Gorgias and Socrates dialogue approached a lot of concepts that I had never really though about before. Such as, the differences between knowing and believing and the various different convictions it can possess. In this portion of the reading Gorgias and Socrates separate the idea of persuasion from teaching. This portion seemed a bit contradicting to me because, they are claiming that oratory, engenders belief without knowledge. Yet to me I feel there is knowledge in everything and while I do agree there is a difference in the two, I find it difficult to separate them as Gorgias and Socrates do.
When Gogias explains the control Oratory has on the human sphere he mentions, "Just because a man has acquired such skills in boxing or all- in wrestling or armed combat that he can beat anyone." Immediately after reading this I thought back to our class discussion on Kairos and how there is a time and place for everything. Whereas opportunity might present itself in the gym to punch someone, the same opportunity to punch someone is probably not going to happen in your household.
Another, component of Gorgias and Socrates argument I had a problem with was, the discussion on a man who has learned right from wrong will always be righteous. In regards to their conversation leading up to it about a man who studies medicine will become a doctor, it makes sense. However, when applied to the real world it doesn't make sense, if it did then our crime rate would be much lower.
Gorgias also makes the claim that you can't blame the teacher who taught the skills but rather the blame has to be put on the person who learned and used the skills. Do you guys agree that the teacher has no blame for actions involving their teachings?
Political power and the power orators possess gets discussed heavily in the reading as well. When it comes to the topic of power, it seems as though Socrates and Polus get very sassy and defensive on their positions. Socrates seems to think orators are pandering. Therefore, essentially he is calling himself a panderer, although he would never have admitted that. Is Socrates being a hypocrite during is debate with Polus regarding the power or orators?
The reading also discusses heavily this notion everyone posses regarding, the lesser and greater evil of things. Is it ok to steal a fish to feed your family? vs is sealing ok? Its this constant debate in society of morality vs. ethics. A particular part in the reading this idea was brought up was, Socrates and Polus debate about, one of two shameful things is the more shameful.
This week's reading was filled with many interesting components but, the above is what stood out to me most!
Hi, Claire!
ReplyDeleteDuring the argument between Socrates and Callicles, Callicles argued that it is good for the superior (individual who is stronger and more powerful) to rule over the inferior. But Socrates argued that majority are stronger than individual (because they are larger in number), thus it should be majority to rule over individual. Then Callicles clarified what he meant by the stronger is wiser and more intelligent individual. Socrates realized that Callicles has changed the definition he gave for the stronger from the definition he gave early on; by the inconsistency in Callicles’s argument and Callicles’ inpatient attitude when facing refutation, Socrates concluded that Callicle was just as foolish as Gorgias and Polus were. Socrates then continued to argue against Callicles by defining what is ‘Good’. Socrates said what Callicles meant by good in fact is not the real good (or the right) but the so called satisfaction of desires; good, however, is not equivalent to pleasure but more close to right and happiness. Socrates said one who is content with what he has is happier than one who continues to seek for new pleasure, thus hold more ‘good’ than the latter does. During the second half of Socrates and Callicles’ conversation, the two people talked about ‘how a person should live; Socrates said that there is a difference between what is good for the soul of the citizens(all people; majority) and what is good for oneself.
After reading your post, I realize that both Gorgias and Callicles’ ideas and argument can show that they are selfish in some degree. As you said, Gorgias believed that if one did anything bad with certain skill, he or she cannot blame the teachers who taught the skills. In this idea, Gorgias seem didn’t care about the victims of the misuse; this ideas favors those who have the skills. In my view, I honestly think that teachers are responsible for their students’ doing. If teachers didn’t teach the student, student will not be able to use what they were taught to do the wrong things.
Callicles’ idea too expresses selfishness. Callicles said it is right for the powerful people to dominate the weak. In this idea, he didn’t care about the inferiors either; he just believed that it is good for one to have power over the other, but just because you are superior(stronger, or more clever) than others doesn’t mean you should get more credits, nor does it mean it is right for you to rule over the inferior. If one acts superior than the other, then the society will tend to have social inequality.
-Anjie Zhao
I also found it interesting when Gorgias’ makes the claim that the teacher who has taught the skill can share no blame of how the student uses the skill. Thinking about this time period and how dangerous “new ideas” we perceived. I can see Gorgias’ point in the sense of self preservation. If he taught a student and that student gets put on trial for various reasons, I can understand why he would want to be seen as the blameless teacher. But if the teacher and student shared the same views and only the student was blamed and the teacher was seen as blameless this would be ethically wrong. I enjoyed reading your post!
ReplyDeleteYou pointed out several ideas based on good and wrong and whether a person is held responsible for teaching a skill. To answer your question, I think to a certain extent the wrongdoer is held accountable, and in most cases this can't even be argued. However, an orator has the ability to persuade people to believe certain things are right-- and I think in these sort of instances they should be held accountable. This falls directly into Socrates and Callicles' discussion about good and right meaning powerful, wise, noble, etc. At first Callicles makes the argument that they are all the same-- a man who is more powerful mentally and physically and who owns more land is also wiser and nobler; that he is right and good. He puts no distinction between these traits. It brings to mind the idea that while powerful people have more listeners, it doesn't mean they are conveying morally right opinions to these listeners. For example, a deceptive politician or dictator influences the masses to do terrible things, and while the masses are held accountable, their main leader is the one who holds the most responsibility. Furthermore, it can be concluded that power is definitely not considered a morally good trait if not used correctly. Through Socrates' questioning, he is implying that there is a difference between the two.
ReplyDelete