What they neglect to tell you in school is that Plato is straight up funny. Example:

Callicles (to Socrates): By the gods! You simply don't let up on your continual talk of shoemakers and cleaners, cooks and doctors, as if our discussion were about them!

Also if you haven't read this and you have a test on it tomorrow, here's the summary:

Socrates: ...a person who wants to be happy must evidently pursue and practice self-control (507d).

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 :)

A Starker Dialogue

Gorgias is very similar in structure, content, focus and argument with the Republic. In fact, it comes across almost a half-formed version of it, and scholars argue that it is in many ways like an early sketch for Republic. But unlike the Republic, which forays into metaphysics and utopias, the argument in Gorgias is anchored very much in this world, and, again in contrast to Republic where everyone seems persuaded in the end, Gorgias leaves us in the dark as to whether Socrates has really persuaded his audience of what he values most.

Another significant difference with Republic is the absence of a narrator. Commentators argue that that the stark, uncompromising ‘frame’ this forces on the dialogue suggests that this absence of narrator may be an important factor in Plato's design; he may wish to avoid the softening effect of narrative mediation in dramatizing Socrates' lack of success in creating empathy with his interlocutors, his inability to teach them about goodness and justice, which, ironically enough, seems in danger of putting him in the same camp as all the failed statesmen he criticizes.

Gorgias concludes awkwardly and abruptly, almost painfully aware of the deficiencies in the method employed; and we just have Socrates' last words (527e): 'let us follow that way [practicing righteousness and virtue] and urge others to follow it, instead of the way which you in mistaken confidence are urging upon me; for that way is worthless, Callicles.'

What has Callicles (or the others, for that matter) to say in reply to the myth and the long argument that conclude the dialogue? We are not informed. The dialogue trails off inconclusively like one of the ‘aporetics’.

Another marked parallel with Republic is how Gorgias too concludes with an eschatological myth, affirming the soul’s survival after our death and its punishment or reward in the afterlife for a life lived unjustly or the reverse.

Just like in Republic, the trial and the execution is hinted at… but in Gorgias, they loom large and threatening, Plato callously converting hindsight into foresight and charging Socrates’ sentences with prophetic doom and an early condemnation of the system that precipitates his own death in the near future. Socrates is made to relive a prophetic version of the trial and speaks as though it was all but inevitable in such a corrupt system that a man like him has an ending like that. It remind’s one of Jesus’s early (or similarly hindsight-foresight inversion) exhortations to his disciples about how the cross was waiting at the end of the road.

A Deeper Glance

Event though Gorgias is an earlier work (allegedly) and is sketchy in comparison to republic, it also allows us a closer look at one aspect of Plato’s concern: on Oratory. The method employed to condemn Oratory, by using the distinction between ‘art’ and ‘knack’ gives important clues on why Plato goes on to condemn all of Poetry in Republic. The reason, I feel, is that Poetry, like Oratory was a public art in Plato’s time - both intended to pursued without ‘true knowledge’. Hence the same method when extended to Poetry would allow Plato to conclude that Poetry and storytelling too are ‘knacks’ developed from experience and hence less than the ‘genuine arts’.



Here is a dose of the brilliant exposition:

n  

Pastry baking has put on the mask of medicine, and pretends to know the foods that are best for the body, so that if a pastry baker and a doctor had to compete in front of children, or in front of men just as foolish as children, to determine which of the two, the doctor or the pastry baker, had expert knowledge of good food and bad, the doctor would die of starvation. I call this flattery, and I say that such a thing is shameful, Polus—it’s you I’m saying this to—because it guesses at what’s pleasant with no consideration for what’s best. And I say that it isn’t a craft, but a knack, because it has no account of the nature of whatever things it applies by which it applies them, so that it’s unable to state the cause of each thing. And I refuse to call anything that lacks such an account a craft. If you have any quarrel with these claims, I’m willing to submit them for discussion.

So pastry baking, as I say, is the flattery that wears the mask of medicine. Cosmetics is the one that wears that of gymnastics in the same way; a mischievous, deceptive, disgraceful and ill-bred thing, one that perpetrates deception by means of shaping and coloring, smoothing out and dressing up, so as to make people assume an alien beauty and neglect their own, which comes through gymnastics. So that I won’t make a long-style speech, I’m willing to put it to you the way the geometers do—for perhaps you follow me now—that what cosmetics is to gymnastics, pastry baking is to medicine; or rather, like this: what cosmetics is to gymnastics, sophistry is to legislation, and what pastry baking is to medicine, oratory is to justice.

n



While this (the argument-from-analogy with Doctors is a favorite of Socrates) may be true to an extent, Plato does not give consideration to the possibility that the story-tellers (or, substitute Chefs/Docs, if you really want to!) might actually have a greater understanding than the philosophers about the mysterious workings of the human soul. It is blasphemy to conclude on this note but it is an exciting thread to pursue further in the reading of Plato.

A Note on the Translation

This translation gets the right mix of ponderous phrasing, elegance and readability - conveying the ancient mystique and the modern relevance. Also, it is broken up well into small parts, each with an introductory passage always initiating the reader into what is about to transpire in the dialogue. This might be irritating to the seasoned reader but is a pleasant respite for the novice and functions like the small interludes that Plato himself likes to inject into his dialogues.

It is also true that this acts like a spoiler and takes away from the thrill of the argument being developed by Socrates. I personally started coming back to the introductory passage after reading the actual text so as to reinforce instead of foreshadow the argument. I would advice the same course for future readers as well.

Disclaimer



As is evident from the review itself, this reviewer is still too much under the influence of Republic and this reading was conducted almost entirely in its shadow. Hence, the review is a biased and incomplete one that does no justice to Gorgias. Gorgias is a complex and lengthy dialogue that deserves independent study and cannot be treated as a mere appendix to Republic as this review may seem to suggest. That was not the intent.

This reviewer found the parallels and contrasts with Republic very fascinating and spent most time debating that, but the ideas expressed in Gorgias are as stunning and intellectually engaging and forays into territory left unexplored in Republic. The elaboration on techne might just be one of the centerpieces of Platonic thought. Gorgias is a must read among the ‘later Early period’ dialogues of Plato - an important step towards the 'middle-period' dialogues such as Meno, almost a point of transition. In fact, Gorgias is necessary reading for any serious reader of Republic. No excuses.

Postscript: I would love a T-shirt like that. Anybody?

“what a bully you are socrates… argue with someone else”

From the Introduction by Chris Emlyn-Jones:

p. xxvii - "For Plato's Socrates, oratory is not an art, since, by his own admission, Gorgias does not aim to produce knowledge of right and wrong, but only to persuade - to produce conviction. Instead of aiming at making people better (he cannot, because his art does not include knowledge of right and wrong), he panders to their desires, like a confectioner tempting children. If you engage in pandering you do not have to know what people really need; all you require is experience of what will satisfy them."

now don't that sound terrifyingly familiar?!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZNnq...

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

One of the better dialogues in that it manages to raise most of the big issues of virtue and citizenship in way which does not feel to rushed or overly contrived. It's the first dialogue I've read which actually made me smirk when Socrates offered a witty retort or a brilliant condemnation of someone else's views. to someone. It's also a lot of fun to hate on Callicles

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.

Frankly I did not expect to be so pleasantly surprised by Plato. Despite my initial apprehension, Gorgias is a fascinating and accessible introduction to idealism in which Plato considers a multitude of notions, including rhetoric, politics, art, and justice to name a few.

As any beginner in philosophy such as myself might remark, it is quite astounding how Plato’s texts seem to transcend all historical eras and remain so pertinent even today.

Besides the philosophy, which has been much discussed, I also found interesting Socrates's unusual tone in this dialogue. He is much fiercer and more opinionated than in others, and the whole discussion itself seems more like a heated argument than the typical philosophical debate. Callicles even goes as far as to say Socrates is on the level of an annoying child for studying philosophy at his age.

Plato’s Gorgias is one of the longer Socratic dialogues. Its principle topic is the examination of the merits of oration, or Sophistry, with Gorgias and Polus, two orators, arguing that there is no finer profession for a man. Socrates challenges them on this point, eventually exploring more interesting topics with Callicles, like morality, the pleasures, whether it is worse to do evil or suffer evil, how to follow the path of virtue, the pursuit of truth undaunted by shame, and the roles of discipline and punishment in righting one’s character.

The conversation between Socrates, Gorgias, and Polus only makes up about the first third of the dialogue. This exchange sees Socrates questioning the men on what is so good and important about their profession, oration, which they claim to be the greatest skill and art. Socrates exposes it for the shallow, false pandering that it is, revealing its misdirection, its ways of subverting the truth in favor of emotional manipulation. This topic is returned to throughout the dialogue, but eventually more substantial subjects are uncovered.

Once Callicles enters the fray, we get a more interesting study. Callicles proclaims the supremacy of might-makes-right moral principles, and praises the unquenchable appetites as the sign of a man superior to those who live in content moderation. He ridicules Socrates in a manner that seems realistic and modern, less patient and reflective than the usual figures Socrates talks with, but perhaps also more honest. His views are stated with such bold, emphatic confidence that Socrates sees in this man a worthy partner:

“I have noticed that anyone who is to form a right judgment whether a soul is living well or the reverse must have three qualities, all of which you possess: understanding, good will, and readiness to be perfectly frank. I encounter many people who are not qualified to put me to the test because they are not wise like you; others are wise but unwilling to tell me the truth because they have not the same regard for me as you; and our two foreign friends, Gorgias and Polus, though they are well-disposed towards me as well as wise, are nevertheless somewhat lacking in frankness and more hampered by inhibitions than they ought to be. How far these inhibitions extend is shown by the fact that each of them has been reduced by false shame to contradict himself before a large audience and on an extremely important subject.”

Socrates carefully unpacks Callicles’s beliefs and challenges them, logically laying them out for complete examination. He follows reason from fundamental principles, catches Callicles’s mistakes in confused language and misuse of words, and with clarity of mind shows how Callicles has arrived at wrong conclusions. Socrates uses a clever analogy to dispute the superiority of the immoderate appetites, by comparing a leaky and non-leaky vessel. Those with appetites always seeking new gratification and never able to be satisfied are like a man trying to constantly fill a leaking vessel, or always scratching an itch that cannot be satisfied, while the moderate who is able to find contentment in little and satisfaction in what he has is like the man who must fill a vessel once, but never worry about losing that water and thus always seeking new gratification.

Their dialogue goes in many directions, with Socrates taking the time to explore new ideas coherently. He looks at the importance of jobs as they compare to one another, often examining the differences made by doctors or engineers or statesmen in their work, and whether it is for the better or the worse. These are used as analogies for other, more basic questions. This leads to the discussion of moral significance and what makes a man good or strong or weak or evil, and what these terms really mean. He discusses the worth of goodness for its own sake, the character of vice and wickedness and how to deal with these in a person. Justice is reflected on, and the confusions that abound regarding it. He shares his thoughts on the wisdom of the ancients, the myths of their time, and what lessons can be learned about how to properly order one’s life.

As in other Socratic dialogues, difficulties in translation sometimes lead to imperfect representations of the arguments and logic Socrates is following. These are elucidated through numerous footnotes explaining when the intricacies of language come into play, which are lost in translation. It is an excellent, thoughtful dialogue.

Socrates’s conclusions are that oration is ultimately pandering, and should only be employed in the service of right, as is true of all other activities, rather than in the convincing of uneducated audiences to believe things that are untrue; if a man does wrong he must be punished, and paying the penalty for one’s faults is the next best thing to being good; one should avoid doing wrong more than one should avoid being wronged; opinions that are worth anything must be forged in the extreme heat of intellectual back and forth and the uncompromising search for truth; the ultimate goal of a man’s efforts must be the reality rather than the appearance of goodness; and that the life spent in philosophy and serious reflection is of more importance and is more in our interest than may be evident to those who abandoned philosophy long ago.

Gorgiasdialogen är en av de underbara dialoger där båda sidor kan ges rätt. Callicles (en av gorgias lärjungar) argumenterar för att friheten att välja, som är störst hos makthavare, är den största glädjen; Sokrates att den största glädjen är att veta att man gör rätt, vilket inte makthavare kan, eftersom de är fångade av massan.

Formellt sett, är målet med dialogen att förstå retorikerns roll i relation till sitt värv - Sokrates ser det som den professionella lögnarens, eftersom det bygger på att förändra bilden av verkligheten. Callicles som den professionella väljarens. Båda dessa kan kokas ned till hur man bör hantera de som står ivägen för ens visioner. Sokrates idé (att undvika dem) förkastas av Callicles som världsfrånvänd och barnslig - bara handlingen räknas, och handlingen involverar personer som påverkas utan att begripa vad som pågår, vilket gör att deras reaktioner räknas. Callicles idé (att dominera massan genom att förstå den) förkastas av Sokrates som ett slags fängelse och som en självförminskning, rent bortsett från att det hindrar människor från att växa, genom att undanhålla det nyttiga från dem.

Jag läste utgåvan i platons samlade verk, och alltså inte peguinöversättningen denna gång. I mitt tycke är den version jag läste nu bättre vad gäller översättningsflöde och tydlighet.

Jag rekommenderar den som en tankeställare åt alla som fascineras av makt eller samhällsliv.