First Reading from Gorgias

Here is some discussion of the first reading from Gorgias.


Socrates’ argument against Gorgias:
"When there’s a public meeting in Athens to elect a doctor or a shipwright or any other professional, the purpose of the meeting is obviously to choose the person with the greatest expertise for each post, so it’s not going to be a rhetorician who advises then under these circumstances, is it? They’re not going to use rhetoricians to advise them when there are fortifications to be built or harbours or dockyards to be constructed: they’ll use master builders.”
Gorgias’ argument against Socrates:
“You don’t know the half of it, Socrates! Almost every accomplishment falls within the scope of rhetoric. I’ve for good evidence of this. Often in the past, when I’ve gone with my brother or some other doctor to one of their patients who was refusing to take his medicine or to let the doctor operate on him or cauterize him, the doctor proved incapable of persuading the patient to accept his treatment, but I succeeded, even though I didn’t have any other expertise to draw on except rhetoric.”
My comments:
Socrates bases his entire discussion with Gorgias on the question of relevance of rhetoric. This passage describes this lack of understanding well. Socrates is asking how necessary rhetoric can be when there seems to be no expertise involved in regards to situations in which expertise is of great use. In response, Gorgias claims that the relevance of rhetoric is made obvious when those with the expertise are unable to convince people of their opinions, a task easily accomplished by those well versed in rhetoric.

Socrates’ argument against Polus:
“Well, in my opinion, it doesn’t involve expertise; all you need is a mind which is good at guessing, some courage, and a natural talent for interacting, with people. The general term I use to refer to it is ‘flattery’, and this strikes me as a multi-faceted activity, one of whose branches is cookery. And what I’m saying about cookery is that it does seem to be a branch of expertise, but in fact isn’t; it’s a knack, acquired by habituation.”
Polus’ argument against Socrates:
“Rhetoricians are the most powerful members of their communities, aren’t they? Don’t they resemble dictators in that they can execute anyone they want, and confiscate a person’s property and then banish that person from their community if it seems best? As if you wouldn’t prefer to be able to do whatever you felt like doing in your community rather than the opposite, Socrates! You make it sound as though the sight of someone executing people when he thinks it’s best, or confiscating their property, or throwing them into prison, doesn’t make you envious.”
My comments:
Once again Socrates is questioning the idea of rhetoric involving expertise. Socrates claims that rhetoric is instead about making people feel good (flattery) about the issues of which you are trying to persuade them, thus encouraging them to go along with your ways of thinking. Polus replies with the claim that the ability to convince anyone of anything makes rhetoricians more powerful than any other professional.