It's extremely hard to find Plato's opinion in the Gorgias (it's hard enough to find Socrates' opinion since he always seems to be right on the border of sarcasm and irony). I found this quote by Callicles to be a strong condemnation of democracy. What I found interesting about the quote is that where I think Plato would argue that democracy is incongruent with morality, Callicles seems to hint that morality as we know it has actually been created by the weaknesses of democracy:
"In my opinion it's the weaklings who constitute the majority of the human race who make the rules. In making these rules they look after themselves and their own interest, and that's also the criterion they use when they dispense criticism and praise."
(483 c)
The quote is interesting because until this point in the Gorgias I think the debaters have seen morality in a naturalistic or non-historic way. Socrates especially seems to see morality as something created in nature that can be examined by examples and reason instead of something that is created culturally and perhaps is contradictory or suspect- perhaps this is why all the people in Socrates examples seem to be cardboard people that accept punishment or act in a hyper-rational literalist way.
Socrates: "Well, surely, if we look after a community and its citizens, we should try to do so in a way which makes the citizens as good as possible, shouldn't we?" (513e)
This is where Socrates' talk of expertise begins to appear sinister. Earlier Socrates said that Athens had never had a statesman, only politicians that use rhetoric to flatter their constituents. An expert statesman would tell people what was good for them even if they didn't like it. Which of course sounds quite a bit like a dictator.
6 comments:
Again, I'm not certain that Socrates is most appropriately read as being sarcastic but if it is, why would Plato present him this way? What purpose of Plato's would this serve?
Why does the belief that things can be examined by reason imply that that which is being examined is created in nature?
Your post seems to end abruptly. Isn't part of Socrates' point that the rhetorician is dangerous? What are your thoughts on this?
i also agree that socrates sometimes comes off as sarcastic. however, how much of that is because we are looking at it through a contemporary lens? back then, this sort of random discussion conversation was apparently normal, and being disproved wasn't necessarily negative. maybe socrates only seems sarcastic because if someone talked like that to us today, we would feel very much offended. back then, maybe it wasn't as harsh-sounding.
Well, just because a statesman tells the constituents what they should do because that is what is best for them, doesn't make him like a dictator. To an ignorant member of the society that may be the case. But I think Socrates' point is that the statesman would endeavor to mold the members of the society into better persons and as a result they would realize that what he wants for them is what's right. If the statesman behaved as a dictator, Socrates' earlier point would come into play (the fact that dictators are the weakest members of a society), and he would not succeed in getting the people to follow his instruction. However, if he was just deemed to be a dictator, but in fact was a moral person trying to get others to behave morally without success, then he would just be in the same position as Socrates in a courtroom where he is unable to defend himself.
To JMC- I think Plato would present him this way because it's congruent with the philosophy he espouses in the Republic (after the interlocurs want "relish" in society). Yes, perhaps Plato's/Socrates' views change between the Gorgias and the Republic but I think a congruent reading of the two is justifiable.
Also, I wasn't arguing that reason is only used to study things found in nature, just that ethics- in my opinion- is too tangled to view as a natural phenomenon that can be dissected by rational inquiry (not that rational inquiry isn't a start). Ethics is about causing the greatest amount of good with the least amount of harm but often in human interactions harm is not so black and white or easy to locate as Socrates portrays it as.
To Dragana- Obviously a leader can set out the qualities that he would like his constituents to embody and even lead by example. However, the right of people to be immoral (though law abiding) is fundamental to a democracy like ours and the one Socrates is speaking in. Often, especially in medicine which is one of Socrates' favorite metaphors, there is little choice on the part of the patient. There's basically two ways you can be locked up for life by the state-jail for breaking the law, and pychiatric or medical "correction." It's too easy to slip from providing moral guidance into enforcing moral conformity. I don't think Socrates says anything that's explicitly endorsing dictatorship, at least not in the Gorgias, but his talk does come off a bit...creepy.
In fact, I happen to agree with your interpretation of Plato's intent in terms of the arguments within the Gorgias, the question I was asking is why would Plato present Socrates as being sarcastic. This doesn't make sense to me, unless Plato had some other motive going on which I can't figure out. So, if Socrates is being presented as being sarcastic, the rest of the dialogue (in terms of Plato's point) needs to be read differently. Don't you think?
Post a Comment