Analysis of the Gorgias

This dialogue can be seen as Plato's defense of the life of Socrates. In it he argues that THE LIFE OF SOCRATES was both JUST and BEST (it was a good life and this is the best kind of life for us to live). This life is placed in sharp contrast with the life of the tyrant Archelaus (who, while living a "bad" life, appeared to many to also live a successful and happy life). The argument is developed out of the seemingly innocuous topic of Rhetoric. (The full text of the Gorgias can be found at the ILTclassics site.)

Part I Socrates vs. Gorgias (447a-461a)

RHETORIC is the ART of using LANGUAGE to SWAY MEN'S SOULS (453a).

The nature of the persuasion produced is OPINION, not knowledge (454b - 455a).

Gorgias feels this ability to persuade is of the HIGHEST IMPORTANCE and GREATEST VALUE (cf. 452a-d, 456a-b).

Part II Socrates vs. Polus (461b-481b)

Rhetoric is the most important art. Why? Because by using language the speaker can please the crowd and get their support. Support for what? At bottom, support for WHAT ONE WANTS.

And "what one wants" -- according to Polus (and Callicles) -- is POWER and PLEASURE.

Thus Rhetoric is an indispensable tool for securing the ideal life of UNLIMITED POWER and UNBRIDLED PLEASURE.

And all people (openly or secretly) agree that this is THE BEST KIND OF LIFE.

The Tyrant Archelaus: In 399 BCE, the same year that Socrates died, a tyrant named Archelaus was killed by a boyfriend while on a hunting trip. The LIFE of Archelaus appeared to embody the ideal of unlimited power and unbridled pleasure. It would have been considered, secretly or openly, as the BEST kind of life that a person could achieve, even thought it involved much wrong-doing (such as murder and lies).

But Socrates counters that if Archelaus' life (470c) involved INJUSTICE, then it was NOT a truly happy life (no matter how it might appear to the many).

Socrates' Arguments:

Soc: Rhetoric is "a branch of politics dealing with flattery." It is foul and ugly.

Polus: But those who possess this art are powerful and they can do what they see fit...

Soc: They are not really powerful and they do not do what they may wish (though, like Achelaus, they do what they seem to see as fit).

Under this exchange are two positions:

It is better to suffer wrong than to do wrong (473a- 475e)

Polus: Suffering wrong is worse than doing wrong...

Soc: But you agree that doing wrong is "uglier" than suffering wrong.

And what makes an unjust act "ugly" is that the action is "bad" (i.e., ethically wrong). Thus "doing wrong" is WORSE THAN "suffering wrong" (it is "more evil" than suffering wrong). [Note the distinction between the "bad" and the "painful" that is implicitly drawn here.]

Therefore, all must agree (despite initial opinions) that "it is better to suffer wrong than to do wrong."

The unjust man is less unhappy if he is punished than if he escapes and thrives (476a-49e)

If an act partakes of justice, it is beautiful (and good) He who pays a just penalty receives what is just (not in his body, but in his "soul")

Hence what he receives is beautiful and good -- not in the sense of being pleasurable to the body, but in the sense of being beneficial to the "soul." How so? -- He is relieved from the "badness of the soul" (and this is the greatest of evils for the soul).

By not "paying the penalty" one has not been purged from the "sickness of the soul" (just as one who has not undergone painful medical treatments persists in the disease of the body).

Therefore, someone who is "justly punished" is BETTER OFF than someone who "escapes just punishment."

Conclusion: If this be the case, then the life of Archelaus is the WORST LIFE [he did wrong and he escaped punishment] (478e-479a) -- and rhetoric is only useful to the likes of him (those who wish to commit crimes and escape punishment (c. 480)) -- it is of no use to the just man (481b)

Part III Socrates vs. Callicles (481c-527e)

Nature and Convention: Callicles is not convinced that "doing wrong is worse than suffering wrong"

He draws a DISTINCTION between NATURE and CONVENTION: By nature everything is fouler that is more evil -- such as suffering wrong; but "doing wrong" is fouler only by convention (483a).

The strong, who follow nature -- and have no fear of "convention" -- have no problem doing wrong (for Might is Right as the example of Xeres shows) (483e). The stronger have a natural right to rule over the weak and inferior (and if they "do wrong," so be it -- it is their right; it is a "natural justice") (484a - c).

This is the truth of the matter and great leaders know this. You would be best, Socrates, to put off Philosophy (which is fine for one's youth) and take up Rhetoric and the Life of a Politician (cf 500c).

The Good and the Pleasurable

Callicles EQUATES the GOOD and PLEASURABLE; Socrates wishes to DISTINGUISH the GOOD from the PLEASURABLE.

For Callicles, the Good is THE SAME AS the Pleasurable.

For Socrates, the Good is DIFFERENT FROM the Pleasurable.

First cut: If a person feels pleasure scratching his head, is the life of head-scratching the same as a good life? If a tyrant feels pleasure from raping and murdering, are his actions good?

First formal argument:

1. If Kathy is good, Kathy is good because of the goodness in her.
2. If Sharon is evil, Sharon is evil because of the evil in her.
3. Kathy can be pained and still be good, so Goodness and Pain can go together.
4. Sharon can be pleased and still be evil, so Evil and Pleasure can go together.
5. But Evil and Goodness cannot go together.
6. Therefore, Evil and Goodness ARE NOT THE SAME AS Pain and Pleasure.

(How would this read by inserting Socrates and Archelaus?)

Second formal argument:

1. There is such a thing as "bad pleasure."
2. There is no such thing as "bad goodness."
3. Therefore, Pleasure IS NOT THE SAME AS Goodness.

Epilogue: The Mythos of Judgment (523a-527e)

At the end of the dialogue, Socrates tells a 'story' about the Homeric description of the passage into the Isles of the Blest and the dark realm of Tartarus. In this passage people are judged not by their 'outside appearance' but on the nature of their 'soul.' Plato seems to use this story to persuade those who may not have followed the previous argument. The story shows that the philosopher Socrates rather than the tyrant Archelaus has truly lived the best life -- and precisely because that life was a just and good life. Does it appear here that Plato is demonstrating a positive aspect of rhetoric -- its use in a just cause?