With Gorgias claiming to be a connoisseur of rhetoric and thus rhetoric a field of expertise, Socrates sought in discussion with Gorgias the definition and extent of activities of his profession (Rhetorician), which through a series of logical inquiry, Socrates methodically influences Gorgias to reveal only its province. Now left with a vague definition (according to Socrates) and novel enquiry of whether rhetoric is exempt from immorality and intentional wrongdoing, an outraged Polus, pupil of Gorgias, takes the position of his teacher and urges Socrates to unveil his conviction of what rhetoric is.
“I refer to it [as] flattery…a multifaceted activity…one of whose branches is cookery…and then ornamentation and sophistry” (“Gorgias”30). The latter was stated by Socrates in regards to the activity of rhetoric. By flattery, Socrates is conveying that a rhetorician in regards to someone or something: praises insincerely, effusively, or excessively, represents favorably, and often holds mistakenly feelings of satisfaction for oneself. As a multifaceted activity, Socrates claims that flattery may be used as a tool of camouflage of various aspects of life. Finally, Socrates mentions cookery, ornamentation, and sophistry as examples of ideas which utilize the tool, and as a mean of comparison with rhetoric.
This conclusion of flattery is derived from Gorgias' responses of rhetoric and their direct connection to the definition of flattery.
Gorgias confirms to Socrates that a rhetorician need not possess any proven information of a conflict, only an influential strategy (“Gorgias”24). Conversing about the essential tools of a pupil of rhetoric, Gorgias affirms to Socrates that a pupil’s training consists of learning how to influence an ignorant crowd of people--rather than help them comprehend an issue, to win their support (“Gorgias”23). Thereafter, opining on the type of expertise rhetoric comprises, Socrates candidly dismisses the possibility of rhetoric as a discipline where connoisseurship can be acquired (“Gorgias”28). Next, Socrates asserts rhetoric is fundamentally an adroit way of arousing delight and satisfaction from the incessant engagement of this activity and conveys cookery as a product of flattery (“Gorgias”29). At bottom, Socrates illustrates cookery, ornamentation, sophistry, and rhetoric as imitators of four areas of expertise; subsequently exposing their inability to explicate logically the reason for their effect, which to Socrates, is a must in order to be deemed an area of expertise (“Gorgias”32,33).
According to Socrates, since a rhetorician need not possess any facts of an issue, and isn’t obliged to provide understanding when speaking with non-experts, he is essentially acting with insincerity by representing everything other than the facts favorably to win their opinion. Moreover, the inability of a rhetorician to explicate logically the process of persuasion (mandatory of an area of expertise according to Socrates) proves rhetoricians are mistakenly satisfied in deeming themselves experts and rhetoric an area of expertise.
Gorgias claims to have convinced an individual into accepting treatment he/she refused to accept from the doctor recommending the treatment. Whether or not the treatment was an instance of life and death, the use of rhetoric by Gorgias convinces the patient to accept the treatment rather than perpetuate his suffering. The treatment will then alleviate the pain suffered by the patient, hence, restoring him back to a state of homeostasis. In this case, is the use of flattery by a rhetorician to comfort the patient into compliance justified? Yes, because in this context, rhetoric effectively caters to the individual’s long term interests of a healthy state of being.
Also, is the removal of a bad habit by way of rhetoric justifiable?
Yes, because the removal of detrimental tendencies benefit the individual in the long run.
In regards to your last statement about justifying rhetoric, can rhetoric benefit society in such a way that it may be considered good? For example, by using rhetoric we can convince someone to submit to the law. In this specific notion rhetoric will be doing something beneficial for the society. Oddly enough it will not evoke pleasure to the person being convinced. This differs to the typical nature of rhetoric.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time the rhetorician is probably not knowledgable on the person's actions. How would Socrates feel about lawyers? Any ideas?
As mentioned Gorgais claimed that his rhetoric helped an individual receive treatment in which they were restored to good health. As successful as this was, it is everything Socrates disdains about Rhetoric. No truth is needed only persuasion and false knowledge is needed. Rhetoricians such as Gorgais do this for their own personal gain even if the individual mentioned was restored to good health. This is not an honorable way to function in this world, Socrates believes and lives his life that truth is knowledge and you know its true when is can be proved beyond argument.” As cookery is to medicine, so rhetoric is to the administration of justice” (Plato 33). No matter when or where you use rhetoric it is still a false art and therefore a fake representation of justice.
ReplyDeleteI would think Socrates feel the same way towards lawyers as he does towards rhetoricians. The goal of a lawyer is to justify the truth, or the supposed "truth". Which according to Socrates is flattery. But if rhetoric were only used in such a way in combined forces with the law or with experts such as doctors to convince others, I would agree that this use of rhetoric is justified.
ReplyDeleteWith Gorgais example of aiding a sick person to take his medicine is not a support for the "art" or rhetoric but rather another instance in which it is used. To the ignorant mind (as Socrates tend to play with his endless questions) Gorgais attempts to put his "expertise" into practice and persuade Socrates to believe in it. The task of getting the medicine taken by the ill person is not solemnly in the hands of the rhetoric.
ReplyDeleteIf the sick person is knowledge what what is good for himself he would take that medicine without anybody's persuasions. However, since he is ignorant he doesn't take it and clears the platform to the rhetoric to perform his art in front of ignorants and persuade them.
Therefore, the example provided in the initial blog post does not support rhetorics as a nobel expertise but rather the opposite. In the dialog it supports the fact that the rhetoric only have power over those who are ignorant and also works as a weak argument in comparison to Socrates serious accusations about rhetorics.
Although the example that Gorgias uses to justify rhetoric seems rational, it somehow is just aiding in Socrates’ idea that rhetoric is simply a form of flattery with no expertise involved. While I agree that it is justifiable, Gorgias’ use of rhetoric to convince an ill person to take his medicine for the overall healthy living of that person, he uses no expertise at all to do so. Rather yet he is covertly persuading the sick person into taking his medicine. Socrates then comes to the conclusion that the case of a rhetorician being more persuasive than a doctor is a case of a non- expert being more persuasive than an expert in front of an audience of non-experts (“Gorgias” 24).
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGorgias believes it is inappropiate for a doctor or “professional of any stamp” to apply false arts expressed through flattery. (456c) As alluded to in previous posts, a patient doctor relationship is one of compassion. However, a doctor must remain complacent and avoid insensitive use of flattery that the patient may deem inappropriate in such a professional setting. Gorgias considers the skills of a boxer those which require a specified setting. (456d) Hence, he would agree that the indiscriminate use of rhetoric justifies an offence simply because the abuse of rhetoric is not “morally appropriate” in a factual, professional setting. (457d) I believe Gorgias expert views on rhetoric exclude the attempt of an amateur because he/she is likely to misuse flattery.
ReplyDeleteAs to the justifiability of the use of rhetoric, I believe Socrates would argue that the justification depends less on the recipient of the good and more on the rhetorician’s internal intent. Though Socrates sees rhetoric as bad and therefore contemptible (30), he later contradicts his logic of immorality by justifying the use of rhetoric in condemning family members for wrong doing, in giving speeches of the highest moral content and for perfecting the minds of fellow citizens (61, 98). However, he finds a way out of his contradiction by stating that there are actually two forms of rhetoric (29,98).
ReplyDeleteI disagree that Gorgias use of rhetoric to convince the ill man to accept treatment is justified. Although the end (curing his illness) is a good, the means is still rhetoric, which is established as contrary to knowledge. Even as Gorgias improves the patient's physical health, he deteriorates the patient's psychological health by creating conviction in place of knowledge.
ReplyDelete