Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
John J. Binkowski II
Professor Sebell
29 November, 2016
Plato’s The Gorgias provides us with intensive dialogue primarily between Socrates and
Callicles, with some dialogue throughout with Gorgias and his pupil Polus. I will attempt to
describe in specific what both Gorgias and his close friend Callicles have in common, as well as
their distinct differences. Both of these characters’ personalities and characteristics shine brightly
in their discussions with Socrates. Socrates does a good job at playing “devil’s advocate” even
when he isn’t even trying to. This characteristic about Socrates causes conflict with both Gorgias
and Callicles. Their conflicting views with Socrates provide colorful dialogue that is both
informative and entertaining. Gorgias claims to be someone who is a master of the profession of
oratory. Oratory can be defined as an individual who speaks in a persuasive manner to “educate”
the masses with his words. Whether true or not, the people he speaks to most often do not know
Let’s begin with the differences between Gorgias and Callicles. Firstly, Gorgias is
quicker to concede an argument with Socrates on the topic of whether oratory really promotes
justice. You could even assume that he may be afraid of confrontation altogether. When Socrates
is calling the practice of oratory a “knack” rather than a craft, Polus, Gorgias’ student comes to
his defense. You would think that since Polus is the student and Gorgias is the teacher that the
older, more mature one would defend himself and his profession in the situation of an argument.
This may be because Gorgias is trying to mask something dark about oratory and how it may
2
have the potential to promote injustice. In this instance it’s Polus that speaks out for an extended
period against Socrates’ rather harsh judgment of Gorgias’ doings and oratory itself for that
matter. When Socrates claims that oratory can give gratification to those who hear the speeches
Polus responds saying, “Don’t you think that oratory is an admirable thing then, to be able to
give gratification to people?” (462c). Socrates meant to say gratification in a different context
than Polus read into. Socrates meant to say this more sarcastically, but that’s beside the point.
The fact is that Polus is defending Gorgias’ original argument and Gorgias couldn’t do it himself
for reasons unknown to the reader. Gorgias participated in a short argument with Socrates until
he was contradicted by Socrates’ reasoning and in essence shut down from arguing further to
prevent revealing dark things about oratory that would prove Socrates to be correct. The nature
of these arguments is rather tense due to the fact that Socrates is taking aim at Gorgias’
profession. Polus also takes a considerable amount of offense from Socrates’ statements too
because he is a student of Gorgias, who is teaching him to become an orator. Earlier in the
discussion Polus points this out. “…Or do you really think, just because Gorgias was too
ashamed not to concede your further claim that the orator knows what’s just, what’s admirable,
Here Polus explains that Gorgias is too ashamed to carry the conversation further only
because he fears being contradicted again by Socrates’ complex situational dialogue. This came
off as really surprising to me that a “master” of rhetoric like Gorgias is so quick to concede to
Socrates’ rhetoric and speaking skills. Gorgias in this circumstance appears to be weak, as he is
receiving some of “his own medicine” so to speak. On the other hand, he may be restricting
himself from revealing any information he doesn’t want Socrates to know. This situation still is
ironic because a rhetor, being Gorgias is being outspoken by a non-rhetor, being Socrates and he
3
is forced into having his student Polus stand up and defend him. On the contrary, Callicles
proves to be just the opposite of Gorgias in this regard. Callicles has the same mindset as Gorgias
in regards to oratory, but the way they each handle Socrates and his contradictory set-ups is very
different. One of the reasons for this may be the fact that Gorgias is a sophist, meaning his
primary profession is speaking to crowds and thus gets paid doing so. Callicles is more of a
philosopher much like Socrates, but they have many conflicting views. The communication
between philosophers may be more colorful only for the reason that both individuals practice
philosophy making the language better flowing. Unlike Gorgias, Callicles doesn’t easily accept
Socrates’ reasoning. Callicles though may reveal information that Gorgias would not have
wanted to reveal himself, thus protecting his identity as an orator. Due to these facts of the
dialogue it may be argued that Gorgias is cleverer than Callicles due to the fact that he doesn’t go
into great detail about the practices of oratory. Still Callicles and Socrates often bash heads
throughout the text on several issues, both using in-depth dialogue in long, drawn out passages.
The two have good conversation however, for example Callicles takes a jab at Socrates for using
his own remarks against Callicles’ views saying, “By the Gods! You simply don’t let up on your
continual talk of shoemakers and cleaners, cooks and doctors, as if our discussion was about
them!” (491a). Socrates often uses off topic examples that don’t always line up with what
Callicles’ original intentions are, but in reality, Socrates’ examples offer a parallel example of
what Callicles argues in his reasoning. Socrates rather accepts a standard for certain things like
expertise, and that those who are experts in a certain field know more and could offer more than
a rhetorician that knows very little on the subject, whatever that subject may be. Socrates
describes shoemakers for example, and how the expert would have more to offer to the common
man than an orator that may know about shoe making, but doesn’t practice shoe making daily.
4
Callicles on the other hand means to describe rulers, and people of power rather than shoemakers
and common workers, but that doesn’t matter. The fact of the matter is that Callicles puts up
more of a fight than Gorgias. This too is something that Socrates reveres about Callicles. That
being Socrates’ three crucial qualities about a man: knowledge, good will, and frankness. All
three of these things are prevalent throughout Callicles’ dialogue with Socrates. Another passage
that presents Gorgias’ reservedness comes from some dialogue from Gorgias to Callicles shortly
into Callicles and Socrates’ argument. During this time of conversation between Callicles and
Socrates, Gorgias remains mostly silent in the background until Socrates seems to be winning
Callicles over. Gorgias says, “Don’t do that, Callicles! Answer him for our benefit too, so that
the discussion may be carried through.” (497b). Here Gorgias backs Callicles against Socrates
but feels no need to jump in himself. This statement proves that he would rather not get
Gorgias and Callicles are not entirely different however; they have similarities as well
that set them apart from Socrates and his ideals. It’s obvious that both Gorgias and Callicles were
contradicted by Socrates, both on different accounts. Another similarity between Gorgias and
Callicles however is how they agree with Socrates quite often even with their conflicting
viewpoints with him. On the face of each of their arguments, Socrates breaks down the situation
to them piece by piece, and both Gorgias and Callicles agree with Socrates on these individual
accounts, thus contradicting their original arguments. For example, after a long discussion
pertaining to orators Socrates says, “But now it appears that this very man, the orator, would
never have done what’s unjust, doesn’t it?” Gorgias responds, “Yes, it does.” Socrates responds
again saying, “And at the beginning of our discussion, Gorgias, it was said that oratory would be
concerned with speeches, not those about even and odd, but those about what’s just and unjust,
5
Right?” Gorgias: “Yes.” Socrates again responds, “Well, at the time you said that, I took it that
oratory would never be an unjust thing, since it always makes its speeches about justice. But
when a little later you were saying that the orator could also use oratory unjustly, I was surprised
and thought that your statements weren’t consistent.” (460e-461a). The nature of this argument
allows Socrates to ask Gorgias several questions that make sense individually, but when
connected to a greater argument, the overall stance contradicts the individual questions. When
Throughout this discussion between Gorgias and Socrates, Socrates provides numerous
situations involving non-orators that would cause them to commit injustice, even if it wasn’t
intended. Gorgias’ views on justice and what it stands for are mostly confused, as it’s unclear
what Gorgias really thinks about it. He withholds from talking about certain things which hints at
him possibly thinking injustice is in some instances just. Socrates caught Gorgias in a trap when
he asked him these questions and blindly agreed with Socrates. He may have done this because
the argument was getting long and tedious, and Gorgias was tired of arguing, or because the
information when spaced out made sense to Gorgias. In this instance Gorgias, may have said that
orators would never intend on committing unjust deeds because he himself is an orator, but what
he failed to recognize was the potential for orators to commit unjust deeds. These final ending
statements around 460-461a silenced Gorgias for some time after he realized he had contradicted
Callicles also finds himself being contradicted by Socrates by his intense questioning
process. In regards to justice, Callicles believes that might is right, and the more mighty man
should rule over the lesser man, thus proving his authority. Callicles believes these types of
situations to be just simply because that’s how things should be according to his view. Socrates
6
was at least fair in questioning both Gorgias and Callicles by asking them similar circumstantial
questions involving subject matter from their arguments. Around 495-496 Callicles claims that
the terms pleasant and good are the same. Throughout this part of the argument Socrates
constantly asks Callicles to go back and recall what they’ve agreed upon, thus giving him a
chance to retract his statements hinting that Callicles has already contradicted himself. The
argument takes a strange turn when Socrates spells out everything he’s explaining to Callicles.
After Socrates had asked Callicles a series of short questions, he wraps up this portion of the
argument by asking him a question; “Do you observe the result, that when you say a thirsty
person drinks, you’re saying that a person in pain simultaneously feels enjoyment? Or doesn’t
this happen simultaneously in the same place…?” Callicles responds saying “It is.” Socrates
comes back saying, “But you do say that it’s impossible for a person who’s doing well to be
doing badly at the same time.” Callicles: “Yes, I do.” Socrates: “Yet you did agree that it’s
possible for a person in pain to feel enjoyment.” Callicles: “Apparently.” Socrates: “So feeling
enjoyment isn’t the same as doing well, and being in pain isn’t the same as doing badly, and the
result is that what’s pleasant turns out to be different from what’s good.” (496e-497a). In regards
to justice for Socrates, he believes that everybody, regardless of social status should have access
to equal shares of everything. These conflicting views form the basis of majority of these
arguments.
At this point Callicles makes a remark acknowledging that he just contradicted himself,
but then claims that he was simply agreeing because the argument was approaching the point of
ridiculousness. Whether he said this because that’s how he felt, or if he said it because he simply
had nothing else to say we’ll never know. But the fact of the matter is the same thing happened
to Callicles as happened to Gorgias in both of their conversations with Socrates. Callicles came
7
to a point of humbling himself around 483a where he went on a rant towards Socrates, calling
him out on his ways of using tedious techniques of contradicting questions against both himself
and Gorgias. He then took a step back from his own beliefs when Socrates explained how even
the just man, the mighty man, also receives injustice in some instances. Callicles was surprised
by this, and immediately changed his view on justice and equality. In the end, neither Callicles
nor Gorgias knew what they were trying to accomplish arguing with Socrates, because both
individuals had different perspectives altogether than Socrates. Nevertheless, when Socrates
broke the parts of both Gorgias and Callicles’ arguments down, he revealed that they feel quite
differently about their stances on justice and pleasure than they did originally.
8
Reference