The Pleasure of the Good

In Plato’s Gorgias, while publicly debating with Gorgias and then Polus, Socrates inspires a response from Callicles who emerges from the crowd and weighs in on matters. Up to this point, Socrates has used his method of questioning to prove his points, but Callicles challenges this, accusing Socrates of “steering discussions” and manipulating the crowd (65). Callicles takes his turn at debate and argues, amongst other things, that it is human nature for superior men to be self-indulgent and strive ultimately to satisfy their own desires – and that this is both pleasurable an good. Socrates argues that there is a differentiation between “pleasure” and “good” and that the pursuit of pleasure in and of itself is ultimately bad.

Picking up where Gorgias and Polus left off with Socrates in an argument over the nature of rhetoric, Callicles steps in to go head to head with Socrates in a candid (and sometimes amusing) debate. Callicles begins his argument by accusing Socrates of manipulating the crowd with ideas that are “unsophisticated enough to have popular appeal,” depending on convention (not nature) and actually being foolish in continuing to pursue philosophy, “like a teenager” (65/69).  Socrates is impassive to Callicles’ insults and actually praises him for his frankness, citing that he is the only one of the bunch that’s got the gall and the education to openly confront him – and adds that Callicles must care for him very much to want to enlighten Socrates on what he believes to be true (71).

They take up their debate over whether there is a “natural right” of superior people to dominate “second-rate” people and furthermore whether there is a differentiation better “better” and “superior” (73). They both seem to agree that there are superior people; however, they disagree about what makes a superior man. Socrates raises the question as to whether the people Callicles considers to be superior (rulers, the elite class) are in fact rulers or subjects themselves (78). Callicles says that “the only authentic way of life is to do nothing to hinder or restrain the expansion of one’s desires, until they can grow no larger… satisfying every passing whim” (79). He claims that average people don’t have the ability to satisfy their desires and so they condemn the “freedom” of indulgence and praise self-discipline, perpetuating conventions, opinions and structures of the majority (79). He says, “If a person has the means to live a life of sensual, self-indulgent freedom, there’s no better of happier state of existence… pointless trumpery” (79).  

Socrates disagrees, citing that without self-discipline, one cannot be happy.  Socrates sets out to distinguish between good and bad pleasures; and claims that pleasure and good are in fact two different things. Socrates sets to prove his point, using an example of a thirsty person drinking; as thirst is unpleasant and distressful, a thirsty person finds drinking pleasant, therefore a thirsty person feels both distress and pleasure at the same time, so then it is possible to live well and badly at the same time and since pleasure and stress can coincide then pleasure and to live well are not the same and distress is not the same as to live badly – concluding that pleasure and the good are different (87).

The larger point is that according to Socrates is that self-control is what leads to authentic happiness and pleasure, while bringing a temporary feeling of satisfaction, does not bring one any closer to the good – in fact, if one is self-indulgent they become ruled by their passions – which is what I believe he meant by the question: “Are [the elite] rulers or subjects?” (78). Socrates tells Callicles that “the people you are calling happy have a terrifying life as well” and that “the part of the mind which contains the desires is in fact characterized by its susceptibility and its instability” (80). He goes on to say that “the good in some form should be the goal of pleasant activities (as much as of any other kind of activity), rather than pleasure being the goal of good activities” (93). With this argument, I believe that Socrates discredits Callicles’ claim that average people condemn the elite’s self-indulgence just because they jealous that they not able to achieve it for themselves, but rather because there is a general understanding of what is good (and that average people poses good attributes).

From a modern-day perspective, I can see both Socrates and Callicles’ points. Living in a capitalistic society, we are all conditioned to want material wealth and self-indulgence comes easily – especially for the elite or privileged class (as they have more access to luxuries via wealth or power). But it is easy to see how self-indulgence can hurt an individual as well as a society and create everything from physical, mental, emotional to material crises. Ultimately, I think that this passage of Gorgias points out a timeless tension that exists within human nature and emphasizes the need for people to balance their own passions with the long term greater good (of both themselves as well as their society’s).

Exercise 1 Extended

The first exercise ended prematurely on Friday, and so I have extended it until Sunday at midnight (i.e. Sunday night/Monday morning).  Please complete the exercise.

Art vs. Flattery: The fallacy of Rhetoric

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?   

Activity of Rhetoric

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.

Welcome

Welcome to the course blog.

This blog will be kind of like a place where the course can continue outside of our classroom meetings (you're probably thinking, do I have to pay extra for this? Guess what, it's included!).

The one big difference between the course blog and the classroom meetings is that I will not be presiding over the blog. I will be reading the blog continually and remarking on it in class.  And I will make a comment on the blog here and there during the semester (but not many and not regularly).  But for the most part, you are responsible for the blog.

You will contribute to the blog in two forms:

First, in the form of blog posts, which are semi-formal writings no more than 2 pages in length (400-500 words) that address the reading and lecture materials from the course for that particular day.  Every student will write one blog post during the semester. And you are both free and encouraged to write more, if you like.
Second, in the form of blog comments, that provide feedback, both critical and productive to the blog posts published by your classmates. Each student will make 6 comments during the semester, during specific periods of time (2 week periods).

You will receive grades for completing the assignment for the latter (i.e., you completed 6 out of 6 comments for the semester), and an actual letter grade for the former (i.e., an A, B, C or F, as well as receiving written comments on your post).