Handout.docx

Handout–Plato’s Gorgias
Plato-Gorgias
 In the Gorgias, Plato brings three primary charges against rhetoric:
1) Rhetoric can’t be called an art because it has no object. Socrates’ argument takes three forms: (a) since all arts use discourse there is no need to call rhetoric an art in and of itself. And, (b) if, like Gorgias, we define rhetoric as public speaking in assemblies and courts with the purpose of persuading people as to what is right or wrong, then rhetoric is subservient to philosophy (which is the only art that can tell us what is right or wrong). Finally (c), if we do say that the object of rhetoric is speech itself, then we must explain why do not give speeches about speech itself. That is, no one argues that rhetoric, and knowledge/mastery of it is good itself. Rather we give speeches about other subjects [the “disciplinarity problem”], which will bring us back to (b). The real aim of rhetoric is persuasion of the human soul, which means that its domain should be knowledge of the human soul. But the dilemma is that this can’t be acknowledged in public, because if the audience finds out the rhetor has taken stock of their nature and designed her or his message to appeal to it, they will reject the rhetor, ensuring that her attempts at persuasion will fail. Socrates will use this to show that the rhetor does not really aim at knowing the soul nor wants to improve it, rather rhetoric is intrinsically marred by the real aim of the speaker to win at any cost. In fact Gorgias confirms this by his boast that he can prevail over any so called expert, such as the doctor, in either persuading an audience or being acclaimed by the masses. This reveals that for Gorgias the real purpose of rhetoric is to gain power over others [Socrates will argue that power over other requires power over oneself, in other words moderation, self-control, and a willingness for self-examination] and it is this appeal he uses to attract students.
2) Rhetoric is really a technique or knack that panders to base impulses of the masses. Socrates argues that since rhetoric cannot be used to ascertain truth and justice its aim must be to get people to assent to what appears to be true and just. But there is no reason to suppose that the rhetor knows what is true or just, and, more importantly, no reason to assume that the rhetor’s aim is to instill knowledge of what is true or just. Rather the only goal of rhetoric is to win. If the audience has knowledge of what is true and just, they will not be persuaded by the rhetor, they simply would follow the course of action they came to through reflection and reasoned conversation. Rhetoric, therefore, according to Socrates, can only induce belief in those who are ignorant of what is true or are afraid to do what is just, but are desperate to act in line with the “appearance” of justice (propriety).” Socrates argues that rhetoric is akin to cooking which appeals to the taste, the pleasure in eating. Of course we know that just because a particular food tastes good does not mean that it necessarily good for you. Moreover, because some speech is pleasing to the ear and corresponds with conventional wisdom that does not mean it is true or just.
3) Rhetoric corrupts both the audience and the rhetor. Since rhetoric does not have access to truth and justice but only to their appearance, the rhetor cannot educate his/her audience, rather she/he can only flatter them. Moreover to be effective rhetoric must appeal to the audiences existing beliefs and conventions. Thus, if the audience does not already know the truth, rhetoric cannot teach them the truth and, hence, serves to support their false beliefs. The way that the rhetor does this is by taking advantage of the audience’s desire to appear just and knowledgeable. Thus the rhetor must discover a way to disguise the audiences interests as the expression of want is both necessary/natural and, therefore, as true/just. That is, the self-interest of the powerful must be made to appear to the true interest of all, especially those without power. And the beliefs of the powerful must be made to appear as the expression of what is true for all, especially those without access to means of learning. This can only lead to the corruption of the public, making them mean and hypocritical, and the plunder of the commons. But the irony is that as this happens the public will sense the gap between what is truly just and what is being passed of as just, suspecting that the speaker is really acting in his or her own interest and not in theirs. The result is not an outright rejection of the rhetor, but a deep cynicism of all speakers, including the philosopher, and a withdrawal from politics and a greater susceptibility to demagogues. Moreover, aiming only to produce pleasure (the appearance of knowing truth and performing just acts) rhetoric also corrupts the speaker by leading him/her to ignore the good, resulting in pain (because to ignore the good results in the pain of having done wrong). Socrates uses two arguments to show this: the peril of addiction (the leaky jar analogy) and that despite his objection Callicles recognizes that the good is not the same of the pleasurable, justice is not the same as strength, and virtue is not the same as success. 
Since Socrates condemns rhetoric, we need to understand the method of inquiry he advocates. Thus, we need to review the differences between Rhetoric and Dialectic.
Rhetoric as conceptualized by Socrates is the production of long discourses that aim to please the audience and to trick them into accepting the appeals of the rhetor as conforming with the dictates of truth and justice. Because the rhetor does not actually engage the audience directly, making sure they truly assent to each point, but proceeds by subsuming both speaker and audience into a single voice (accomplished by demonstrative reasoning of the Encomium), he/she is not really concerned with educating the other (and himself/herself) by disciplined inquiry into the essence of things and people. Rather, the rhetor is only concerned with manipulating popular opinion (doxa) to produce a fleeting assent to his/her wishes.
Dialectic, on the other hand, is a method of disciplined inquiry into the nature of an object. Dialectic proceeds by question and answer between at least two parties (however, a single party may be able to embody both positions). Unlike debate the parties are not geared to advocating their positions but to inquiring into the nature of the object. The aim of dialectic is to produce a proposition that can be held without contradiction over a period of rigorous questioning. For Socrates, dialectic is an art because it has an object (the production of truth) and it can be taught. Moreover it is a virtuous art inasmuch as it does not attempt to simply titillate the audience by appealing to their tastes but produces the real and lasting pleasure of doing what is right (even if it seems to be painful at the moment).
Although Plato has a profound distaste for rhetoric he does believe that when enjoined with dialectic and done in the service of the truth rhetoric may indeed be a useful technique (and if it aspires for the betterment of its true object, the soul, it may even be called noble). There are two purposes for a “good” rhetoric: to critique the corruption of the state and citizenry and to instruct the audience as to the genuine nature of what is true and just. And (2) rhetoric may defend the need, and superiority, of the reflective life, the ability to act as a critic from outside the affairs of state and the trappings of the culture.
A Platonic model of rhetoric:
(a) Rhetoric’s relation to Truth: It differs from a Gorgianic and Protagorean model in its intolerance of opinion as the grounds of knowledge and justification for action. Plato believes that the Truth is ascertainable by the philosopher by (1) divine revelation, (2) by recollection (anamnesis) of the forms (ideal essences) as viewed by the soul before birth, and (3) through the process of dialectic. Persuasion is not a matter of bewitching the soul (Gorgianic) or weighing both sides of a question (Protagorean) but of leading the soul of the ignorant to truth.
(b) Rhetoric and its power relationship: Since the Philosopher is the only person who access to the truth, it is his/her responsibility to lead other to it. Thus, like the Gorgianic model, the Platonic model of rhetoric assumes a unilateral transmission of information and an asymmetrical power relationship between speaker and audience.
(c) The function of Rhetoric: For Plato rhetoric is a tool to get those who do not have capacity to see the truth on their own to live by its dictates. Thus, the philosopher may have to use rhetoric to get the masses in a position to hear the truth. This may mean appealing to their false beliefs in a way that gets them to assent to the truth. The philosopher then would have to have a detailed knowledge of the different types of souls and the forms of speech that moves each. The philosopher then would appeal to the soul to pave the way for the truth. Thus in some sense rhetoric at its best is a form a noble lie.