Does Socrates Prove Rhetoricians are Least Powerful? Gorgias Analysis

This essay delves into Plato's Gorgias, focusing on Socrates' argument against Polus regarding the power of rhetoricians and dictators. It examines Socrates' method of questioning, the elenchus, and his definitions of rhetoric, contrasting it with Gorgias' initial views. The essay explores the core debate, highlighting Socrates' claim that true power lies not in satisfying desires but in pursuing the good and ethical life, which leads to happiness (eudaimonia). It analyzes the interlocutors, including Gorgias, Polus, and Callicles, and their differing perspectives on justice, virtue, and the relationship between doing wrong versus suffering wrong. The analysis addresses the limitations of Socrates' methods and the strength of his conclusions, ultimately arguing that Socrates offers some proof, though not definitive, that rhetoricians and dictators are limited in their pursuit of desires and power.

STUDENT ID: 1807822
Does Socrates really prove, against Polus, that "rhetoricians and dictators are the least powerful
members of their communities" (466d)?
The Gorgias is one of Plato’s early-middle Socratic dialogues and seeks to understand the nature and
value of rhetoric (‘art of persuasion’) as well as the nature of eudaimonia (‘happiness’) and its relation
to morality. For Socrates, these two issues are interconnected; rhetoric involves persuading others in
order to get things you desire which in turn should allow you to lead the happy life. However,
Socrates’ view on ethics involving the comprise of one’s personal interests for those of the wider
community in the pursuit of virtues which means there is an inherent tension between the good life
and the ethical life. Yet, by holding virtue as a necessary and sufficient condition for eudaimonia, the
good life is the ethical life. As Socrates later points out to the Sophists who have entertained in
a debate with him, rhetoric is not a techne but merely an experiential, empirical knack that produces
gratification and pleasure (462b-c).1 As a consequence, it wields little value with its orators alongside
dictators being the least powerful members of the community and, by appealing to the masses, never
pursue their own desires but rather – thinking it better – subjugate their will to the arbitrary whims of
their audience (466 d-e).
There are three key interlocuters whom Socrates holds a discussion with: Gorgias; Polus; Callicles.
Although the focus is on Polus, it is important to look at Socrates’ argument with Gorgias – which
sets up the definition of rhetoric.
Although professed by the Delphic Oracle “[o]f al men living Socrates most wise”2, Socrates claims
to have very little knowledge of rhetoric when speaking with Gorgias and relies upon the elenchus to
ascertain the essential nature of rhetoric. The Socratic Method can thus be seen as the midwife of
thought and through asking questions of the form “What is X” [in this case rhetoric], Socrates seeks
clarity over the aporia (‘puzzlement’) that arises from the Sophists’ long speeches, riddled with
logical inconsistences – as is the case with Gorgias. By consistently questioning the rigorousness of
Gorgias’ explanation as to ‘what is rhetoric’, Socrates seeks to identify all the necessary and sufficient
conditions to class X as rhetoric. Take, for example, the Set “R” which denotes “rhetoric”; a good
Socratic definition of “R” should account for all and only R elements to be included in Set R. This
would properly account for the intension and extension of the concept since it details the conditions
something has to fill to meet the concept as well as the scope being sufficiently spread.
Initially, Gorgias’ definition of rhetoric is very broad seeing it as the expertise concerned with
speaking, yet Socrates is not satisfied (449d – 450c). By the third iteration, Gorgias extends this
definition further by stating rhetoric achieves its results through speaking and whose result is
persuasion; this result being the fundamental purpose behind such an activity (453b). Yet, Socrates
still does not consider this claim as being substantive knowledge since the notion of ‘persuasion’ is far
too broad. For Socrates, rhetoric-based persuasion is not focused on producing justified, true,
undeniable knowledge and educating others but rather produce probable beliefs through convincing
their audience. Here, Gorgias in order to praise rhetoric highlights its value is derived from the power
to be universally applied as almost every accomplishment falls within the scope of rhetoric (456a) and
a rhetorician can persuade a crowd about anything he likes (457a-b). It is perhaps here in Gorgias’
pride that boxes him into a position which allows Socrates to attack rhetoric as not even being an
expertise (techne) but a ‘knack’ (462c).
This irks Polus who believe Gorgias only accepts Socrates’ claims since it would shame him to deny
publicly. Polus then calls for Socrates to establish the nature of rhetoric. Socrates holds that rhetoric is
simply a knack at producing pleasure and gratification, not an expertise, since the orator is not aware
of what is beneficial to the people. Yet, Polus critiques for Socrates for being misguided in his focus
1 All citations from the text of Gorgias will refer to Waterfield, R (ed.) (2008) Plato: Gorgias. Oxford: Oxford
University Press
2 Hicks, R. D. (trans.) (1925) Diogenes Laertius: Lives of Eminent Philosophers, Volume II, Books 6-10 Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, p. 37

STUDENT ID: 1807822
Does Socrates really prove, against Polus, that "rhetoricians and dictators are the least powerful
members of their communities" (466d)?
as the benefit is not targeted towards the people but the orator himself which thus grants great power
as the orator is always able to benefit himself and knows how to do such a thing. Upon which Polus
implicitly argues that rhetoricians in their greater ability to do what they want – given their persuasive
powers – are the most powerful members of their communities; they do what they want if it seems
best (466b-c).
Yet Socrates holds that whenever someone does one thing for the sake of another what he is doing is a
means towards; people drink medicine not for the suffering of the medicine but the good health to
follow. In the world things are either good, bad or indifferent. People can only use neutral things to
get good things not vice versa since actions are performed in pursuit of a good (468b-c). As such, one
only wants to do what is good for you and what isn’t good only appears as the best course of action.
By being subjugated to performing the action that appears best without intelligence or care of personal
wants you will naturally get what is bad for you. Since rhetoric is not an expertise, the actions taken
by orators are based on unwise decisions and thus will lead to what is bad for them. If the action is
bad it cannot coincide with their wants and thus the rhetoricians and the dictator lack any ability to do
what they want.
Polus then attempts to refute Socrates by appealing to the life of Archelaus, an autocratic ruler of
Macedonia who, originally a slave, managed to take over the throne by morally condemnable actions.
Although, seen by Socrates as lacking any reasoned argumentation it develops Polus’ point that there
is not a great deal of power in doing what one feels like if they can be punished. Moreover, if
Archelaus had followed Socrates and behaved ‘justly’ he would have been an unhappy slave and not a
happy ruler.
In such a scenario, Socrates’ defence surrounds the notion that happiness is found in the ethical life
for it takes true goodness to make a person happy (470d). Socrates wishes to highlight this and that
since virtuous action is fine it is also beneficial. Socrates’ rejection of Polus’ position is that doing
wrong is worse for a person than suffering wrong as it is more shameful as it is worse for those
affected. The shamefulness is derived not from the difference in pleasantness but that doing wrong is
more harmful to a person’s character in affecting the overall psyche. Since, Polus accepts if X is better
than Y one should choose X over Y, he is forced to conclude that it is better to suffer injustice than to
do injustice. It seems here that, as Callicles claims, Polus has – like Gorgias – committed to an
incoherent position through exploitation of public embarrassment and this is due to assumptions about
virtue and the “connexion between justice and happiness” (Irwin 1995).
Socrates’ use of the elenchus has the interlocuter claim P and then Q, R, S as sub-premises or
implications before showing there to be a logical dilemma between the claim and its components or
the relative components. Owing to the incompatibility of stating P and NOT P by law of non-
contradiction, either the claim must be abandoned in favour of alternatives or its components altered.
Perhaps the biggest issue with the Socratic method is that upon logically dissecting P, the conclusion
is almost instantly NOT P without proper consideration for alternatives which have not been properly
exhausted. So although, Socrates may prove that Polus’ position does not hold by this point he is still
to properly conclude that rhetoricians alongside dictators are the least powerful members of the
community by applying the turning the Socratic method upon his own personal claims.
This only seems to occur during the final discussion with Callicles by assessing inherent assumptions
in Socrates’ argument around justice being a sufficient condition for happiness, the virtuous life being
the only life worth pursuing, ability to have knowledge of virtues and what you want. Yet, perhaps
what is most damaging is that Polus simply accepts all of Socrates’ prior discussion with Gorgias such
as the definition of rhetoric without pursuing his own unique line of argumentation which means he
takes on all the criticisms of the former flawed position. This is most significant in regard to accepting
the Socrates’ conclusion posed to Gorgias that an understanding of the difference between right and

STUDENT ID: 1807822
Does Socrates really prove, against Polus, that "rhetoricians and dictators are the least powerful
members of their communities" (466d)?
wrong means you will act morally (459c-461b). Without impeding on the flawed senses of the claim
intuitively, there is a clear blatant disregard for the difference in theoretical and practical ethics that is
knowing that which is good and knowing how to achieve it.
To conclude, Socrates does offer some proof against Polus that rhetoricians and dictators are the least
powerful members of their communities since these members are inherently limited in the pursuit of
their desires and lacks power to do what is truly best for him. Yet this proof hinges solely on the
denial of Polus’ position with their being little affirmation of Socrates’ view or application of the
Socratic method to his own personal position by this point. Even with the later discussion with
Callicles, there is no direct line of argumentation around the link between happiness, virtue and justice
yet “he [Socrates] speaks as though he had proved” his “adaptive conception” where virtue is self-
sufficient for happiness since Polus’ “non-adaptive conception” did not prove logically sound (Irwin
1995). Perhaps, Socrates spends too much time negating others’ claims and far too little affirming his
own perpetuating a state of Socratic ignorance.
WORD COUNT: 1650
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Waterfield, R (ed.) (2008) Plato: Gorgias. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Irwin, T. (1995) 'The Argument of The Gorgias' in Plato's Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Irwin, T. (1995) ‘Socratic Method and Socratic Ethics: The Meno’ in Plato's Ethics. Oxford: Oxford
University Press
Kraut, R., 1992 (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Plato. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press