What do you think?
Rate this book
Gorgias
The classic political dialogue, as relevant today as in Plato's time
Taking the form of a dialogue between Socrates, Gorgias, Polus and Callicles, Gorgias debates perennial questions about the nature of government and those who aspire to public office. Are high moral standards essential or should we give our preference to the pragmatist who gets things done or negotiates successfully? Should individuals be motivated by a desire for personal power and prestige, or genuine concern for the moral betterment of the citizens? These questions go to the heart of Athenian democratic principles and are more relevant than ever in today's political climate.
For more than seventy years, Penguin has been the leading publisher of classic literature in the English-speaking world. With more than 1,700 titles, Penguin Classics represents a global bookshelf of the best works throughout history and across genres and disciplines. Readers trust the series to provide authoritative texts enhanced by introductions and notes by distinguished scholars and contemporary authors, as well as up-to-date translations by award-winning translators.
Taking the form of a dialogue between Socrates, Gorgias, Polus and Callicles, Gorgias debates perennial questions about the nature of government and those who aspire to public office. Are high moral standards essential or should we give our preference to the pragmatist who gets things done or negotiates successfully? Should individuals be motivated by a desire for personal power and prestige, or genuine concern for the moral betterment of the citizens? These questions go to the heart of Athenian democratic principles and are more relevant than ever in today's political climate.
For more than seventy years, Penguin has been the leading publisher of classic literature in the English-speaking world. With more than 1,700 titles, Penguin Classics represents a global bookshelf of the best works throughout history and across genres and disciplines. Readers trust the series to provide authoritative texts enhanced by introductions and notes by distinguished scholars and contemporary authors, as well as up-to-date translations by award-winning translators.
208 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 381
About the author
Plato
5,149 books7,382 followersPlato (Greek: Πλάτων), born Aristocles (c. 427 – 348 BC), was an ancient Greek philosopher of the Classical period who is considered a foundational thinker in Western philosophy and an innovator of the written dialogue and dialectic forms. He raised problems for what became all the major areas of both theoretical philosophy and practical philosophy, and was the founder of the Platonic Academy, a philosophical school in Athens where Plato taught the doctrines that would later become known as Platonism.
Plato's most famous contribution is the theory of forms (or ideas), which has been interpreted as advancing a solution to what is now known as the problem of universals. He was decisively influenced by the pre-Socratic thinkers Pythagoras, Heraclitus, and Parmenides, although much of what is known about them is derived from Plato himself.
Along with his teacher Socrates, and Aristotle, his student, Plato is a central figure in the history of philosophy. Plato's entire body of work is believed to have survived intact for over 2,400 years—unlike that of nearly all of his contemporaries. Although their popularity has fluctuated, they have consistently been read and studied through the ages. Through Neoplatonism, he also greatly influenced both Christian and Islamic philosophy. In modern times, Alfred North Whitehead famously said: "the safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato."
Plato's most famous contribution is the theory of forms (or ideas), which has been interpreted as advancing a solution to what is now known as the problem of universals. He was decisively influenced by the pre-Socratic thinkers Pythagoras, Heraclitus, and Parmenides, although much of what is known about them is derived from Plato himself.
Along with his teacher Socrates, and Aristotle, his student, Plato is a central figure in the history of philosophy. Plato's entire body of work is believed to have survived intact for over 2,400 years—unlike that of nearly all of his contemporaries. Although their popularity has fluctuated, they have consistently been read and studied through the ages. Through Neoplatonism, he also greatly influenced both Christian and Islamic philosophy. In modern times, Alfred North Whitehead famously said: "the safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 619 reviews
December 9, 2021
Γοργίας = Gorgias (dialogue), Plato, Walter Hamilton (Translator), Chris Emlyn-Jones (Commentary)
Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1960 = 1339, In 149 Pages
Gorgias is a Socratic dialogue written by Plato around 380 BC. The dialogue depicts a conversation between Socrates and a small group of sophists (and other guests) at a dinner gathering.
In the Gorgias, Socrates argues that philosophy is an art, whereas rhetoric is a skill based on mere experience. To Socrates, most rhetoric is in practice merely flattery. To use rhetoric for good, rhetoric cannot exist alone.
It must depend on philosophy to guide its morality, he argues. Socrates therefore believes that morality is not inherent in rhetoric and that without philosophy, rhetoric is simply used to persuade for personal gain. Socrates suggests that he is one of the few Athenians to practice true politics.
تاریخ نخستین خوانش روز دوازدهم ماه ژوئن سال 2008میلادی
عنوان: فن سخنوری گرگیاس؛ نویسنده: افلاتون، مترجم: لطفی کاویانی؛ تهران، کتابفروشی ابن سینا، شماره گذاری صفحات برای هر فصل جداگانه است در243ص؛ و102ص، و7ص، و96ص، و45ص؛ و ...؛
فهرست: فن سخنوری گرگیاس؛ دانایی شارمیدس؛ تقوای منون؛ دیانت اوتیفرن؛ سقراط در زندان کریتون؛ اپولوژی یا محاکمه سقراط؛ نامه؛
گرگیاس یا «جرجیاس»، از نخستین «سوفسطاییان یونان»، و همدوره با «پروتاگوراس» بودند؛ «افلاطون» این اثر خود را، به نام ایشان کرده است؛ «گرگیاس» فرزند «خارمانتیداس» بودند، و در سال چهارصد و هشتاد و هفت پیش از میلاد، در شهر «لئونتینی»، از متصرفات «یونان» در «سیسیل»، زاده شدند؛ «گرگیاس» برادری به نام «هرودیکوس»، و نیز خواهری داشتند، که تندیس او را، پیشکش پرستشگاه خدای «دلفی» کردند؛ «گرگیاس» شصت ساله بودند، که همشهریانش، او را، در سال چهارصد و بیست و هفت پیش از میلاد، به «آتن» فرستادند، تا از «آتنیان» در برابر هجوم «سیراکوزیها»، درخواست یاری کند؛ «گرگیاس» در «آتن» به سخنرانی پرداختند، و به آموزش فنّ سخنوری مشغول شدند؛ نام آورانی همچون «ایسوکراتیس»، «پریکلس»، «کریتیاس»، «آلکیبیادس»، «توسیدید»، «آگاتون»، «کرفون»، «پولوس» و «کالیرس» از شاگردان ایشان بودند؛
تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 23/10/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ 17/09/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1960 = 1339, In 149 Pages
Gorgias is a Socratic dialogue written by Plato around 380 BC. The dialogue depicts a conversation between Socrates and a small group of sophists (and other guests) at a dinner gathering.
In the Gorgias, Socrates argues that philosophy is an art, whereas rhetoric is a skill based on mere experience. To Socrates, most rhetoric is in practice merely flattery. To use rhetoric for good, rhetoric cannot exist alone.
It must depend on philosophy to guide its morality, he argues. Socrates therefore believes that morality is not inherent in rhetoric and that without philosophy, rhetoric is simply used to persuade for personal gain. Socrates suggests that he is one of the few Athenians to practice true politics.
تاریخ نخستین خوانش روز دوازدهم ماه ژوئن سال 2008میلادی
عنوان: فن سخنوری گرگیاس؛ نویسنده: افلاتون، مترجم: لطفی کاویانی؛ تهران، کتابفروشی ابن سینا، شماره گذاری صفحات برای هر فصل جداگانه است در243ص؛ و102ص، و7ص، و96ص، و45ص؛ و ...؛
فهرست: فن سخنوری گرگیاس؛ دانایی شارمیدس؛ تقوای منون؛ دیانت اوتیفرن؛ سقراط در زندان کریتون؛ اپولوژی یا محاکمه سقراط؛ نامه؛
گرگیاس یا «جرجیاس»، از نخستین «سوفسطاییان یونان»، و همدوره با «پروتاگوراس» بودند؛ «افلاطون» این اثر خود را، به نام ایشان کرده است؛ «گرگیاس» فرزند «خارمانتیداس» بودند، و در سال چهارصد و هشتاد و هفت پیش از میلاد، در شهر «لئونتینی»، از متصرفات «یونان» در «سیسیل»، زاده شدند؛ «گرگیاس» برادری به نام «هرودیکوس»، و نیز خواهری داشتند، که تندیس او را، پیشکش پرستشگاه خدای «دلفی» کردند؛ «گرگیاس» شصت ساله بودند، که همشهریانش، او را، در سال چهارصد و بیست و هفت پیش از میلاد، به «آتن» فرستادند، تا از «آتنیان» در برابر هجوم «سیراکوزیها»، درخواست یاری کند؛ «گرگیاس» در «آتن» به سخنرانی پرداختند، و به آموزش فنّ سخنوری مشغول شدند؛ نام آورانی همچون «ایسوکراتیس»، «پریکلس»، «کریتیاس»، «آلکیبیادس»، «توسیدید»، «آگاتون»، «کرفون»، «پولوس» و «کالیرس» از شاگردان ایشان بودند؛
تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 23/10/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ 17/09/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
December 26, 2023
The Gorgias is perhaps the dialogue where the talent of Socrates shines with all its brilliance in its confrontations where it defeats and mates its contradictors sophists, particularly Calliclès.
Socrates lets his interlocutor speak, more or less pretending to abound to give him the leisure to expose himself and, little by little, highlight the contradictions and the faults. And then, the theme of exchanges energizes the rhythm: freedom, good or bad, is it better to suffer injustice than to commit it?
Magistral.
Socrates lets his interlocutor speak, more or less pretending to abound to give him the leisure to expose himself and, little by little, highlight the contradictions and the faults. And then, the theme of exchanges energizes the rhythm: freedom, good or bad, is it better to suffer injustice than to commit it?
Magistral.
August 17, 2017
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:
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?
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:
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.
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?
March 2, 2008
Well, if one was to sum up, it would be hard to go past Plato’s own summary:
“And of all that has been said, nothing remains unshaken but the saying, that to do injustice is more to be avoided than to suffer injustice, and that the reality and not the appearance of virtue is to be followed above all things, as well in public as in private life; and that when any one has been wrong in anything, he is to be chastised, and that the next best thing to a man being just is that he should become just, and be chastised and punished; also that he should avoid all flattery of himself as well as of others, of the few or of the many: and rhetoric and any other art should be used by him, and all his actions should be done always, with a view to justice.”
I’ve read this book as someone who is an atheist and therefore someone who can place little concern on the rewards or punishments of the afterlife. Much of Plato’s argument is supported by the idea that we should be moral in this life to avoid punishment in the next life. I would like to think that his conclusions still stand for an atheist, even if his arguments do not.
I’m not sure how well Socrates answers Callicles’ arguments – or rather attack. Nietzsche later says much the same things about Socrates and his arguments – his denial of life and how ugly Socrates is and how lacking in taste and common sense. It seems clear for much of the text that Callicles is bored by Socrates’ arguments and only agrees to continue listening to Socrates because Gorgias asks to hear the rest of what Socrates has to say – he abandons participation in the argument, which is not the same as him being silenced by Socrates’ argument. I would very much doubt that Callicles came away from this encounter feeling that Socrates was right and that one should prefer to suffer harm than to do harm.
The myth at the end was all very Christian – and it is easy to see why Plato was so easy to be used by the Church. I found it very interesting that at least two of what are taken to be standard Christian messages are clearly put forward by Socrates – turn the other cheek (literally in those terms, too) and the problem the rich and powerful will have in getting into paradise. The import of this dialogue seem to me to be an even clearer statement of the golden rule than that contained in the Christian message – (surely the idea that we must avoid doing ill, even prefering bad things to be done to us, is more virtuous than merely treating others as we would like to be treated ourselves).
So, the question for me is whether it is possible to establish this as a conclusion an atheist could follow. And, to be honest, I don’t know. I can’t see what an atheist could base the ‘good’ that is necessary to sustain this argument on. Socrates is more than willing to be prepared to die for his truth because he knows there is an afterlife in which the pleasures and sufferings of this life are as nothing.
His argument is that doing wrong harms the wrong-doer’s soul – I think this is true, even if I don’t believe in a ‘soul’ as such. If we know we have done wrong there is nothing worse than feeling we have been ‘rewarded’ for it.
When I was a child my mother caught me cheating at patience (or solitaire for my American cousins). I must have been old enough for her merely saying, “Are you cheating?” to not really count for much. But what did count was when she said, “You are only cheating yourself.”
I’ve often wondered if that is a good lesson or not. I still don’t cheat and try to avoid situations where I can cheat myself or others – but it does often seem that those who do cheat (perhaps both themselves and others) do end up better off. And people do seem to have a near infinite capacity to rationalise away their actions so that they always do tend to see themselves in the end as entirely justified. Plato’s myth at the end of this dialogue where the wrong souls are being sent to the wrong places because they were being judged in their worldly finery just before they die seems relevant here.
Perhaps a means of attack on this is that the benefits of doing wrong are generally short lived – you cheat and the benefit is rather fleeting – but the knowledge that you cheated, that you are the sort of person who would cheat, that can be something that lasts with you all of your life. Perhaps then this is the ground to support Plato’s conclusions without resorting to his arguments – that in the end one needs to be able to live with one’s self – and that is easier to do if we have been wronged, than if we have wronged others. That the punishments we inflict upon ourselves for wronging others are often worse than the punishments others would give us if they were to punish us.
I enjoyed this more than the last time I read it – the last time I read it I was much more concerned that Socrates did not really answer Callicles’s argument – I still don’t think he answers it, but I’m not as concerned now.
“And of all that has been said, nothing remains unshaken but the saying, that to do injustice is more to be avoided than to suffer injustice, and that the reality and not the appearance of virtue is to be followed above all things, as well in public as in private life; and that when any one has been wrong in anything, he is to be chastised, and that the next best thing to a man being just is that he should become just, and be chastised and punished; also that he should avoid all flattery of himself as well as of others, of the few or of the many: and rhetoric and any other art should be used by him, and all his actions should be done always, with a view to justice.”
I’ve read this book as someone who is an atheist and therefore someone who can place little concern on the rewards or punishments of the afterlife. Much of Plato’s argument is supported by the idea that we should be moral in this life to avoid punishment in the next life. I would like to think that his conclusions still stand for an atheist, even if his arguments do not.
I’m not sure how well Socrates answers Callicles’ arguments – or rather attack. Nietzsche later says much the same things about Socrates and his arguments – his denial of life and how ugly Socrates is and how lacking in taste and common sense. It seems clear for much of the text that Callicles is bored by Socrates’ arguments and only agrees to continue listening to Socrates because Gorgias asks to hear the rest of what Socrates has to say – he abandons participation in the argument, which is not the same as him being silenced by Socrates’ argument. I would very much doubt that Callicles came away from this encounter feeling that Socrates was right and that one should prefer to suffer harm than to do harm.
The myth at the end was all very Christian – and it is easy to see why Plato was so easy to be used by the Church. I found it very interesting that at least two of what are taken to be standard Christian messages are clearly put forward by Socrates – turn the other cheek (literally in those terms, too) and the problem the rich and powerful will have in getting into paradise. The import of this dialogue seem to me to be an even clearer statement of the golden rule than that contained in the Christian message – (surely the idea that we must avoid doing ill, even prefering bad things to be done to us, is more virtuous than merely treating others as we would like to be treated ourselves).
So, the question for me is whether it is possible to establish this as a conclusion an atheist could follow. And, to be honest, I don’t know. I can’t see what an atheist could base the ‘good’ that is necessary to sustain this argument on. Socrates is more than willing to be prepared to die for his truth because he knows there is an afterlife in which the pleasures and sufferings of this life are as nothing.
His argument is that doing wrong harms the wrong-doer’s soul – I think this is true, even if I don’t believe in a ‘soul’ as such. If we know we have done wrong there is nothing worse than feeling we have been ‘rewarded’ for it.
When I was a child my mother caught me cheating at patience (or solitaire for my American cousins). I must have been old enough for her merely saying, “Are you cheating?” to not really count for much. But what did count was when she said, “You are only cheating yourself.”
I’ve often wondered if that is a good lesson or not. I still don’t cheat and try to avoid situations where I can cheat myself or others – but it does often seem that those who do cheat (perhaps both themselves and others) do end up better off. And people do seem to have a near infinite capacity to rationalise away their actions so that they always do tend to see themselves in the end as entirely justified. Plato’s myth at the end of this dialogue where the wrong souls are being sent to the wrong places because they were being judged in their worldly finery just before they die seems relevant here.
Perhaps a means of attack on this is that the benefits of doing wrong are generally short lived – you cheat and the benefit is rather fleeting – but the knowledge that you cheated, that you are the sort of person who would cheat, that can be something that lasts with you all of your life. Perhaps then this is the ground to support Plato’s conclusions without resorting to his arguments – that in the end one needs to be able to live with one’s self – and that is easier to do if we have been wronged, than if we have wronged others. That the punishments we inflict upon ourselves for wronging others are often worse than the punishments others would give us if they were to punish us.
I enjoyed this more than the last time I read it – the last time I read it I was much more concerned that Socrates did not really answer Callicles’s argument – I still don’t think he answers it, but I’m not as concerned now.
June 5, 2018
… for philosophy, Socrates, if pursued in moderation and at the proper age, is an elegant accomplishment, but too much philosophy is the ruin of human life.
Gorgias is easily one of Plato’s best stand-alone dialogues. Indeed, as others have mentioned, it often reads like a germinal version of the Republic, so closely does it track the same themes. A transitional dialogue, the early know-nothing Socrates of unanswered questions is already gone; instead we get Socrates espousing some of Plato’s key positions on truth and morality.
Socrates descends on a party of rhetoricians, seemingly determined to expose them. He questions Gorgias, a well-known teacher of rhetoric, in the attempt to pinpoint what, exactly, rhetoric consists of. We get the usual Socratic paradoxes: if we ought to be convinced by knowledgeable people—a doctor when it comes to medicine, an architect when it comes to buildings—how can somebody who lacks this knowledge teach the art of convincing?
Gorgias insists that rhetoric is used to accomplish justice. But is Gorgias an expert on justice? No. Are his pupils already just? Neither. And cannot rhetoric be used for unjust ends? Of course. This effectively trips up the old rhetorician. Gorgias’ energetic young pupil, Polus, steps up to defend the old master. He denies what Gorgias said about rhetoric being used to accomplish justice, and instead claims that it is used to gain power.
This brings Socrates to another one of his paradoxes: that powerful orators are actually to be pitied, since inflicting injustice is worse than suffering injustice. Though Polus laughs, Socrates trips him up just as they did his mentor, by getting him to assent to a seemingly unobjectionable proposition and then deducing from them surprising conclusions. (Socrates was not, you see, without his own rhetorical tricks.) Polus finds himself agreeing that tyrants are to be pitied.
At this, Callicles enters the fray, not a rhetorician but an Athenian gentleman and a man of affairs, who plays the same role that Thrasymachus plays in the Republic. He scorns philosophy and insults Socrates. All this highfalutin’ talk of justice and truth and such rubbish. Doesn’t Socrates know that what is right is a mere convention and justice is simply whatever the strong wish? Socrates then embarks on his usual procedure, trying to get Callicles to assent to a proposition that is incompatible with Callicles’ position. Callicles eventually gets confused and tired and gives up, allowing Socrates to finish with a grand speech and a Platonic myth about the judgment of souls.
To the modern reader very little in this dialogue will be convincing. Plato is no doubt right that rhetoric is, at best, neither bad nor good, but is akin to cosmetics or cooking rather than exercise or medicine—the art of pleasing rather than improving people. Yet since we have learned that we cannot trust people to be selfless, disinterested seekers after the truth—as Socrates repeatedly claims to be—we have decided that it’s best to let self-interested parties compete with all the tools at their disposal for their audience’s attention. Heaven knows this procedure is far from perfect and leaves us vulnerable to demagogues. But the world has proven depressingly bereft of pure souls like Socrates.
Also unconvincing is Plato’s moral stance—namely, that those who commit injustice are to be pitied rather than envied. He proves, of course, that the unjust are more deserving of punishment than the just; this was never in doubt. But he does not, and cannot, prove that the unjust are less happy—since a single jolly tyrant would refute his whole chain of reasoning. Indeed, by establishing a moral precept that is so independent of happiness, Socrates falls into the same plight as did Kant in his categorical imperative. This is a serious difficulty, since, if acting justly can easily lead to unhappiness, what is the motivation to do so? The only way out of this dilemma, as both thinkers seemed to realize, was to hypothesize an afterlife where everyone got their just desserts—the good their reward and the bad their castigation. Needless to say I do not find this solution compelling.
Yet you can disagree with all of Plato’s positions and still relish this dialogue. This is because, as usual, the most charming thing about Plato is that he is so much bigger than his conclusions. Though Socrates is Plato’s hero and mouthpiece, Plato also seems to be aware of Socrates’ (and his own) limitations. Callicles is not a mere strawman, but puts forward a truly consistent worldview; and Plato leaves it in doubt whether his own arguments prevailed. He even puts some good comebacks in Callicles’ mouth: “Yes, by the Gods, you are literally always talking of cobblers and fullers and cooks and doctors, as if this had to do with our argument.” By the Gods, he is!
February 24, 2023
It’s hard to say exactly which of Plato’s dialogues is the most relevant to the modern reader, but I think Gorgias would be a major contender. This Platonic dialogue takes place between Socrates and a small group of sophists as well as some other guests at a dinner party. What starts off as a defining of what rhetoric is and what its purpose is turns into a philosophical discourse on the Socratic view of natural morality, absolute truth, and self-control as opposed to relative morality, relative truth, and the pursuit of pleasure and excess as the ultimate good as held by the Sophists.
Socrates begins by comparing the techne versus what he calls a knack in rhetoric. He uses the example of medicine versus cookery to demonstrate this idea. The doctor uses pleasant and unpleasant means to bring about health in a person. Surgery is generally unpleasant and painful but brings about health. It is not about the gratification of one’s desires, but rather about one’s health. The Baker on the other hand makes cakes and sweet breads to fulfill personal gratification and desire, but does nothing for the health of the person. Socrates in this Dialogue is the doctor. He is the true politician and philosopher who is ready to use both pleasant and unpleasant means to bring about a healthy soul.
Socrates denies that pleasure can be equated directly to good. He argues that this is demonstrated by the natural world. There are good and pleasant things that can kill us, and there are unpleasant and painful things that can save our lives. In saying so Socrates is claiming that there is a natural morality at play here. That when something is good and pleasurable there is a point when that good and pleasurable thing reaches an excessive point where it becomes bad or harmful. A little bit of alcohol once in a while for example, gladdens the heart and is pleasurable to the body, but the excess of alcohol intake leads to alcoholism and destroys our body, life, and soul. A little bit of sugar here and there is good and pleasurable for the body, but excess causes obesity and disease. Socrates says that the one who places pleasure and desire as the end all goal is harming his own soul and other souls around him. He likens the person to a man with a bucket that has holes in it. That the more the man fills the bucket the more he becomes a slave to keeping it full, and the more he fills it the more holes appear and the faster he has to fill it. This is like the soul of the carnal or hedonistic man.
These two views battling it out here in this seemingly inconspicuous platonic dialogue have massive philosophical implications in the real world. Especially in the political sphere. In many ways this argument has echoed through the ages and continues to be an argument of great importance to anyone and everyone whether they know which side of it they’re on or not. It portrays two views of freedom. One, being freedom as liberty, and the other freedom as autonomy. The sophist view is that of freedom as liberty, that any restriction whatsoever on a person creates repression and unhappiness because true happiness is found in the accumulation and satiation of desires, (this view is represented by many thinkers responsible for the modern mentality in the west, Freud, Nietzsche, etc.) and the Socratic view of freedom as autonomy that argues that true freedom is man’s ability to know restraint and govern himself based on man’s ability to reason and seek virtue.
It portrays two views of truth and ethics. That of the sophist’s relative idea of truth and morality. That you can make an argument for anything by appealing to human emotion and desire. That you can persuade people to whichever view you want as a rhetorician because no view has actual truth. All truth is only perspective. Or the Socratic view of a truth that is true apart from rhetoric, and a moral law that can be found in nature by use of man’s ability to reason.
Plato’s dialogue asks us to consider then, which side of this argument are we on?
Will we take the side of Socrates and pursue knowledge and virtue?
Or will we take the side of the Sophists and pursue the accumulation and satiation of our personal desires?
Socrates begins by comparing the techne versus what he calls a knack in rhetoric. He uses the example of medicine versus cookery to demonstrate this idea. The doctor uses pleasant and unpleasant means to bring about health in a person. Surgery is generally unpleasant and painful but brings about health. It is not about the gratification of one’s desires, but rather about one’s health. The Baker on the other hand makes cakes and sweet breads to fulfill personal gratification and desire, but does nothing for the health of the person. Socrates in this Dialogue is the doctor. He is the true politician and philosopher who is ready to use both pleasant and unpleasant means to bring about a healthy soul.
Socrates denies that pleasure can be equated directly to good. He argues that this is demonstrated by the natural world. There are good and pleasant things that can kill us, and there are unpleasant and painful things that can save our lives. In saying so Socrates is claiming that there is a natural morality at play here. That when something is good and pleasurable there is a point when that good and pleasurable thing reaches an excessive point where it becomes bad or harmful. A little bit of alcohol once in a while for example, gladdens the heart and is pleasurable to the body, but the excess of alcohol intake leads to alcoholism and destroys our body, life, and soul. A little bit of sugar here and there is good and pleasurable for the body, but excess causes obesity and disease. Socrates says that the one who places pleasure and desire as the end all goal is harming his own soul and other souls around him. He likens the person to a man with a bucket that has holes in it. That the more the man fills the bucket the more he becomes a slave to keeping it full, and the more he fills it the more holes appear and the faster he has to fill it. This is like the soul of the carnal or hedonistic man.
These two views battling it out here in this seemingly inconspicuous platonic dialogue have massive philosophical implications in the real world. Especially in the political sphere. In many ways this argument has echoed through the ages and continues to be an argument of great importance to anyone and everyone whether they know which side of it they’re on or not. It portrays two views of freedom. One, being freedom as liberty, and the other freedom as autonomy. The sophist view is that of freedom as liberty, that any restriction whatsoever on a person creates repression and unhappiness because true happiness is found in the accumulation and satiation of desires, (this view is represented by many thinkers responsible for the modern mentality in the west, Freud, Nietzsche, etc.) and the Socratic view of freedom as autonomy that argues that true freedom is man’s ability to know restraint and govern himself based on man’s ability to reason and seek virtue.
It portrays two views of truth and ethics. That of the sophist’s relative idea of truth and morality. That you can make an argument for anything by appealing to human emotion and desire. That you can persuade people to whichever view you want as a rhetorician because no view has actual truth. All truth is only perspective. Or the Socratic view of a truth that is true apart from rhetoric, and a moral law that can be found in nature by use of man’s ability to reason.
Plato’s dialogue asks us to consider then, which side of this argument are we on?
Will we take the side of Socrates and pursue knowledge and virtue?
Or will we take the side of the Sophists and pursue the accumulation and satiation of our personal desires?
June 27, 2019
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.
But that doesn’t answer the question of how to distinguish between the desires of ego, and the true Will!!!
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.
But that doesn’t answer the question of how to distinguish between the desires of ego, and the true Will!!!
October 12, 2011
This book is a masterpiece. It includes a critical text, and a line-by-line philological commentary. But even the reader without Greek will learn an enormous amount about Plato and related topics by reading it alongside a translation -- just skip all the entries dealing with purely philological matters.
It is often said that the best commentary on Aristotle is Aristotle. Hence, important commentaries on Aristotle spend most of their time quoting (in Greek) other passages from Aristotle. The same is true for Plato - and probably for all philosophers. So keep a copy of the translated works handy and whenever Dodds or anyone cites a passage or refers to a passage, follow up the reference.
The best translation of the collected works remains E. Hamilton, Cairns Lord -- not Cooper. By a mile.
It is often said that the best commentary on Aristotle is Aristotle. Hence, important commentaries on Aristotle spend most of their time quoting (in Greek) other passages from Aristotle. The same is true for Plato - and probably for all philosophers. So keep a copy of the translated works handy and whenever Dodds or anyone cites a passage or refers to a passage, follow up the reference.
The best translation of the collected works remains E. Hamilton, Cairns Lord -- not Cooper. By a mile.
February 6, 2017
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.
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.
January 28, 2013
An excellent example of philosophy justifying itself.
Everybody has heard the whole cranky, rather arrogant and patronizing remark made when someone who doesn't read very much or doesn't read for pleasure or instruction feels like scoffing a bit:
"Why are you reading this boring old stuff? Philosophy's good when you're younger, and you don't know anything, but once you become a real adult you should just let that stuff go..."
It's interesting that Socrates calls Gorgias out for basically making that case outright and putting Socrates in his place- or seeming to- by doing so.
Socrates asks him if he thinks a Catamite (the 'catcher' in the boudoir, if you please) is living a good life. Gorgias sputters and says 'no'....Well, says Socrates, if you think that constantly seeking pleasure and satisfaction is all you need, maybe those very desires you have aren't going to be fulfilled and so you're really just constantly, consistently being the butt-boy for your own endless, fruitless pursuit of gratification.
It's always amused me how Socrates gets away with laying the smack down like that...
November 22, 2016
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.
September 22, 2021
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.
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.
August 23, 2016
Plato on the virtuous life
7 August 2011 - Athens
It 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).
Plato'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).
Anyway, 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).
Then 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).
The 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.
However, 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.
7 August 2011 - Athens
It 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).
Plato'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).
Anyway, 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).
Then 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).
The 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.
However, 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.
August 18, 2019
First time reading something for a university discussion! (Meaning my first university discussion, not my first time reading something for that purpose💁)
January 28, 2024
I just re-read Plato’s Gorgias. This time, I read the translation done by James H Nichols, Jr. It was recommended by a friend.
Gorgias is a tremendously nuanced and layered dialogue. But it is also fair to say that it is the dialogue that presents Socrates' extended argument that it is worse to inflict an injustice than to suffer an injustice. (Spoiler: inflicting an injustice damages one’s soul. Suffering an injustice does not.)
I recommend Gorgias for readers of all stripes.
Gorgias is a tremendously nuanced and layered dialogue. But it is also fair to say that it is the dialogue that presents Socrates' extended argument that it is worse to inflict an injustice than to suffer an injustice. (Spoiler: inflicting an injustice damages one’s soul. Suffering an injustice does not.)
I recommend Gorgias for readers of all stripes.
April 18, 2018
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...
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...
April 1, 2017
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:
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.
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.
May 30, 2011
I throw my token in with Callicles when he said
"By the gods, Chaerephon, I too have been present at many discussions, but I don't believe that any has ever given me so much pleasure as this. If you like to go on talking all day, you are doing me a favor".
I simply can't get enough of these dialogues! I know there are flaws in them, I know that sometimes as (especially in the one on oratory) the protagonist (Socrates) gets all the words in edgewise and our dear antagonists do not make a fun enough defense. But the language is clever and enjoyable. The tone is playful and yet still brings the points home. If Socrates was really like this I believe I really could have gone on listening to him talking all day, if only for the chance to jump in and run over some of his flawed arguments.
"By the gods, Chaerephon, I too have been present at many discussions, but I don't believe that any has ever given me so much pleasure as this. If you like to go on talking all day, you are doing me a favor".
I simply can't get enough of these dialogues! I know there are flaws in them, I know that sometimes as (especially in the one on oratory) the protagonist (Socrates) gets all the words in edgewise and our dear antagonists do not make a fun enough defense. But the language is clever and enjoyable. The tone is playful and yet still brings the points home. If Socrates was really like this I believe I really could have gone on listening to him talking all day, if only for the chance to jump in and run over some of his flawed arguments.
August 24, 2018
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...
03.02.2015
İstanbul, Türkiye
Alp Turgut
http://www.filmdoktoru.com/kitap-labo...
January 3, 2019
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.
January 28, 2019
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!
July 6, 2023
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.
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.
December 2, 2014
Socrates goes though a mind-numbing series of overly-long questions about some issues of philosophical import. While in the Protagoras Socrates complains about long-winded statements, he states in this dialogue that a four sentence response by Polus was “a lengthy exposition.” Unlike Polus, who Socrates treats unfairly, Socrates meets his intellectual match with Callicles. Callicles is not bullied into simplistic yes or no answers to questions and to a logic that he finds difficult to follow. Callicles responded once to a question posed by Socrates with a “perhaps,” which Socrates found unacceptable. On numerous occasions, Callicles answered with a “let it stand” response to keep the discussion going, not to indicate his agreement or disagreement which is what Socrates typically required.
How the Socratic method of argumentation is conducive to genuine dialogue is lost on me. Socrates comes across as the Sophist that he so much dislikes. He is a prosecutor who is leading his listener into an intended result. Callicles tells Socrates he doesn’t know what Socrates is saying or where he is going with his questions. And that’s the problem with Gorgias. What is the point of all of these Socratic argument chains? Instead of simply stating his position in a few lines, and then opening it up for discussion, the reader has to endure the Socratic method, wondering with Callicles, what the point is and when this is going to end.
Socrates does not approve of Sophist spin, their lack of substance, their play to common opinion or their mode of pleasing those who pay their fees. Socrates, it is said, wants truth telling, even if he’s a minority of one, but he comes off as a pitchman who is not so honest himself. While it is more implicit than not in this dialogue, Socrates version of the truth is different than what most of us understand. His good is not about our world. It's not to cater to the body and its desires. In fact, these lead us down the wrong path. This is disorder when Socrates wants a soul that is ordered by mind. The standard for what is good and bad lies in a transcendent, eternal and perfect realm, not the life of the flesh. This, not bodily pleasure, is what is best for the soul and Socrates is unvarying in his vision. This all comes to a head at the tail end of the dialogue where Socrates outlines the afterworld where souls go to be assessed and judged good or bad, and assigned eternal life or life in an eternal hell-like world (Socrates is quite explicit in his discussion). This Christian-like afterworld does not exist for many. Once that rug is pulled out from people the age-old questions remain: What is good? Why be good? What is justice? Why be just? For those who do not, or cannot, believe as Socrates does, Plato becomes less relevant, philosophically.
If we had a genuine dialogue on these questions we might progress some, especially if we look at the body that Socrates so disparages. Might soul be the motivational force that drives us to survive and live well? Might this motivation underlie the mind so that the mind does what is best for the body’s interest (i.e., why be good, if it’s not in one’s own interest?), and is the Good and Just the pursuit of one’s interest in ways that are compatible with that of others who pursue their interest? And then, in lieu of Plato’s ordered class society (workers, guardians, philosophers), we throw them all into the same soup and judge them by what they do regarding their respect for the freedom of others. Those that step over the line of respect for others can be, figuratively at least, cast to Hades. Those who respect the freedom of others can live well in this life, if not in an eternal life on the Islands of the Blessed.
How the Socratic method of argumentation is conducive to genuine dialogue is lost on me. Socrates comes across as the Sophist that he so much dislikes. He is a prosecutor who is leading his listener into an intended result. Callicles tells Socrates he doesn’t know what Socrates is saying or where he is going with his questions. And that’s the problem with Gorgias. What is the point of all of these Socratic argument chains? Instead of simply stating his position in a few lines, and then opening it up for discussion, the reader has to endure the Socratic method, wondering with Callicles, what the point is and when this is going to end.
Socrates does not approve of Sophist spin, their lack of substance, their play to common opinion or their mode of pleasing those who pay their fees. Socrates, it is said, wants truth telling, even if he’s a minority of one, but he comes off as a pitchman who is not so honest himself. While it is more implicit than not in this dialogue, Socrates version of the truth is different than what most of us understand. His good is not about our world. It's not to cater to the body and its desires. In fact, these lead us down the wrong path. This is disorder when Socrates wants a soul that is ordered by mind. The standard for what is good and bad lies in a transcendent, eternal and perfect realm, not the life of the flesh. This, not bodily pleasure, is what is best for the soul and Socrates is unvarying in his vision. This all comes to a head at the tail end of the dialogue where Socrates outlines the afterworld where souls go to be assessed and judged good or bad, and assigned eternal life or life in an eternal hell-like world (Socrates is quite explicit in his discussion). This Christian-like afterworld does not exist for many. Once that rug is pulled out from people the age-old questions remain: What is good? Why be good? What is justice? Why be just? For those who do not, or cannot, believe as Socrates does, Plato becomes less relevant, philosophically.
If we had a genuine dialogue on these questions we might progress some, especially if we look at the body that Socrates so disparages. Might soul be the motivational force that drives us to survive and live well? Might this motivation underlie the mind so that the mind does what is best for the body’s interest (i.e., why be good, if it’s not in one’s own interest?), and is the Good and Just the pursuit of one’s interest in ways that are compatible with that of others who pursue their interest? And then, in lieu of Plato’s ordered class society (workers, guardians, philosophers), we throw them all into the same soup and judge them by what they do regarding their respect for the freedom of others. Those that step over the line of respect for others can be, figuratively at least, cast to Hades. Those who respect the freedom of others can live well in this life, if not in an eternal life on the Islands of the Blessed.
March 17, 2021
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
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
October 23, 2023
Wonderful dialogue on why we should do the right thing, the dangers of oratory, and other things. Got distracted from reading, but I'm back on my grind.
Quotes
“This conclusion alone stands firm: that one should avoid doing wrong with more care than being wronged, and that the supreme object of a man’s efforts, in public and in private life, must be the reality rather than the appearance of goodness."
“I am one of those people who are glad to have their own mistakes pointed out and glad to point out the mistakes of others, but who would just as soon have the first experience as the second; in fact I consider being refuted a greater good, inasmuch as it is better to be relieved of a very bad evil oneself than to relieve another. ”
Quotes
“This conclusion alone stands firm: that one should avoid doing wrong with more care than being wronged, and that the supreme object of a man’s efforts, in public and in private life, must be the reality rather than the appearance of goodness."
“I am one of those people who are glad to have their own mistakes pointed out and glad to point out the mistakes of others, but who would just as soon have the first experience as the second; in fact I consider being refuted a greater good, inasmuch as it is better to be relieved of a very bad evil oneself than to relieve another. ”
February 9, 2022
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).
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).
July 29, 2016
Gorgias is another Sophist (after Protagoras) with who Socrates interacts along with Callicles. The dialogue is interesting in its premise: Plato essentially says that morality is greatly tied with afterlife - a reward for being 'good' in this life. This is essentially the root of the argument or what Socrates tries to qualify it as one while Callicles comes after him viciously.
While Protagoras retires from the argument (which goes nowhere), Gorgias simply doesn't participate. Gorgias being the seventh dialogue I've read, this is the first time when an interlocutor has abandoned the ship. Callicles however continues (as directed by Gorgias) the argument which I don't see Socrates really addressing it.
The good and evil, justice and morality make an appearance again with Socrates' well timed responses. It is still unclear if his answers really addressed Callicles' argument as Socrates deflects from the original question.
This dialogue requires a definite re-read just to ingest several metaphors that Callicles throws at Socrates. Socrates holds his ground for all its worth and I believe Plato is essentially telling the readers to get on with it and formulate a better response to Callicles' arguments.
A thorough enjoyable read and possibly one of my favorites of the dialogues till now.
While Protagoras retires from the argument (which goes nowhere), Gorgias simply doesn't participate. Gorgias being the seventh dialogue I've read, this is the first time when an interlocutor has abandoned the ship. Callicles however continues (as directed by Gorgias) the argument which I don't see Socrates really addressing it.
The good and evil, justice and morality make an appearance again with Socrates' well timed responses. It is still unclear if his answers really addressed Callicles' argument as Socrates deflects from the original question.
This dialogue requires a definite re-read just to ingest several metaphors that Callicles throws at Socrates. Socrates holds his ground for all its worth and I believe Plato is essentially telling the readers to get on with it and formulate a better response to Callicles' arguments.
A thorough enjoyable read and possibly one of my favorites of the dialogues till now.
March 9, 2019
Che dire? E' grandioso!
Mi è venuto leggendo, da subito, un parallelo profanissimo, perdonatemi, tra i retori bollati da Platone e, un esempio tra tanti, i vari avvocaticchi di Berlusconi che ci vogliono far credere che Gesù è morto di freddo... (Lui che era il padrone della legna!), e a volte ci riescono. Per non parlare dei "politici" e della classe politica nostrana (senza far nomi, per carità!) che sarebbero da accostare in parallelo a Pericle, Temistocle, Cimone, Milziade, fustigati sempre da Platone. Ma mi facci il piacere!
Termino questo mio sconclusionato commento al Gorgia citando Gaber:
"Io se fossi Dio,
dall'alto del mio trono
vedrei che la politica è un mestiere come un altro
e vorrei dire, mi pare Platone,
che il politico è sempre meno filosofo
e sempre più coglione".
Mi è venuto leggendo, da subito, un parallelo profanissimo, perdonatemi, tra i retori bollati da Platone e, un esempio tra tanti, i vari avvocaticchi di Berlusconi che ci vogliono far credere che Gesù è morto di freddo... (Lui che era il padrone della legna!), e a volte ci riescono. Per non parlare dei "politici" e della classe politica nostrana (senza far nomi, per carità!) che sarebbero da accostare in parallelo a Pericle, Temistocle, Cimone, Milziade, fustigati sempre da Platone. Ma mi facci il piacere!
Termino questo mio sconclusionato commento al Gorgia citando Gaber:
"Io se fossi Dio,
dall'alto del mio trono
vedrei che la politica è un mestiere come un altro
e vorrei dire, mi pare Platone,
che il politico è sempre meno filosofo
e sempre più coglione".
February 28, 2017
أنا أفضل أن أستخدم قيثارة غير متوافقة الاوتار وكلها نشاز، أو أن أكون رئيساً لفرقة مغنين غير منتظمين، أو أن أجد نفسي غير متفق ومعارض لجميع الناس، عن أن أكون مختلفاً مع نفسي وحدها ومعارضاً لها.
March 18, 2019
Μη μπερδεύεστε, το ένα αστεράκι είναι μπόνους για τις παραπομπές στην ηθική και τον εσχατολογικό μύθο. Τρία ήθελα να του βάλω.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 619 reviews