For my rhetoric class, I had to read through Gorgias and Phaedrus. I’ve not quite completed Phaedrus (that’s this week’s reading along with Aristotle’s Rhetoric, but more will be following on that one as Aristotle’s piece is the focus of my midterm book review project). However, I’ve finished Gorgias, and I thought I would share my perspective on the piece.
My General Opinion of Gorgias
Gorgias is an interesting glimpse into the views that Plato held on rhetoric, philosophy, and the public sphere. I was not fond of the overabundance of words and circumlocution used by many of the characters, including Socrates himself. However, I did appreciate the sarcasm and Plato’s masterful use of language to show it. Writers, if you’re looking for an example of how to do sarcasm well, may I suggest you read this piece? Plato did it well.
That said, overall, I came away with a sense of distaste for the somewhat meandering method of dealing with the topic that Plato uses and for Socrates himself, since despite all of his denouncements on rhetoric, he himself uses it to argue why philosophy is best and no relation at all to Gorgias’s art of rhetoric. It was an interesting read that I would recommend to those wanting to understand Plato’s philosophy and how he thought, but be warned that you’re going to have to slog through a lot to really get the information.
Rather than laying it out in succinct, clear fashion, Plato spends a lot of time discussing topics that are loosely related. The conversation is more organic than Aristotle’s discussion of rhetoric because it simulates the way that debates very often, in non-formal spheres, wander to other questions that the opposition will not move on without having answered. But that means it is difficult as a result to get through the whole thing and keep in your head what bits and pieces you have gleaned from earlier parts regarding his rhetorical and philosophical views.
I recommend a notebook and pen or a highlighter as you go through the piece to allow you to jot down or highlight sections that relate to the viewpoints you are studying so you don’t become lost in all the other related but less cohesive parts of the discussion. You will also need to be prepared for many statements that contradict each other, plenty of professions from Socrates that he is only seeking the truth despite a tone that indicates he believes he already knows it, and a somewhat superior tone in sections from Socrates when dealing with the more enthusiastic characters in the debate. At points, these can provide great amusement, I think, but at others they grate.
Furthermore, you should understand that Plato focused on ideals (sometimes called forms) and not necessarily on reality, so Socrates frequently argues from a mystical, unachievable ideal (such as when he states that a just man will never behave unjustly) as opposed to a more logical, reality-based viewpoint. This was something I found entirely obnoxious and frustrating because he never admits that it is an ideal and always treats it as a fact or universal reality, which it rarely is. Some readers may not find this as absolutely grating as I did, but others will.
What I Really Liked About Gorgias
I did really enjoy the wit in this piece. The back and forth between the characters and the biting use of sarcasm renders it far more amusing than it otherwise would have been. Though the writing’s focus meanders quite a bit, it is written well. The writing itself is solid. I felt it was quite beautifully worded in many places.
I also liked the way Socrates used questions in the piece to lead the reasoning in one direction or another. Had he not pretended he was searching for the truth in the discussion and had admitted that his goal was solely to expose the poor reasoning of the other stances through the use of questions, I would’ve liked it much more. That said, despite the lack of transparency in what he’s saying, the questions are beautifully framed to expose the lack of reason in various points of the discussion from his opposition.
What I Didn’t Like
Mainly, as I said in the general opinion section, my distaste for this piece is in the lack of clarity, the meandering way of dealing with the topic, and the obvious disdain with which Socrates treats rhetoric all while using it to make his own argument. The hypocritical behavior of the main character in the dialogue irritated me throughout no matter how beautifully his questions were framed and worded.
One other major issue I had was with the idealism (in the shape of forms, as mentioned earlier) that holds rhetoric to an impossible standard. Socrates states it is only ever acceptable when employed by men who are never unjust, uneducated, or unwise. How anyone can ever be these things in every case I am unsure since I have never met such a man. It is little wonder that Socrates scoffed at the use of rhetoric if these are the only people who can use it. Beyond that, he sets up an extreme view of rhetoric and the other side’s arguments and then knocks that down. In a way, he can be accused of avoiding the answer to the question just as much as he accused Polus of it in the discourse of Georgias. It doesn’t mean he never has any good points, but the straw man arguments and the impossible standards overshadowed them for me and drove me crazy throughout the entirety of the piece.
Conclusion
On the whole, the piece is worth the read if for no other reason than to see various classical forms of argumentation and reasoning in play. If you want to understand some of the earliest arguments for and against rhetoric, this is a decent place to make a start. It isn’t the easiest to understand in all cases, unfortunately, but if you’re looking for the back and forth between different viewpoints on the subject, you’ll find it here. It’s also one of the few places you can find reproductions of the viewpoints held by some of the early rhetoricians since most of the writings of these individuals never survived.
