progression. There are three perfectly connected episodes: Socrates' three conversations with Gorgias, Polus, and Callicles. Gorgias, the famous sophist, seeing only the technical side of the orators' training, is incapable of giving his art any moral purpose. Polus will not use rhetoric for an evil end but only because he is timid and respects prejudices. But let a violent person like Callicles come along: he will find in the school of Gorgias not a restraint, but an instrument for the expression of his violence. In this fashion all consequences of the intellectual attitude of Gorgias are developed in a living and dramatic manner. Interestingly, Plato ends the Gorgias with one of the famous myths that appear and reappear throughout the dialogues (Symposium, Phaedo, Phaedrus, and Republic to name a few). They do not always appear in the mouth of Socrates, but at the end of the Gorgias it is Socrates himself who says to Callicles:
"Give an ear then, as they say, to a right fine story, which you will regard as a fable, I fancy, but I as an actual account; for what I am about to tell you I mean to offer as the truth." (523a)
Socrates goes on to present a treatise of a sort that comments on the destiny of the soul, giving the dialogue a foundation that in retrospect it seemed to be aiming at the whole time.

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

What I recall about Gorgias - again from my sophomore university philosophy class - was that there was a lengthy discussion of orators and how they are able to dupe audiences - even folks more technical than the orator him/herself. That sounds eerily relevant right now given that 1.7M people voted against the Commander and Thief who in 2012 criticised the very electoral college to which he owes his election. His campaign promises were all smoke and mirrors as Gorgias delightfully admits to in his dialog. Perhaps, along with The Republic, a critical read in our troubled times.

If you need a good dialogue about rhetoric, morality, duty and philosophy this is it. If The Republic was your jam, don’t miss this prequel!

Eins meiner Lieblingszitate aus einem Platondialog:

KALLIKLES: Auch, und ebenso alle andern Begierden soll man haben und befriedigen können, und so Lust gewinnen und glückselig leben.
SOKRATES: Wohl, Bester. Bleibe nur dabei, wie du angefangen hast, und dass du ja nicht aus Scham abspringst. Wie es aber scheint, muss auch ich mich nicht schämen. Und so sage mir nur zuerst, ob krätzig sein und das Jucken haben, wenn man sich nur genug schaben kann, und so gekitzelt sein Leben hinbringen, ob das auch heißt glückselig leben?
KALLIKLES: Wie abgeschmackt du immer bist, Sokrates.

One of Plato’s more mediocre dialogues — a deep dive into rhetoric and discourse, particularly the political kind. What does it mean to persuade? What should we persuade people of?

If you’re at all familiar with Plato’s other works, then Gorgias is largely more of the same. The interlocutors are maybe a little more obstinate than usual. Socrates’ roasts have a little more spice to them. (At times he really goes in for the kill. He’s like “mf can you talk less”)

There *are* some nice new Plato allegories to add to the display case: perforated jars, chefs, touchstones to shine gold, etc.

While some people argue this is like “Republic Lite,” I think the two books are targeting fundamentally different projects and audiences. Gorgias is for someone like Gorgias! It’s not about instructing ambitious young statesman how to construct and orient the ideal (soul or) city in speech. No, this is like the “little red pocketbook” of Platonic thought — I think it answers the question “What should we be talking about these days?” It’s for the normal, apathetic, value neutral type of guy.

We don’t get a massively intricate utopian ideal or even very clear definitions for many of these philosophical concepts (justice, virtue, good). Realistically, Plato presumes we work with what we got — it’s quite a practical approach. Socrates basically gives a simple piece of advice: “Do good things to live a good life. Help others do the same. Even if not readily apparent, good acts will make you a better person.” It’s a gentle prod and reminder to not be a dickhead for the average Joe.

In summary it’s like: doing bad things is bad even if you don’t get caught. Getting punished for bad thing is good even if it hurt. Pleasure isn’t always good. Pain isn’t always bad. We have to do the good pleasure. Discourse is not an art but a fake form of flattery. Most people say what the masses want to hear. Instead we gotta say the truth to give everyone justice in the soul. Justice is virtue moderation courage. We gotta have a ruler who does the good things so we can copy him. I (Socrates) am the only person who see the light and I do the real politic stuff. I know ima die young because the idiots aren’t ready for the wisdom I’m spitting. They’ll send me to trial and say why are you corrupting the youth. I will say that all cures need some pain. Finally I’ll do a little dance and give everyone a storytime about how you do good to have a pretty looking soul and go to an island which is basically heaven and live happily ever after. Philosophy rules and everything else sucks. Don’t forget that. (3.6 stars)

لا استشعر وجود سقراط الحقيقي في هذه المحاورة ، ربما لم يحالف أفلاطون الحظ في تصويره هنا .. و معتقدش برده ان جورجياس نفسه كان بالسذاجة ديه اللي افلاطون صوره بيها ... المحاورة تشعبت موضوعاتها لدرجة التشتيت و انا شخصيا تهت اكتر من مرة ... التحليل المرفق مع نص المحاورة المترجم سيء و الهوامش بالكاد ترقى لدرجة المقبولة.. في المجمل الكتاب لا يفيد بشيء غير بعض المعلومات عن المعتقدات اليونانية اللي بنستشفها من النص بالاضافة لتوضيح موقف افلاطون من السفسطائيين

This is my introduction to ancient literature, and a spectacular one at that. I did not expect to be engaged in Socrates’ flawless arguments, repetitive yet ingenious questioning, and shockingly relevant message about the duty of the authentic rhetorician and politician- to make people better and lead communities with virtue and self-discipline instead of indulging their audience in flattery. Although that is the main thread of the dialogue, the “rabbit trail” arguments about justice, self-restraint, and the definition of rhetoric were fascinating, as well. Every person who aspires to become proficient in rhetoric or who wishes to run for public office needs to read this. And although I don’t want to get into politics here, by considering Plato’s definition of a good politician, it really shouldn’t require deep thinking to know that, ahem… today’s politicians across all spectrums don’t meet that definition.

Plato on the virtuous life
7 August 2011 - Athens

tIt is difficult to put a date of composition to such a text, though internal comments can assist us with determining when it was written. While I do not consider myself an expert on Plato, I would consider this text to be one of his earlier writings as he seems to be recording an earlier conversation as opposed to using Socrates to be a mouthpiece for his own philosophy. A lot have been written on Plato's dialogues, which tend to be philosophical discussions with Socrates as the main speaker. However, Gorgias is a dialogue, as opposed to a single person sprouting philosophy, that is a discussion between a group of people. This, I find, works a lot better for a philosophical treatise as one tends to get a broader view of the argument, and one also gets the opportunity of hearing the other sides of the argument along with objections and counter-arguments. This is not what one tends to get with a single speaker (or even a text book).

tPlato's later works tended to be more of a diatribe, where he uses Socrates as a mouthpiece for his philosophy (as can be seen in the Republic) however, there is another text, the Timaeus and the Critias, which seem to fall into the later category, though because Socrates is not the main speaker in these texts, I am loathe to put them into Plato's later category, and consider these texts to be more like the earlier texts where Plato is reporting a conversation that took place years previously (though scholars tend to date them as being one of his much later texts since the Critias is actually incomplete – not that a part of it is lost but rather that Plato never finished it).

tAnyway, I am writing on the Gorgias, which is a more simpler text than some of his other writings. The main theme of the Gorgias is morality (which is the theme of a lot of Plato's writings) and explores the question of whether oratory is a useful skill or whether it is just used for harm. The closest that we would get to the Sophists of Ancient Athens (and it is a very close comparison) is that of a lawyer. The job of a lawyer is to argue the client's case to either the other side or an independent third party. The criticisms of lawyers are very similar to the criticisms that Plato lays down with the sophists. One example is that the find sounding speeches of the sophists can easily override the technical knowledge of a doctor (and this can also be seen in today's society).

tThen there is the question of injustice and doing wrong to people. The two conclusions that Socrates reaches with his arguments is that nobody willingly does wrong, and it is better be wronged than to do wrong (though his companions in this discussion object quite readily, particularly when they use the example of the Tyrant that does wrong to his subjects, but does not appear to be living a miserable life, though Socrates does manage to convince his audience that the Tyrant's life is in fact miserable, even if he might not know it).

tThe concept of nobody doing wrong intentionally (which is also something that I disagree with, though there are people that commit a wrong but justify the wrong that they are committing, for instance shop lifting. The store sells the products at outrageous prices, and also rip their customers off, therefore they are right in stealing the pen, or the sales assistant that takes money from the till with the intention of paying it back, but never doing so). The conclusion that Socrates reaches is that people who do wrong are ill (in the same sense of having a cold) and they need to be cured of this ill, and thus Socrates sees punishment as the purpose of curing the person of their wrongdoing.

tHowever, the discussion comes to a conclusion with the exploration of 'heaven and hell'. In the Greek text, Heaven is referred to as the Blessed Isles, and Hell is known as Tartarus. It is interesting that Tartarus was designed to imprison the rebellious Titans, and the Blessed Isles have been set aside for the heroic and the virtuous. However, it is also interesting to note that Odysseus does travel into the underworld in the Odyssey and there meets up with a number of heroes from the Trojan War. It seems like their heroic acts simply were not good enough for them to get to the Blessed Isles (though I suspect that Tartarus and the underworld are two different places). It is also interesting to see how our culture has adopted these ideas, not in the sense of the Jewish idea of Heaven and Hell (with Heaven being God's domain, and Sheol being the abode of the dead), but rather, to an extent, to have merged Greek and Christian Mythology (in that Hell has been set apart as a prison for the Devil and his Angels, which is almost a direct copy of Tartarus, and Heaven as being the destination of the good and virtuous). However, nothing is all that cut and dried, and it appears that this is explained by Socrates in the end. The conclusion, it is better to live the suffering and virtuous life and be rewarded in the afterlife than to live a wicked life committing wrong and thus facing eternal punishment. Ironically, this conclusion seems to have been lifted straight out of the Old Testament.

Socrates argues that it is better to be the victim of injustice than the doer of injustice. I wish I could take Socrates to a McDonalds today and ask him if he would prefer to be the chicken that ended up in the McNuggets or the restaurant patron who devours them. In the USA humans kill and eat billions of chickens every year, and I'd rather be one of the humans doing evil to chickens than one of the chickens having evil done to them thank you very much.

Of course Socrates did his thinking quite a long time before Darwin, so he couldn't have realized that a certain kind of evil - the weeding out of trillions of unfit individuals over the ages, called natural selection - is central to the process that actually created us and all our capacity for virtue. (How one might be virtuous enough today to justify all that past suffering, I cannot imagine.) To reshape an organism from a fish to a human required an incomprehensibly vast amount of pain. That doesn't excuse humans inflicting gratuitous evil on their fellow humans today, but quite a lot of evil is more or less unavoidable - such as all the things we do to fill our bellies every day. Even if we don't eat animals directly, we must still displace them, by force, to grow our crops. And we displace still more, gratuitously, when we pave over vast parking lots at shopping malls and so on.

The closing appeal to a divine scorekeeper was disappointing. I find it hard to take a person seriously who simply conjures up imaginary gods to prove a point, namely that if it seems tyrants are getting away with it in this life, they'll get what's coming to them in the afterlife. Granted, that was the dominant perspective 2400 years ago, but Socrates is supposed to still impress even by modern standards. Sorry, not impressed. Even if by some miracle Zeus et al. were to turn out to be factual, you have to show such beings are factual before you trot them out to support your argument.

It was interesting to watch Socrates lead his interlocutors around and drop them into traps, but the bloated, soporific writing style needs editing for clarity. (Hint: if you read a passage and find your mind drifting off, forcing you to go back and re-read, what you are reading is not good writing, let alone great writing.) I pity the generations of scribes who dutifully hand-copied all the unnecessary words over and over. Gutenberg's invention of movable type must have been as merciful as introducing anaesthesia to surgery.

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.