True art forsakes all in favor of the good, whereas flattery is more concerned with the pleasant, which brings about an incorrect belief of good. Plato believes rhetoric is not a true art but a routine, thereby stating it is a false art which gives way to false beliefs. His logic follows this notion because true art forsakes all and is concerned with true good above all else, whereas false art, such as rhetoric, is concerned with flattery and instant gratification above truth and goodness. Within the Gorgias, Plato leads a self-proclaimed master of Rhetoric, into a web that shows the true forces behind rhetoric in the justice system. Those true forces being manipulation of words without any knowledge of the topics that the Rhetoric speaks about.
The first proposition that must be understood is that rhetoric deals with persuasion of matters according to Gorgias, and without the disagreement of Socrates (Gorgias, 8). This persuasion can be on any subject and the Rhetoric does not have to have knowledge on the subject in order to persuade the crowd. For example, a Rhetoric can persuade a patient to agree for a surgery although he himself knows nothing about medicine. Since the Rhetoric has know knowledge on the subject his persuasion creates a belief (Gorgias, 11). This can in turn be described by the rather cliché statement of 'the blind leading the blind'.
A belief differs from knowledge because a belief has the chance of being true or false whereas Socrates points out there is no such thing as false knowledge (Gorgias, 11). This then creates the affirmed distinction that a belief is not knowledge, and inherently Rhetorics do not persuade on knowledge or facts (Gorgias, 15). This means that what ever persuasion a rhetoric does do it is bringing forth a belief to the people but not any coherent knowledge. Consequently, since Plato believes that art is a skill directed towards some form of greater good, Rhetoric can not be an art at all.
Socrates explains this by stating, "...rhetoric...is not an art at all, but the habit of a bold and ready wit, which knows how to manage mankind: this habit I sum up under the word 'flattery'...is only an experience or routine and not an art" (Gorgias, 19). But does this not bring up to question what 'is' art? Although to Socrates art is a practice that works towards a higher understanding, can the term not be redefined so that this argument loses viability? Although during this time period art and science have no real distinction, but in the more modern mindset, can rhetoric not be an art of manipulation that works as an 'anti' power to truth and goodness? What would Plato/Aristotle then say about that notion?
On a side note the page notation is from the kindle version of the same book. I couldn't find a way to change it, sadly.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading this section about rhetoric, I was reminded of the Public Relations, Marketing and Advertising industry. As Jessica points out, a rhetorician does not have to have to have a true knowledge about any particular subject, they need only to know how to talk about that subject and persuade people towards a certain outlook. It’s a kind of manipulation, which Socrates refers to as a “knack” as opposed to a real knowledge or skill. To my point about PR – an agency can take on any kind of client (regardless of actual talent or value) and create a marketing/advertising campaign, a PR-spin (create an “image”) that’s convincing and enticing enough to persuade the public to have a positive response to the image. In this way, I see it as a type of rhetorical device and I agree with Socrates that it is a knack, because the presentation is based on a kind of flattery and ornamentation which covers up whatever is actually behind it.
ReplyDelete“A belief differs from knowledge because a belief has the chance of being true or false whereas Socrates points out there is no such thing as false knowledge.”
ReplyDeleteI agree that belief differs from knowledge, but where is the line between knowledge and belief? Is there something that was once considered "knowledge" and is now known to be false “knowledge”, or does it become "belief" if it was proven to be false? I wonder: did people used to “believe” that the earth is flat or was it “knowledge”. It is now “known” that the earth is round. But what if scientists were to discover that the earth isn’t round either, what would happen then, would our current “knowledge” become false or will it become a “belief”?
I would have to agree with my classmate about when it is being discussed about if one can judge a belief to be false or true.What we believe in is our own thoughts and how can our thoughts be right or wrong ? Or how can someone else determined if our beliefs are right or wrong when its our own belief? Or if they are from a different religion wouldn't they have a different belief and disagree about a different religions belief .I also would have to agree to disagree with the statement stated from Socrates in the blog saying " there is no such thing as false knowledge ".I agree to disagree because for example if you kill someone its wrong but then if the person you killed harmed you then people would agree that the person who is dead deserved it. THen other people would say who are you to determined someone's punishment? This goes back into the class discussion where it was asked would you rather give out the pain or suffer from the pain. Which leads right back to Socrates who believe its better to suffer then to give out the pain which you would suffer from .My question is does one believe it is better to endure pain of harming one on ones conscious or ensdure the pain from being a victim ? It all ends and starts back with belief.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete“A belief differs from knowledge because a belief has the chance of being true or false whereas Socrates points out there is no such thing as false knowledge.” (Gorgias, 11).
ReplyDeleteHow does one obtain knowledge? Is there such thing as true knowledge? I ask this question because in order to obtain knowledge, one must be willing to learn. In order to learn, one must be taught. If one is taught by a teacher, then doesn’t the teacher in a way manipulate his words for the student to understand? Then isn’t teaching a form of manipulation in itself? When one is learning the truth, how do we know what truth is? Is it because we believe it to be true or is it fact? This is where beliefs and rhetoric come into play. Belief can be defined as an opinion or conviction; confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof. Therefore, as
Jessica stated “what ever persuasion a rhetoric does do it is bringing forth a belief to the people but not any coherent knowledge.” But the questions remains, is there such thing as true knowledge and how does one obtain the truth?
Jessica, I found raising the questions,"What is art?" and "What is good?" to be the key component in drawing a conclusion on Platos debate on rhetoric. I agree with Gorgias when he claims, "Persuasion is essential to teaching."(Gorgias, 14)
ReplyDeleteI believe that there is no ultimate truth, without convincing at least one person that what they claim is a fact. What is truth? After all the evidence, facts and opionons; Socrates delivers a very persuading speech to sway Gorgias in believing that knowledge and flattery can not co-exist with each other and that rhetoric is completely founded on flattery and persuasion alone. When a teacher or professor presents to their students the facts of their subject or expertise, students take for granted that whatever spews forth from their mouths is the TRUTH. No one questions them. If they do...in turn the teacher/professor is essentially going to end up persuading their pupils that what they know is truth. Facts. Pure in it's form. Does that then mean that they are not using a little bit of this rhetoric? Don't we flatter ourselves when trying to pass on knowledge? I think we do. I think we also flatter others in turn when we see that our facts matches anothers.
Therefore, rhetoric is in the eye of the beholder!
In response to Sol, I think that Socrates would say that if it has the ability to change, it isn't knowledge. He believed in those bizarre forms that we were born with and thought that everything we learned was actually just a recollection of something we were born knowing, and everything besides these forms couldn't possibly be real if they keep changing. I think this belief is what was at the root of his style: ask questions that solicit answers with very little room for disagreement until the interrogator proves that the interrogated does not actually know what they thought they knew. Brilliant, Socrates, but let's face it: even your homie Plato agreed that some pursuit of knowledge is healthy, as I recall I read a lot about his idea of a little thing called atomic physics. Was the nature of the elements that he described, then, also a form that no one had been able to recollect before him? No, by his definition since it belonged to the world that he could perceive it was an opinion, but he took the time to write it down and look into it so obviously he thought that his opinion was of some consequence. Don't even get me started on Aristotle who clearly would have closely studied Socrates' OG manuscripts and stuff and decided to place an even more profound emphasis on this perceivable world that is so fake and fleeting according to Socrates.
ReplyDeleteBasically, Socrates gets a big ole yawn and Plato gets a high five, but Aristotle actually gets people interested in the pursuit of knowledge which is the most admirable...so I guess Socrates would agree with me that he was the most contemptible.