Gorgias

Gorgias is an interesting glimpse into the views that Plato held on rhetoric, philosophy, and the public sphere. I was not fond of the overabundance of words and circumlocution used by many of the characters, including Socrates himself. However, I did appreciate the sarcasm and Plato’s masterful use of language to show it. Writers, if you’re looking for an example of how to do sarcasm well, may I suggest you read this piece? Plato did it well. That said, overall, I came away with a sense of distaste for the somewhat meandering method of dealing with the topic that Plato uses and for Socrates himself, since despite all of his denouncements on rhetoric, he himself uses it to argue why philosophy is best and no relation at all to Gorgias’s art of rhetoric. It was an interesting read that I would recommend to those wanting to understand Plato’s philosophy and how he thought, but be warned that you’re going to have to slog through a lot to really get the information. Rather than laying it out in succinct, clear fashion, Plato spends a lot of time discussing topics that are loosely related. The conversation is more organic than Aristotle’s discussion of rhetoric because it simulates the way that debates very often, in non-formal spheres, wander to other questions that the opposition will not move on without having answered. But that means it is difficult as a result to get through the whole thing and keep in your head what bits and pieces you have gleaned from earlier parts regarding his rhetorical and philosophical views.

I recommend a notebook and pen or a highlighter as you go through the piece to allow you to jot down or highlight sections that relate to the viewpoints you are studying so you don’t become lost in all the other related but less cohesive parts of the discussion. You will also need to be prepared for many statements that contradict each other, plenty of professions from Socrates that he is only seeking the truth despite a tone that indicates he believes he already knows it, and a somewhat superior tone in sections from Socrates when dealing with the more enthusiastic characters in the debate. At points, these can provide great amusement, I think, but at others they grate. Furthermore, you should understand that Plato focused on ideals (sometimes called forms) and not necessarily on reality, so Socrates frequently argues from a mystical, unachievable ideal (such as when he states that a just man will never behave unjustly) as opposed to a more logical, reality-based viewpoint. This was something I found entirely obnoxious and frustrating because he never admits that it is an ideal and always treats it as a fact or universal reality, which it rarely is. Some readers may not find this as absolutely grating as I did, but others will. On the whole, the piece is worth the read if for no other reason than to see various classical forms of argumentation and reasoning in play.