When Socrates is talking about persuasion and knowledge (454 d-e), Socrates asks a series of questions related to true and false conviction and knowledge. In line 454 d, Socrates asks Gorgias if there is true or false conviction. Naturally, Gorgias answers that he believes there is. In the same line, Socrates asks Gorgias if there is such a thing as true and false knowledge. It is here that Gorgias answers “no” to that question. Socrates finds the contradiction that he is looking for to prove his point of whether or not what an orator says, is simply attempting to persuade without the proper knowledge and without the intention of truly teaching.
It seems that this point becomes evident in section (455 a), when Socrates claims within his example of justice system, that an orator isn’t teaching the public in order to persuade them; the orator is solely using methods of persuasion in order to gain conviction. Socrates attempts to credit his initial point of which he is trying to make obvious to Gorgias, by speaking of specialty crafts and expertise mentioned during section
…show more content…
(455 b-e). Socrates makes a point to say that each craft has someone who holds a great level of knowledge about his or her craft. For example, a doctor holds a level of expertise knowledge about medicine and health. Gorgias exclaims that an orator must know how to appeal to the audience in a way that proves their knowledge to be more valuable than that of the doctor. This point plays back into the original premise and idea that Socrates seems to be trying to reveal that oratory is an act of persuasion with the intent of conviction, rather than the act of true knowledge and teaching for the point of just conviction. In section (460 a-e) it seems that Gorgias displays a contradiction when attempting to rebuttal Socrates’s argument about crafts and the level of expertise that they require. Gorgias exclaims that he can teach others the knowledge that they do not know, however, Socrates finds the contradiction in this line. Socrates begins to dig back into the idea of what is just and unjust when it comes to oratory. It can be interpreted that Socrates is trying to get Gorgias to see that by speaking for solely persuasion leading to conviction is not just, as in it’s morally unjust due to the lack of genuine knowledge that is involved. Socrates refers back to section (459 d-e) while speaking during section (460 d-e) about an example of students who learn from just teachers in a particular craft that use those acquired skills in an unjust manner. In essence it seems to play back into the idea that teaching for the sake of persuasion, is unjust and therefore oratory is not a just “craft” it is more of a knack for flattery which is later discussed in section (464 c-d). Shortly after Polus enters the debate between Socrates and Gorgias, the debate takes a different turn upon Socrates’s comparison between what is admirable and not admirable and what is shameful and bad. Polus initially brings up the decisions of a tyrant or an orator in relation to the power that their positions hold. From an interpretive view, according to Polus, the desire of all people is supreme power and pleasure will come from that power. The evidence that has led to this interpretation is located in section (466 b-e) and continues throughout the discussion between Socrates and Polus. Beginning with section (466 b), Polus indirectly that both tyrants and orators alike hold great influence and power over the people. He asks Socrates whether it is true or not if they hold the greatest power. Polus attempts to explain the power that both tyrants and orators have in an example of, orators, like tyrants, having the ability to kill, steal from, or banish any of the people that they wish to. Socrates rebuttal begins in section (466d-e) with the statement that he believes tyrants and orators to have very little power due to their lack of intelligence and happiness. Socrates goes more in depth in section (467a-b) on the matter going as far as to claim that tyrants and orators don’t do what they do because they want to but because they have to do those actions for the better of the people. Polus believes that by doing what they see fit they are in fact, doing as they please. In section (467c-e) Socrates enters the second portion of his rebuttal against Polus’s standpoint. Socrates appears to be attempting to make evident the fact that people do the things they have to do, not for the sake of doing their necessary tasks but, to obtain something more, such as health or money for example. After Polus eventually agrees with Socrates, that people are not doing what they want for the sake of doing things, Socrates begins to discuss the miserable tendencies of tyrants and suffering. In sections (468a-e), Socrates begins to challenge that the people executing evil tasks are most likely miserable and are to not be envious of such people. It also seems that he is saying that holding the power to execute, steal from, or banish people is a task that is bad not only morally but for the tyrant or orator in charge. In which Polus disagrees to this statements and claims that everyone would likely take the opportunity to be in a position that holds that much power and influence over the community. Socrates believes that those people are to be pitied and he would rather be a person to suffer at the unjust hands of the person in power, which Polus denies that Socrates even believes his own statements to be true. In sum, Socrates eventually makes a full circle and comes back to the subject of just and unjust in section (480a-e). Socrates final portion of his rebuttal claims that the knack of oratory defends what is unjust through the act of persuasion without true knowledge. In section (486a), Callicles argues the important of rhetoric.
Callicles seems to be manipulating parts of Socrates’s rebuttal of whether or not rhetoric is necessary and just, more so than philosophy. While offering what seem to be kind words towards Socrates, Callicles comes off as slightly insulting when regarding Socrates’s rebuttal throughout the entire discussion. When Callicles suggests that Socrates pursuit for defending philosophy is childlike, it almost seems as though he is saying that Socrates has not real grounds for his arguments regarding rhetoric. Callicles believes that rhetoric is entirely necessary more so than philosophy, and by pressing as deeply as Socrates has about philosophy, he is simply wasting his own time. It seems as though Callicles is trying to end the discussion by simply degrading the nature of Socrates’s entire argument and life’s dedication to
Philosophy.
One would expect Socrates to win against his non-philosophical interlocutors. However, this is not the case. The more the conversations proceed, the more they are infiltrated by anger and misunderstanding, the more one is under the impression that Socrates may well silence his interlocutors but he hardly persuades them. His last interlocutor, Callicles, not only is not persuaded by him, but at one point even refuses to talk to Socrates and leaves him with the choice between abandoning the discussion altogether and performing a monologue.
Socrates a classical Greek philosopher and character of Plato’s book Phaedo, defines a philosopher as one who has the greatest desire of acquiring knowledge and does not fear death or the separation of the body from the soul but should welcome it. Even in his last days Socrates was in pursuit of knowledge, he presents theories to strengthen his argument that the soul is immortal. His attempts to argue his point can’t necessarily be considered as convincing evidence to support the existence of an immortal soul.
Two ancient examples of disobedient actions come from different ages revered for standards that hold today and provide a basis for modern law; the Greek and ancient Roman empires. From the Greeks, we have come to know the story of Socrates as memorialized by Plato, and the Roman age was the time of Perpetua, an early Christian woman. The fate of those individuals is the same – a death sentence handed down by the society they lived in. Although the conclusion of their respective lives is the same, the differences that lie in the reasoning of their death run deeper, with several key factors impacting their individual destiny. As we will see, these factors affect their relationship to the states and time periods they existed.
In “The Apology” and “Euthyphro”, Plato creates a picture of the principles Socrates has on philosophy and wisdom. Since there are know direct pieces of literature written by Socrates, all of the information about him are composed by other Philosophers who encountered him. So when I refer to Socrates, it means the character depicted by Plato. I will argue that some important characteristics of philosophy and being a philosopher is evident by comparing Socrates with Euthyphro because of how he sees knowledge is obtained combined with the impact with which religion has on society.
I believe that Socrates's arguments are a rebuttal to Pericles's Funeral Oration, and although they are both wise, only
In Walter Mosley’s Always Outnumbered, Always Outgunned, the reader is introduced to Socrates Fortlow, an ex-convict who served twenty-seven years for murder and rape. Fortlow is plagued by guilt and, seeing the chaos in his town, feels a need to improve not only his own standards of living, but also those of others in Watts. He attempts this by teaching the people in Watts the lessons he feels will resolve the many challenges the neighbourhood faces. The lessons Fortlow teaches and the methods by which he teaches them are very similar to those of the ancient Greek philosopher for whom Fortlow was named: “‘We was poor and country. My mother couldn’t afford school so she figured that if she named me after somebody smart then maybe I’d get smart’” (Mosley, 44). Though the ancient Greek was born to be a philosopher and Fortlow assumed the philosopher role as a response to the poor state of his life and Watts, both resulted in the same required instruction to their populations. The two Socrates’ both utilize a form of teaching that requires their pupil to become engaged in the lesson. They emphasize ethics, logic, and knowledge in their instruction, and place importance on epistemology and definitions because they feel a problem cannot be solved if one does not first know what it is. Socrates was essential in first introducing these concepts to the world and seemed to be born with them inherent to his being, Fortlow has learned the ideals through life experience and is a real-world application in an area that needs the teachings to get on track. While the two men bear many similarities, their differences they are attributed primarily as a result of their circumstances provide the basis of Fortlow’s importance in Watts and as a modern-...
Plato's The Apology is an account of the speech. Socrates makes at the trial in which he is charged with not recognizing the gods recognized by the state, inventing new gods, and corrupting the youth of Athens. For the most part, Socrates speaks in a very plain, conversational manner. He explains that he has no experience with the law courts and that he will instead speak in the manner to which he is accustomed with honesty and directness. Socrates then proceeds to interrogate Meletus, the man primarily responsible for bringing Socrates before the jury. He strongly attacks Meletus for wasting the court¡¦s time on such absurd charges. He then argues that if he corrupted the young he did so unknowingly since Socrates believes that one never deliberately acts wrongly. If Socrates neither did not corrupt the young nor did so unknowingly, then in both cases he should not be brought to trial. The other charge is the charge of impiety. This is when Socrates finds an inconsistency in Meletus¡¦ belief that Socrates is impious. If he didn¡¦t believe in any gods then it would be inconsistent to say that he believed in spiritual things, as gods are a form of a spiritual thing. He continues to argue against the charges, often asking and answering his own questions as if he were speaking in a conversation with one of his friends. He says that once a man has found his passion in life it would be wrong of him to take into account the risk of life or death that such a passion might involve.
Callicles comes with a hedonistic belief that pleasure is to be associated with “good” and that pain is to be associated with “bad”, which means a good life is the one full of many pleasures. To refute Callicles belief, Socrates first uses the example of health and disease to explain to Callicles that good and bad cannot happen with a person at the same time, yet pain and pleasure can happen simultaneously. To further enforce his point, Socrates uses the concept of a coward and the brave to provide another argument that pain and pleasure cannot be the deciding factors for what is a good life. In both of his arguments, I believe Socrates is successful based on my personal belief that if someone or something is result in pain, it doesn’t mean that it is bad, and that everyone, good or bad, is capable of feeling both pain an pleasure.
In Plato’s Phaedrus, Socrates encounters Phaedrus who has just come from a conversation with Lysias. Phaedrus invites Socrates to walk with him and hear what he has learned from his conversation with Lysias. The two read and discuss Lysias’ speech, and then enter into a discussion on how one can become an expert in rhetorical speaking and on whether writing is beneficial and acceptable or the contrary. Socrates’ thoughts on the subjects of rhetoric and writing will be the main points of this paper.
After Socrates had finished arguing with Gorgias in The Gorgias, he moves in to the next in line: Polus. They discuss the concepts of committing injustice over suffering injustice and the importance of punishment of the felons. Socrates say to Polus, “but in my opinion, Polus, the unjust or doer of unjust actions is miserable in any case- more miserable, however, if he is not punished and does not meet with retribution, and less miserable if he be punished and meets with retribution at the hands of gods and men” (Plato 53-54). Here Socrates declares that to do is worse than to suffer evil and if a man has done evil it is in his best interest to be punished than to be left unpunished. This is because according to his viewpoint doing injustice
Socrates was accused of being a sophist, a professional philosopher. Sophists were seen as corrupters of society and as generally bad men. Socrates says that every one of these accusations is false. He tells the Athenians a story where he asks a man who he would hire to educate his sons and how much that man's services would cost. The man replies that he would hire Evenus of Paros, and that he charges 500 drachmae. Socrates expresses his surprise that any man could be good enough to charge that much money. The man says that Evenus is the best tutor in the world. Socrates says that he does not posses the knowledge or wisdom to do anything even remotely close to what Evenus does. Socrates never charged money for his lessons, and he never really did any formal teaching. He had followers, and they claim that they learned a lot from him. But the fact is, Socrates never did any formal instruction, so he never told people what to believe. Therefore, Socrates could not have corrupted the youth with his teaching, because...
In the book, The Trial and Death of Socrates, Socrates is testing the authority method. He tests this by questioning authority. Although the priests and statesmen have no real knowledge of what they claim to know, people of Athens still do as they say because the authority of the past have imposed false knowledge that seemed true to them. The government had an impact of what they believed, and through words and actions, it helped sway people beliefs to listen to the authority regardless of their lack of knowledge.
In his defense, Socrates claims over and again that he is innocent and is not at all wise, “…for I know that I have no wisdom, small or great.” Throughout the rest of his oration he seems to act the opposite as if he is better than every man, and later he even claims that, “At any rate, the world has decided that Socrates is in some way superior to other men.” This seems to be his greatest mistake, claiming to be greater than even the jury.
In Plato’s Gorgias, Socrates discusses the nature and uses of rhetoric with Gorgias, while raising moral and philosophical perspective of rhetoric. Socrates believes that rhetoric is a kind of false knowledge whose purpose is to produce conviction, and not to educate people about the true extent of knowledge (Plato 15). On the other hand, Gorgias argues that the study of rhetoric is essential in any other professional fields, in order to provide an effective communication (Plato 19). After their discussion of rhetoric, Socrates seems to understand the true extent of rhetoric better as compared to Gorgias, as he is able to use rhetoric appeals as a device to dominate the conversation. During their discussion, Socrates seems to have use rhetorical appeals, such as ethos appeal and pathos appeal to connect and convince the crowd of audiences, and logos appeal to support his claims. His speeches seems to have shown sarcastic aspects and constantly asking questions in order to keep Gorgias busy, at the same time preparing an ambush. Since rhetoric is the art of effective communication through the form of speaking and writing, with the appropriate knowledge and virtue, it can be used for good purposes. On the other hand, rhetoric also can be used as an act of conviction because rhetorical appeals can be defined as an act of persuasion as well. Learning the true extent of rhetoric can help an individual strengthen their verbal communication skills. Socrates uses rhetorical appeals of ethos, pathos and logos appeal to win his argument against Gorgias, as he is able to get the audiences’ attention through rhetoric and cornered Gorgias into revealing the true extent of rhetoric.
Socrates challenges Protagoras if virtue is really something that can be taught and he continues to argue with Protagoras because he simply wants to understand the truth about virtue. He knows that Protagoras has the reputation as being the best and he wants to know the answer. Socrates wants to know if all parts of virtue are separate and distinct or all one and the same. As the argument progresses Protagoras does not give Socrates clear answers to his questions, and the conversation is not going where Socrates wished it would. Socrates continued to ask Protagoras questions, that was until Protagoras could no longer answer the questions, he gave up and realized that in the argument he turned into the answerer. This is probably due to the fact that Socrates wanted the answers, and who else go to for those answers than