The Use Of Dialect In Plato's Gorgias

926 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Essays on plato's gorgias

The use of dialect in Plato’s Gorgias raises question about whether it actually changes the beliefs a person holds. The reading opens up with Socrates and his friend Polus having a conversation about orators and tyrants while questioning the power they hold in there cities. Throughout the whole reading they engage in topics of power, Happiness, and suffering while each disagree with each other. Socrates uses the art of dialect and shows Polus that his opinions are flawed and eventually Polus concedes and sides with Socrates, contradicting his first statement. Although Polus now takes the views Socrates has, does that really mean his mind is truly changed? I would make that claim that though Socrates has successfully made Polus contradict his first statements, his use of dialect did not …show more content…

Socrates then goes back to Polus’s original point, the one that started this conversation. In the beginning Polus thought Archelaus a happy man because he had great power. Socrates has proven Polus’s statement to be false by making him contradict ever point he tries to make. By doing so the conclusion to the conversation should have been Polus agreeing with Socrates fully and us as readers feel that this conversation has closure. Polus shows his attitude by saying in the end, “I think these statements are absurd, Socrates, though no doubt you think they agree with those expressed earlier” (357). Polus is now feeling flustered and just wants the conversation to be over because after Socrates makes Polus contradict his claims every time he would drive the point in that he agreed with him in the end. Polus now just does not want to speak on this topic and I feel this is what could have been avoided. Both men acted childishly Polus being argumentative and opinionated while Socrates was being a sore

Show More
Related

  • Compare And Contrast Socrates And Louis Riel

    1590 Words  | 4 Pages

    In spite of this, however, Socrates also uses two very obvious fallacies. Firstly, when addressing Meletus – who was among the individuals who accused him of impiety and corruption of the youth – Socrates misrepresents his argument to support his own position. He asks if Meletus is “not ashamed of [his] eagerness to possess as much wealth, reputation, and honours as possible, while [he does] not care for nor give thought to wisdom or truth, or the best possible state of [his] soul.” However, the two are not mutually exclusive. Caring about wealth, reputation, and honours do not necessarily entail not caring about wisdom and truth. This is quite a clear example of a straw man fallacy. In addition, Socrates uses appeal to emotion to attempt to manipulate the audience into thinking they are the ones doing wrong. He states that the people of Athens “will acquire the reputation and the guilt, in the eyes of those who want to denigrate the city, of having killed Socrates, a wise man. ” It is clear that by saying this, Socrates’ intention was merely to guilt-trip the audience. In contrast, neither of these fallacies are present in Riel’s speech; in fact, upon reading the transcript of said speech, no clear

    Read More

  • Who Is Pericles Wise

    813 Words  | 2 Pages

    Throughout all the years, he never could find anyone as wise as himself, and all he did was make enemies searching. These enemies are now his accusers, and they accuse him of spreading evil doctrines, corrupting the youth, and not believing in the Gods. Throughout the speech, Socrates continues to shoot down every accuser and it is evident that he has done no wrong. Eventually, one of his accusers states that he must be doing something strange and that he wouldnt be that famous if he were like other men. Socrates did not live a very public life unlike most people at that time. His thoughts of being virteous had more to do with examining yourself and becoming a better person and in that way, you benifit society. He did not believe Athens to be virtuos at all, and that they relied on materail things and reputation rather than finding happiness by searching for it deep within

    Read More

  • Gorgias Rhetoric In The Encomium of Helen

    937 Words  | 2 Pages

    In the Encomium of Helen, Gorgias attempts to prove Helen’s innocence since she is blamed to be the cause of the Trojan War. Gorgias uses rhetoric to persuade listeners to believe why there are only four reasons to explain why Helen was driven to Troy. All of which he will argue were not her fault. Fate was the first cause, followed by force. Gorgias then seems to focus the most on the power of Logos, or words. Finally he explains how she could have been compelled by love (82B116).

    Read More

  • The Role Of The Gogolian Narrator

    526 Words  | 2 Pages

    The role of the Gogolian narrator is an unassuming revealer of what is hidden in the world. Revelations can be the world’s evils, morality, or a nation’s ultimate purpose. Gogol’s narrator is merely a puppet of his imagination and is kept within certain boundaries. Sometimes the narrator’s lack of transparency can make a story seem like a parable or folk tale like in “The Nose” and “Nevsky Prospect.” We can see this in what limited information the narrator is allowed to reveal to the reader and I will examine this theme in Gogol’s “Nevsky Prospect,” “The Nose,” and Dead Souls.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Socratic Depiction In Socrates's 'Apology To The Jury'

    1368 Words  | 3 Pages

    In his work Socrates’ Apology to the Jury, Xenophon produces an account of the Socratic deliberation –and indeed the logic that seemed to inform that deliberation- over his trial. Specifically, Xenophon, provides his readers with an ambivalent justification of Socrates’ chosen rhetoric during his trial, namely his “boastful manner of speaking” or megalegoria (Patch, footnote 2). Indeed, instead of choosing to deliver a speech that would gain him the jury’s sympathy and the city’s acquittal, Socrates proceeds to deliver a speech that is characterized mainly by its ironic arrogance. Xenophon goes so far as to provide his readers with a kind of statement of purpose that frames Socrates’ megalegoric speech; Socrates had, in the words of Xenophon,

    Read More

  • Socrates Rhetoric Is A Knack And Not An Art

    1516 Words  | 4 Pages

    Polus claims that oratory is good for the practitioner because orators are powerful people who can do like tyrants do, to which Socrates replies, saying that orators like tyrants “are the least powerful persons in the city.” (36) Firstly, Socrates points out that when someone acts “he wants not his act, but the object of his act,” (37) or, in other words, what is considered good or bad is not the action taken, but its intention, and because a tyrant mostly acts on the basis of what he considers beneficial to the state, he is not doing what he wants then, but doing what the state wants in order to remain in power. At this point, Socrates was speaking only about power, because, as he stated, Polus’ claim required two answers. Once establishing that freedom to act as intended is true power, Socrates then asks Polus if a person with power would intend to do what is good or evil. Polus admits that a person would intend to do what is seemingly good.

    Read More

  • Socrates and His Innocence

    907 Words  | 2 Pages

    Socrates starts by speaking of his first accusers. He speaks of the men that they talked to about his impiety and says that those that they persuaded in that Socrates is impious, that they themselves do not believe in gods (18c2). He tells the court of how long they have been accusing him of impiety. He states that they spoke to others when they were at an impressionable age (18c5). These two reasons alone should have been good enough to refute the first accusers of how they were wrong about him but Socrates went on. He leaves the first accusers alone because since they accused him a long time ago it was not relevant in the current case and began to refute the second accusers. Socrates vindicates his innocence by stating that the many have heard what he has taught in public and that many of those that he taught were present in the court that day.

    Read More

  • Plato's Apology

    807 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • The Role of Language for Thucydides and Sophocles

    695 Words  | 2 Pages

    In Thucydides' On Justice, Power and Human Nature and Sophocles' Oedipus plays, they use language and speeches to convey the same things. The political orders in these works use their speeches to form a sense of purpose, sway political views and to manipulate for their own personal self-interest.

    Read More

  • An Apology From Socrates

    1717 Words  | 4 Pages

    The Apology is Socrates' defense at his trial. As the dialogue begins, Socrates notes that his accusers have cautioned the jury against Socrates' eloquence, according to Socrates, the difference between him and his accusers is that Socrates speaks the truth. Socrates distinguished two groups of accusers: the earlier and the later accusers. The earlier group is the hardest to defend against, since they do not appear in court. He is all so accused of being a Sophist: that he is a teacher and takes money for his teaching. He attempts to explain why he has attracted such a reputation. The oracle was asked if anyone was wiser than Socrates was. The answer was no, there was no man wiser. Socrates cannot believe this oracle, so he sets out to disprove it by finding someone who is wiser. He goes to a politician, who is thought wise by him self and others. Socrates does not think this man to be wise and tells him so. As a consequence, the politician hated Socrates, as did others who heard the questioning. "I am better off, because while he knows nothing but thinks that he knows, I neither know nor think that I know" (Socrates). He questioned politicians, poets, and artisans. He finds that the poets do not write from wisdom, but by genius and inspiration. Meletus charges Socrates with being "a doer of evil, and corrupter of the youth, and he does not believe in the gods of the State, and has other new divinities of his own."

    Read More

  • Who Is Socrates A Gift To Athens

    1128 Words  | 3 Pages

    It takes one person to begin expanding a thought, eventually dilating over a city, gaining power through perceived power. This is why Socrates would be able to eventually benefit everyone, those indifferent to philosophy, criminals, and even those who do not like him. Socrates, through his knowledge of self, was able to understand others. He was emotionally intelligent, and this enabled him to live as a “gadfly,” speaking out of curiosity and asking honest questions. For someone who possesses this emotional intelligence, a conversation with Socrates should not have been an issue-people such as Crito, Nicostratus, and Plato who he calls out during his speech. (37) The problem is that many of the citizens of Athens who wanted Socrates dead, lacked that emotional intelligence and thought highly of themselves. So of course they become defensive when Socrates sheds light on the idea that they may be wrong. As someone who cared most about the improvement of the soul, Socrates would have made a constructive role model to the criminals of Athens, as he would go on saying, “virtue is not given by money, but that from virtue comes money and every other good of man…”(35) Socrates was able to benefit everyone alike as he had human wisdom- something that all the Athenians could relate

    Read More

  • Gorgias: The Father of Sophistry

    1707 Words  | 4 Pages

    Gorgias, was a Greek sophist, Sicilian philosopher, orator, and rhetorician. He is known as the first and original Nihilist, famously saying, “Nothing exists. If anything did exist it could not be known. If it was known, the knowledge of it would be incommunicable” (Gorgias), for this reason he earned the nickname, “The Nihilist.” He is known as the father of sophistry. According to The Encyclopedia of Philosophy contributor, Francis Higgins, sophistry is, “a movement of philosophy that emphasizes the real-world use of rhetoric concerning civic and political life” (Higgins). The sophists were nomadic paid educators who instructed on oratory and rhetoric. Many people claimed that sophists had the ability to teach the thesis and antithesis of any subject or idea. “Another quality of the sophist’s teaching was their ability to make the weaker argument the stronger” (Higgins). Gorgias is most often recognized as developing rhetoric in Greece. According to A.S. Ferguson in, A Fragment of Gorgia, “The democratic process in Athens supplied the need for instruction in both rhetoric and philosophy” (Ferguson). This made rhetoric one of the most important teachings of the time.

    Read More

  • The Difference Between Protagoras And Socrates

    806 Words  | 2 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • The Nature of Rhetoric

    1390 Words  | 3 Pages

    Socrates have been using rhetorical devices throughout his discussion with Gorgias, and started out by using ethos appeal to draw Gorgias into his questioning, in which Polus gave an indefinite answers to Chaerephon. Ethos appeal can be described as an appeal by character of authority; it is when we tend to believe those who we respect. After Polus failed to answer the question, Socrates responded, “It certainly looks as though Polus is well qualified to speak, Gorgias, but he’s not doing what he promised Chaerephon he’d do.” (Plato 3). Socrates, who was not satisfied with the answer given by Polus, provoked Gorgias into answering for his disciple as Socrates brought Gorgias’ name into the conversation.

    Read More

  • Gorgias's Inexistence Of Truth

    989 Words  | 2 Pages

    Gorgias, radical skeptic and rhetorician of fifth century B.C. Athens, stood in stark opposition to the idea of truth. With assertive declarations of the falsity of all declarations, Gorgias practiced persuasion over education, with an apparent aim for personal gain rather than truth or virtue like a philosopher. Gorgias firmly believed that nothing exists, and if anything could possibly exist, its existence was unknowable, and if anything was existent and knowable, such knowledge was incommunicable. (Sproul 28) These assertions are false, his argument invalid. Firstly, as proven by multiple philosophers and through simple logic, truth exists. As demonstrated by Gorgias’ self-contradictory remarks, truth cannot logically be disproven, as logical

    Read More

More about The Use Of Dialect In Plato's Gorgias

Open Document