Jillien Aquilio
Final Draft
Plato’s Gorgias illustrates three vivid debates that contrast rhetorical with dialectical
discourse. Three different dialogues with Socrates occur. Socrates’ opponents include
Gorgias, Polus, and Callicles. Throughout the conversations, Socrates makes it apparent
that dialectic is a more admirable and wiser choice of an argument tactic. Socrates
strategy, in the reading, offers an example of how dialectic is carried out. Socrates’
opponents have not mastered the skills in dialectic; therefore, the road to finding truth is a
strenuous one for Polus, Gorgias, and Callicles.
Rhetoric: Pompous or Insincere Language
Rhetoric is the ability to speak persuasively to a large audience with conviction, usually
concerning an opinion about right and wrong. In Plato’s Gorgias, Gorgias (the character)
explains rhetoric with the following definition, "The persuasion I mean, Socrates, is the
kind that takes place in law courts and in those other large gatherings, as I was saying a
moment ago. And it’s concerned with those matters that are just and unjust" (454b).
Socrates believes that rhetoric does not produce truth because it is based on experiences
rather than principles, which is why it does not qualify as a real craft but is really just a
“knack.” Socrates also claims that the ability to persuade people about what is just is
impossible unless the speaker himself is just.
Throughout Plato’s Gorgias, Socrates tries to educate Gorgias, Polus and Callicles on
how to participate in a dialectic conversation, and how dialectic can be used to discover
truth. Gorgias, Polus and Callicles try to defend the rhetoric type of oratory to Socrates,
because they believe that "he (Gorgias) partakes in the most admirable of the crafts"
(448c). The most admirable of crafts in the defenders eyes would be a producer of
oratory. Oratory might be defined as eloquent public speaking, while rhetoric, under
these terms, would qualify as oratory. Socrates prefers a form of speaking that occurs
between two people in a conversation, and does not consist of a conviction discovered
through persuasion.
Dialectic: The Art of Debating
In order to find truth using oratory, one must engage in a dialectic conversation, which
requires an understanding of the techniques involved in this type of discussion. Dialectic
is a cross-examination method of conversation. Dialectic consists of two participating
parties who engage in a question and answer discussion. One person will ask a question,
and the other person must respond with short replies in which he will either agree, or
disagree. For example, "Or rather, Gorgias, why don’t you tell us yourself what the craft
you’re an expert in is, and hence what we’re supposed to call you?" (449a). Gorgias’
responds with the short statement, "It’s oratory, Socrates" (449a). Whether the person
agrees or disagrees, every question takes one step closer to finding the most simplified
definition of a concept.
The importance of giving a strictly simple, yet meaningful, definition is to be able to
define a concept or idea in such a way that the definition applies only to that one specific
idea or concept, or an absolute definition. Giving an absolute definition is possible for
one who is only in search of truth, because he is not blinded by eloquent speaking.
Socrates reveals this when he says, "You should know that I’m convinced I’m one of
those people who in a discussion with someone else really want to have knowledge of the
subject the discussion’s about" (453b). Once both parties are perfectly clear on the
definition, then they may proceed to discuss and evaluate a topic. When a contradiction
occurs in the discussion, conversation ends on that point, or the conversation may even
end altogether.
The Purpose of Dialectic
The purpose of dialectic, according to Socrates, is to find truth, even if one does not hold
that truth to begin with. Socrates also says that the goal of dialectic conversation is not to
win or lose the argument, but to find justice. Socrates makes it evident that truth and
justice are interchangeable. Socrates makes it clear that rhetoric does not retain this
characteristic when he says, "Instead, if they’re disputing some point and one maintains
that the other isn’t right or isn’t clear, they get irritated, each thinking the other is
speaking out of spite. They become eager to win instead of investigating the subject
under discussion" (457d). Polus makes a verbal attack on Socrates when he felt he was
losing the argument, which is common in rhetoric. An example of this is when Polus
says, "What an outrageous thing to say, Socrates! Perfectly monstrous!" (467b). Socrates
reveals that truth should be held in the highest regard, for when one holds truth, one has
achieved justice.
Truth and justice evidently are two concepts that Socrates stresses with the utmost
intensity. This intensity is probably associated with the fact that, if one does not behold
truth, then he retains the opposite of truth, and the opposite of truth is considered evil.
Socrates also stated that when one holds onto false beliefs, then he retains evil within,
which is why it is more beneficial to be refuted, in order to rid oneself of this evil.
Ultimately, it is on this point that the real distinction between rhetoric and dialectic
becomes obvious. Since dialectic is a search for truth, one will find justice in that truth;
whereas, rhetoric deals with persuasion, and holds no regard for truth, allowing one to
retain evils inside and ultimately creating injustice.
Participants of Dialectic
Dialectic conversations require participants who are educated and knowledgeable in the
ways of dialectic. The participants must know how to ask refined question. Rhetoric
requires its participants to give long speeches, in part to confuse its listeners, and
convince the listeners to take the opinion of the speaker, regardless if the opinion is the
right one. One could say that a characteristic of rhetoric is that it plays on the emotions of
its listeners. This leads back to the point that dialectic is a search for truth, and rhetoric
holds no regard for truth. Socrates believes that one who wishes to participate
successfully in a dialectic conversation must retain certain qualities, and he reveals what
those qualities are in his following statement, "I realize that the person who intends to put
a soul to an adequate test to see whether it lives rightly or not must have three qualities,
all of which you have: knowledge, good will, and frankness" (487a). Socrates makes this
statement to Callicles, but it is evident that he does not believe that Callicles, or Polus and
Gorgias, retain these characteristics. Only Gorgias had the ability to keep his answers
short (most of the time), and to the point, and in effect, came to contradict himself.
In the discussions presented in Gorgias, Socrates finds that all three of his opponents are
not capable of truly participating in a dialectic conversation. The three defenders of
rhetoric could not have the qualities dialectic requires, based solely on the fact that they
are advocates of rhetoric. The principles of rhetoric compared with dialectic are complete
opposites of one another. Dialectic requires the search for truth by those who utilize it,
but rhetoric tries to persuade by use of conviction. Dialectic requires "knowledge, good
will, and frankness," but rhetoric does not necessitate any of these inherent qualities. In
conclusion, dialectic requires an honest person who holds truth in such a high regard that
it weighs more heavily in his life than his ego. This honest person must be capable of
using questions as tools for finding truth, which in essence means that one must be able
to ask questions that produce accurate and meaningful results.
In conclusion, dialectic offers its participants a path to find truth. A path that is free of
faulty ideas that are only backed by someone with a "knack" at persuasion. Plato would
like the reader to believe that dialectic is the more admirable form of argumentation when
compared with rhetoric. Dialectic allows an accurate discussion to occur that really
addresses the concepts and ideas in an appropriate fashion. This is possible because the
discussion is based on the true definitions of the variables that are encompassed in the
conversation. Dialectic negates the possibility of coming to a false conclusion as a result
of the discussion. If a conversation led to something other than truth, then one would
have gained nothing from having participated in the discussion. Ultimately, the purpose
of argumentation is for one to obtain discipline in order to pursue knowledge, so that he
will become a man with true morals.