Gorgias by Plato focuses on the nature of rhetoric, art, power, and good versus evil. The dialogue begins with Socrates and Chaerephon by asking Gorgias some questions about the nature of his art, and what he professes and teaches. Then, Polus comes in and exploited his actions by being arrogant. But as soon as Chaerephon ask him questions Polus does not fully answer the questions he was being asked. Then Socrates asks Gorgias and mentioned Polus that for him rhetoric is an art. Gorgias agrees and professes that he can make other men rhetorician, not only in Athens but in all places.
The text moves on and talks about power. Gorgias definition of power is all about persuasion and persuade men of what he teaches. The art of persuasion in courts of law and other assemblies has been the just and unjust and later revealed that learning and believing are different. Finally, Socrates expresses more about his own views about rhetoric in the last couple pages of the dialogue. He describes that rhetoric is more about the experience rather than art. Also, Socrates and Polus argue about power. Socrates perspective about power should only be indeed to be good.
But Polus disagrees and that power is whatever seems good to you in a state, killing, banishing, doing in all things you like. At the end, Socrates beliefs did not change and will remain the same. The text speculates to be a good rhetoric they need plenty amount of experience which develops proper knowledge and good morals that will hold its contemporary society. Contemporary society needs a constant collective learning to keep the actions going. Socrates mentions that to be a good rhetorician you must convey knowledge not the appearance of truth.
Socrates asks a lot of questions to Gorgias, but we learned that he is not really answering the question at all. According to Gorgias, he referred rhetoric as an ‘art’ and generally art is concerned with doing and require little or no speaking (Plato 83). But rhetoric requires speaking. Even though Gorgias practices rhetoric, he was not very convincing when answering questions made by Socrates. He gave short answers and Socrates does not fully understand him. Unlike Socrates, he gives out examples and detailed explanations of what he believed was right.
At that point, the long explanation remains useful in the author’s ideas because it gives us a good sense of what he really what’s to talk about. He also backups his arguments to convince us that he was right all along. Since he did not accept rhetoric as an art, but he was practicing this ‘art’ while asking Gorgias questions. He was trying to convince the three speakers that rhetoric was rather an experience rather than an ‘art because experience produces a sort of delight and gratification. Having some sort of an experience makes one person be better they can also learn from others which produce more ideas.
During the whole argument, it concludes that art and experience differ from each other and rhetoric is more about the experience rather than art. Now that a contemporary society has the knowledge they need to consider the difference between familiarity and persuasion. In the dialogue, to be a good rhetoric one must know that having learned and having believed is the not the same thing. Gorgias and Socrates assume two sorts of persuasion having to believe without the knowledge and belief with knowledge (139). Gorgias compared rhetoricians as the advisers and the men who win their point. Which speaks persuasively.
Yet one must consider what is the right and what is wrong with a good background of knowledge. If people kept on believing without the knowledge because of persuasion, then they wouldn’t create any type of ideas and original works since they are relying on believing rather than experiencing and learning it. In every contemporary society, there are issues facing every citizen in their own terms. The dialogue talks about power and morality. In Socrates perspective rhetoricians and tyrants have the least power (281). Since they do nothing, but only what they think best. Polus thinks that this is considered to be in great power.
What Polus does not understand is that power is only indeed to be good. Yet Polus does not want to change his beliefs. Socrates concludes that there is a fine line between good and evil. That being gentle and good are the ones who are happy and the ones who do evil live miserably. In this case, I agree with Socrates because it is not about satisfying your own will but rather for the people’s own sake of happiest. Also, in a contemporary society the ones who help out and give out the most will result in creating stronger communities and happier society for everyone to live in.
Since helping one another will truly make you happy and feel good inside. Yet, Polus thinks that the ones who do bad things shouldn’t be punished and should live happily. In this case, this is not possible in a contemporary society because if a person commits a crime he or she will go to jail and face the consequences. Sometimes what you desire aren’t the best, but Polus describes power as a way of doing things you like whether that’s killing. In my opinion, Polus needs a little more practice with rhetoric because as Plato describes true rhetoric, it is only done for the sake of good.
Socrates believed that no matter what the price was, total honesty and truth was the only choice in order for one to live a happy, fulfilling life. That doing wrong is evil than suffering wrong, that rhetoric should only be used for the sake of the good and that every wrongdoer should be justly punished. Comparing it with justice and injustice. Which creates beliefs, but has no instructions. To be justice you must learn, do what you are supposed to do, desire what you please but will never consent to do injustice.
Rhetorician has been always about justice. In the end, good morals make every person’s life happy and changing the structure of one’s community for the better. Overall, Plato’s ideas are very similar in today’s society such as our actions and the experiences we go through. From Gorgias, we learned that it examines various attitudes towards rhetoric. Gorgias who belongs to a group that will strongly support what he believes in and will never say bad things, while Socrates, who illustrates, through careful investigation, touches upon a low conclusion of it.
From Polus, he thinks that the unjust can use rhetoric to be a type of pleasure whether that’s considered good or evil. Many would reject these types of actions, however, many would also consider his views since many people have different perspectives. But with opposing views made by Gorgias and Socrates, it creates attention. Most would agree that rhetoric is not about the craftsmanship that Gorgias depicts it to be, however with him, we see its viability as a tool of persuasion.
Socrates does not agree with Gorgias but advises us that knowing the difference between justice and injustice our actic might be moral and our lives happy. Yet, in my opinion, to adapt rhetoric further it is also a part of human behavior. Since rhetoric is neither formal craftsmanship of persuasion used by trained professionals nor producing pleasure and gratification. We all figure out how to utilize rhetoric to some level of capability to make others hear us and persuade them to our perspective.
