In the play Gorgias, written by Plato, Socrates tries to devise different aspects of the morality of man. These include things such as discovering if rhetoric is an art, or discussing whether humans can have power without having a general knowledge of what “good” is. This occurs during the conversation that he has with Polus, one of his followers. The art of thinking deeper and discovering rhetoric through these conversations about good and the lives we live is, what determines virtue and morality within the world. Throughout this essay, it will be determined that humans must understand what good is to do good or bad.
Doing v. Receiving Injustice: One of the first questions addressed in the speech to Polus would be whether it is better to …show more content…
This can relate back to a tyrant; can he be a glorious ruler if he rules unjustly over his people? One can argue no, as he would not have the love of his people and therefore would not be looked highly upon by the rest. This appears not only in the section of conversation with Polus, but also later in the play when arguing with Callicles. Once again mentioned is that of the man who suffers his own health to help others. This man would be glorious as the others would think of him as such through doing good. One cannot claim glory by himself, and therefore needs the correct opinion by others to do so …show more content…
Socrates makes the argument that it is impossible for rhetoric to be used for anything other than injustice. He states that, “. . . when it does injustice, rhetoric will be of no use to us. . .” (480c). The argument is made that rhetoric is the art of convincing a group of people to follow one’s viewpoint on matters. It is a way to create a following of injustice and to convince those against something that would otherwise be thought of as just. As this is the case it is used to change a person’s opinion. If a person already has a moral view on things, then what would be the point in convincing that purpose? This is the point that Socrates is attempting to make in this section of the conversation with
Doing v. Receiving Injustice: One of the first questions addressed in the speech to Polus would be whether it is better to …show more content…
This can relate back to a tyrant; can he be a glorious ruler if he rules unjustly over his people? One can argue no, as he would not have the love of his people and therefore would not be looked highly upon by the rest. This appears not only in the section of conversation with Polus, but also later in the play when arguing with Callicles. Once again mentioned is that of the man who suffers his own health to help others. This man would be glorious as the others would think of him as such through doing good. One cannot claim glory by himself, and therefore needs the correct opinion by others to do so …show more content…
Socrates makes the argument that it is impossible for rhetoric to be used for anything other than injustice. He states that, “. . . when it does injustice, rhetoric will be of no use to us. . .” (480c). The argument is made that rhetoric is the art of convincing a group of people to follow one’s viewpoint on matters. It is a way to create a following of injustice and to convince those against something that would otherwise be thought of as just. As this is the case it is used to change a person’s opinion. If a person already has a moral view on things, then what would be the point in convincing that purpose? This is the point that Socrates is attempting to make in this section of the conversation with