Socrates’ Dialectical Approach to Arguments
Persons engaging in dialectic conversation attempt to reveal the truth about
debatable issues in an orderly manner while abandoning self-serving tendencies.
Dialectical conversation often consists of analogies that aid the participants in uncovering
general logic, which should further lead to the truth. One must first isolate the object of
the truth through a thorough examination or by questioning the subject matter before
conversing dialectically. Socrates provides clear examples of carefully constructed
questions through cross-examination as he tries to determine the expertise of oratory and
the proper way in which to address Gorgias. Furthermore, he breaks down the subject
matter into manageable parts by comparing the similarities of oratory to other crafts. In
doing this, Socrates narrows down the truth by examining other possibilities and
eliminating them through inductive reasoning (Zeyl 450c-d). Moreover, persons involved
in dialectical exchanges embrace wisdom, compassion, and candor.
People who demonstrate knowledge and resourcefulness usually do well when
involved in a dialectic exchange to uncover the truth. Most arguments rely heavily on
premises or evidence to support the conclusion; however, the conclusion does not
necessarily reflect the truth. A valid argument may result in a false conclusion if it
contains false premises. Consequently, the person who makes the argument controls the
outcome, and he possesses the power to convince the listener with the evidence he
submits. Whether or not we believe the premises he provides, Socrates displays wittiness
and awareness in the way he manipulates Polus into accepting his arguments. He uses
ambiguity to persuade Polus that committing evil carries a much greater consequence
than suffering at the hands of evil. Socrates does this by juggling words that have more
than one meaning, and he offsets them with their opposites as evidence to prove his
points. For example, he gets Polus to admit that the words shameful and evil share the
same meaning by giving him only two choices, “if a shameful act does not exceed
suffering in pain, it exceeds it in evil” (474d-475e). Some philosophers might label this
strategy as a false dilemma or an argument that limits the choices when more might exist.
Generally, those who achieve the goals of dialectical conversation must have an aptitude
for clarifying and understanding a broad range of words.
Compassion comprises another necessary quality for persons who participate in
dialectic conversations. Socrates demonstrates compassion when he tells Gorgias that any
man including himself should gladly rid him of false beliefs and evil. He considers false
beliefs the greatest evil (458a-b). These statements add an element of humility and
compassion to Socrates’ character. Socrates further displays good will in his quest to
uncover the truth. He refers to this idea as performing a good act for a friend (470c).
Socrates considers refutation, when justified, as enlightening and gratifying. Also, he
maintains a pleasant disposition when he constantly refers to Polus as a friend. Friends,
according to Socrates, should not allow friends to continue on in ignorance, but they
should correct and want correction (473a). Compassion surfaces again when Socrates
tells Polus that the “…corruption of one’s soul is the most shameful” (477e). These
words have a moral connotation and they show concern for one’s spirituality. Moreover,
he uses analogies to conclude that those due punishment benefits (478a-c).
Dialectical discussions must involve people willing to speak candidly with their
opponents. Initially, in his conversation with Callicles, Socrates states his position by
admitting that he would rather that men disagree with him than for him to contradict
himself. Yet Callicles accuses Socrates of causing Gorgias and Polus to commit
contradictions when Callicles speaks candidly with Socrates. In his opening dialogue,
Callicles assesses Socrates’ position, and he claims that if Socrates speaks the truth, the
world does not measure up. He continues to speak out by accusing Socrates of being a
crowd-pleaser (481c-483a). Socrates subtly reminds Callicles about the rules of
dialectical conversation using flattery when he tells Callicles that he possesses all of the
characteristics required for a discussion (487a-d). Socrates does not seem to make any
new arguments, but he uses analogies with Callicles. Callicles appears calm and prepared
for the questions and responses even though he often contradicts himself according to
Socrates’ rules. For example, Callicles applies the same meaning to the words “different”
and “same.” Callicles wants to end the discussion; therefore, he does not always answer
in a conscientious manner. According to the rules of dialectic, the discussion ends when a
participant lacks the willingness to continue. Callicles admits he has a low regard for the
trivial questions that Socrates poses, but Gorgias urges him to continue the dialogue
(497c-d).
Although Socrates recognizes Callicles’ directness, Socrates seems evasive, ironic,
and indirect. For example, Callicles points out irony in Socrates’ words when Socrates
uses ambiguity with the words “better” and “stronger.” Socrates uses these words in
regards to slaves that most people consider inferior. Socrates, however, synonymously
interprets these words. He uses words strategically in an attempt to persuade Callicles
into his way of thinking. By doing this, Socrates maintains control over the conversation
and baits his opponent into making contradictions. As a result, Callicles abandons
previous words in exchange for others that he believes will clarify his position. But this
only prolongs the dialogue and gives Socrates more tools or words to analyze and to use
as ammunition for his cause (489d-e). Socrates’ words seem arrogant when he considers
Callicles as privileged to have an opportunity to refute his intelligence before those less
intelligent. Condescendingly, Socrates refers to Gorgias and Polus as the lesser ones
when he makes this statement (497c). Callicles alludes to Socrates knowledge when he
speaks of a man who has filled himself up and has no more pleasure. This analogy might
symbolize someone who has a wealth of knowledge that no longer has any benefit.
Callicles might be referring to Socrates’ unwillingness to part with his idea of truth and
his lack of openness. Perhaps Socrates has achieved his desired capacity for knowledge
because he believes that he has more than enough to benefit others.
Summarily, Socrates states his intentions when he tells Callicles that if he concurs
with his belief then it is the very truth (487a). In judging these words, it appears that
Socrates believes that he possesses the truth already, and he refuses to depart from it.
Logically, therefore, he must persuade Callicles to come to the same realization.
Consequently, Socrates form of arguing shifts from dialectical to rhetorical in the way he
vacates earlier claims of goodwill, knowledge, and frankness for persuasiveness. His goal
seems centered around winning.
Socrates teaches us an important lesson by explaining the rules of dialectical
conversation. He provides many examples of his strategic use of vocabulary words and
the power to control the outcome of an argument. One of the most significant things
learned, however, may be the difficulty one encounters in adhering to the rules of
dialectical discussion. It might begin by omitting personal interests and concern for
uncovering the truth, yet sometimes-human tendencies get in the way. We see this in the
way Socrates’ discussion turns from dialectical to rhetorical speech when he begins using
persuasion techniques. It then becomes difficult to discuss or debate issues in an
organized way. Regardless, the rules of dialectical exchanges remain unchanged. Anyone
who willingly participates in a dialectic discussion will succeed in uncovering the truth
only when he possesses knowledge, good intentions, and frankness of speech.