Gorgias Socrates on Persuation: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Introduction to Philosophy / Factual Issues / Books » Gorgias Socrates on Persuation » Gorgias Socrates on Persuation

Gorgias Socrates on Persuation

Gorgias Socrates on Persuation

RamseyKN
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 28, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 2

Posted 02/28/09 - 10:46 AM: Subject: Gorgias Socrates on Persuation	#1
I am having a bit of trouble trying to understand how to answer this question given to me. First, is it a question, or is a problem required to answer? In Plato's Gorgias, I see it as asking, 'why does Socrates think oratory is a bad thing?' Evidence being that it allows the orator to make people believe and do what that person wants them to do. Saying therefore, is it morally right? However, it then says, isn't that the point of all conversations? Contradicting itself? Do I give a balanced answer giving evidence for both or is the point of a philosophy paper to give your reasons and interpretation on an 'issue'? In the Gorgias, Socrates notes that “oratory is a producer of persuasion” [453a]. Why does he think of this as an indictment against oratory ? Isn’t the attempt to persuade a legitimate aim of anyone engaged in conversation ? Edited by Caldwell on 06/22/09 - 01:11 AM

timw
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 14, 2008

Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 451

Posted 02/28/09 - 11:18 AM:	#2
You've got a reading problem, er, oops, I mean you have a problem in that you've got some directed reading to do. Persuasion concerns that which can be this way or that, either-or. Not certain classes of ideas that can only be one way, like 2+2=4. This sounds like an easy distinction, in fact it is a very large and significant distinction. And I believe that in the dialog you're reading, Gorgias attempts to hold the positino that the most persuasive speaker on a topic is he who knows least about it, but is rather the master of persuasion itself. All this is significant with respect to the history of the age, and the change at that time from orality to writing. From a non-critical and naive modern standpoint, the dialogs may seem merely quaint, but in fact theyr'e substantive. Think about it: they're almost 2500 years young! There must be somthing to them. Your job is to start to find out what.

RamseyKN
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 28, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 2

Posted 02/28/09 - 03:43 PM:	#3
From reading Gorgias 447-466, it seems the general thesis is that a Rhetorics aim is to tell the truth and convey this in the most convincing way, however, it can used unjustly. For example, in politics rhetoric is used in a bad way; it bends the truth in areas so the audience believed whatever the rhetorician wants them to believe. What other issues however could be dicussed apart from the use of rhetoric in an unjust way?

kar
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 25, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 6

Posted 03/01/09 - 12:01 PM:	#4
Of course communication is beneficial and neccesary to mutual understanding but its efficiency in conversation depends on both the attitude of the speaker and listener. Any hidden agenda or bias on the side of the speaker isn´t so obvious when ideas are expressed using rhetoric. If the listener is critical then he will see the facts but if not then he can be tooled into accepting any idea that is wrapped in the proper rhetoric.

Chops
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2005

Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 1129

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 03/01/09 - 01:53 PM:	#5
RamseyKN wrote: I am having a bit of trouble trying to understand how to ansewr this question given to me. First, is it a question, or is a problem required to answer? I see it to ask, in Plato's Gorgias, why does socrates think oratory is a bad thing? Evidence being that it allows the orator to make people belief and do what that person wants them to do. Saying therefore, is it morally right? However, it then says, isn't that the point of all conversations? Contradicting itself? Do i give a balanced answer giving evidence for both or is the point of a philosophy paper to give your reasons and interpretation on an 'issue'? In the Gorgias, Socrates notes that “oratory is a producer of persuasion” [453a]. Why does he think of this as an indictment against oratory ? Isn’t the attempt to persuade a legitimate aim of anyone engaged in conversation ? Oratory is a tool to be used. Perhaps you should look more carefully at what it is that Socrates claims oratory should be used for. In particular, look at the example of "cookery" (sometimes translated "pastry making") and medicine in the text. It is a lovely little metaphor and I think it will answer your question quite nicely. And a word to the wise from someone who learned the hard way: A hermeneutically sensitive reading of Platonic dialogues is often assisted by an understanding of Socrates' interlocutors. Compendiums of pre-socratic philosophy can be a good place to start (a number of Gorgias' writings, and telling references to them, in fact survive and would have been known to the auditors of Plato's dialogues). And Nails' "The People of Plato" is a fantastic reference on the subject of the people featured in all of Plato's writings. If you can find a copy in your school's library, I would urge you to familiarize yourself with it. A link to the book in question follows: http://www.amazon.com/People-Plato...ooks&qid=1235944221&sr=8-1 Happy reading!

coriolis
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 36

Posted 06/21/09 - 03:37 PM:	#6
I'm assuming that the original question was due to a Philosophy assignment - No? Hopefully the due date for this assignment is now past. I'm relatively new here myself, but I imagine that the prevailing thinking on this board is that people can't come here and get their homework done for them. Anyway I just finished reading Gorgias and did a search to see if there's any commentary on it on the board. That's how I found this topic. There's a big difference between reading something to satisfy an assignment, and reading it for pleasure, taking your time, and savoring it! I also found some commentary somewhere else. Socrates exposes rhetoric as a way to gain power and influence people - not as a way to seek truth. He shows that the rhetorician need not even have any expertise in the subject under consideration. He shows that rhetoric is a way to flatter people rather than to improve them. He gets Gorgias to admit that the teacher of rhetoric is not concerned about the morality of his students. Early in the dialogs Gorgias shirks any responsibility for the actions of his students after he teaches them. The teachers of rhetoric are mainly concerned about building a reputation, teaching to make money, and then living well. Socrates compares this to philosophy where the students rather than the teachers are enriched.
I have a love affair with Socrates but I only know him in a Platonic way.

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.