At first glance, Plato’s Socratic dialogue Gorgias seems superficially concerned with defining oratory in its core. However, the debate between Socrates and the sophists breaches into matters of the common good, the corruption of evil, and justice. Socrates, being a one who is devoted to philosophy, raises a standard on these subjects and must effectively uphold them against barrages of questions from sophists whose view may be skewed by position or previous party affiliation. By agonistically analyzing the good of oratory, Plato successfully divorces and defends what is truly good from what is seemingly good and applies this separation of goods to justice and back to the “knack” of oratory.
During his criticism of oratory, Socrates draws …show more content…
With Polus comparing the orator’s political might to that of a tyrant, Socrates quickly philosophizes that such a tyrant is actually less happy than those who suffer unjustly under him. Socrates defends his position in bringing young Polus to realize that unjust acts bring shame to the person committing such acts. He then gets Polus to concede that shameful acts consist of pain and/or evil by arguing the contrast of admirable acts being pleasurable and/or beneficial. Upon this, Socrates then lays the two scenarios of suffering injustice, which brings pain to those suffering, and that of acting unjustly, which is more shameful in the act as it is more evil than unjust suffering. He then points out injustice as a corruption of the soul, much like poverty and disease are to financial and bodily well-being, further exemplifying the evil of unjust actions to the point of calling it the greatest evil. Socrates does, however, offer a philosophical remedy to a corrupt soul, much like one can remedy poverty and disease through financial management and medicine. In paying what’s due through judgment after one’s unjust actions is a way of ridding oneself from the corruption. Therefore, one who avoids reconciliation is committing an even greater evil by not attempting to purge themselves of the corruption in their soul for fear of the painful …show more content…
The accountability of a craft is what allows the craft to be good and beneficial, as shown with the contrast between medicine and pastry baking. Gorgias, while being interrogated by Socrates, admits that one learning oratory may speak on a subject without being knowledgeable on said subject, allowing them to “slight common good for the sake of their own private good” (502e). However, Socrates also points out the possibility of using oratory as good as possible to say what is best with no thought towards public perception but rather towards getting the citizens to be as good as possible. In drawing contrast within oratory, as well as other subjects of conversation, and applying them to relatable situations, Socrates successfully defines and defends what is logically
During his criticism of oratory, Socrates draws …show more content…
With Polus comparing the orator’s political might to that of a tyrant, Socrates quickly philosophizes that such a tyrant is actually less happy than those who suffer unjustly under him. Socrates defends his position in bringing young Polus to realize that unjust acts bring shame to the person committing such acts. He then gets Polus to concede that shameful acts consist of pain and/or evil by arguing the contrast of admirable acts being pleasurable and/or beneficial. Upon this, Socrates then lays the two scenarios of suffering injustice, which brings pain to those suffering, and that of acting unjustly, which is more shameful in the act as it is more evil than unjust suffering. He then points out injustice as a corruption of the soul, much like poverty and disease are to financial and bodily well-being, further exemplifying the evil of unjust actions to the point of calling it the greatest evil. Socrates does, however, offer a philosophical remedy to a corrupt soul, much like one can remedy poverty and disease through financial management and medicine. In paying what’s due through judgment after one’s unjust actions is a way of ridding oneself from the corruption. Therefore, one who avoids reconciliation is committing an even greater evil by not attempting to purge themselves of the corruption in their soul for fear of the painful …show more content…
The accountability of a craft is what allows the craft to be good and beneficial, as shown with the contrast between medicine and pastry baking. Gorgias, while being interrogated by Socrates, admits that one learning oratory may speak on a subject without being knowledgeable on said subject, allowing them to “slight common good for the sake of their own private good” (502e). However, Socrates also points out the possibility of using oratory as good as possible to say what is best with no thought towards public perception but rather towards getting the citizens to be as good as possible. In drawing contrast within oratory, as well as other subjects of conversation, and applying them to relatable situations, Socrates successfully defines and defends what is logically