Gorgias Essay

The fight to do what is right is not an easy path to traverse, but is one which demands a noble and enduring character. Defending principles of justice with logic and reason in the face of political opposition, is a difficult task to take, but the elusive Socrates boldly undertook this endeavor. In Plato’s Apology, he recalls the daring defence of the principles of truth that Socrates took against all odds. Plato’s recollections, much like the trial of Socrates at the time, has sparked numerous debates amongst scholars who seek to understand the events of the trial more deeply. One such debate has centered on what Socrates meant when he said his speech was nothing more than words spoken at random. Brumbaugh and Oldfather, in their scholarly analysis, contend that Socrates’s speech is riddled with fine polish and organization suggesting that his speech was not random. As will be discussed, there are several examples of organization in Socrates’s speech such as when he provides his jurors with an outline of his speech. Additionally, masterfully woven throughout his defence, Socrates employed many diverse modes of argumentation in a logical and consistent manner lending credence to the notion that he planned his speech beforehand. This skillful use of these modes in Socrates’s argument, all vindicate an intentional design and premeditation. Despite Socrates’s humble assertions

Polus disagrees and claims that there are many people who have done wrong that are happy and that to experience discomfort from punishment is not happiness (Gorgias, 470). Socrates still persists that those who do evil are unhappy, but Polus retorts by citing a tyrant as an example of one who has done wrong but is happy (Gorgias, 473). Polus talks about a tyrant who killed his young nephew in order to gain power and then argues that by having so much power this tyrant is now happier than he was before (Gorgias, 473). Socrates disagrees and says that he is in fact unhappy due to the shame he feels for the terrible acts he has committed in order to attain his power and that he holds a lot of guilt inside him for what he has done (Gorgias, 476). Socrates then goes on about why those who commit evil and shameful and crimes and then escape punishment are the least happiest of all.

At this point Thrasymachus gets angered by Socrates exactness. In his anger he states that injustice is more profitable than justice. He defends this by saying that people condemn injustice for the simple fact that they don't want to suffer from it. This fear of injustice shows that it is more advantageous than injustice. Socrates counters this by looking at the capabilities of an unjust city. He shows that an unjust city could

The question of morality focuses on how we ought to be; how we ought to live. In a conversation with Crito, Socrates states, “to commit injustice is in every case bad and dishonourable for the person who does it” (49b Crito). He simply views that if an act is not just, the person who commits it will always lose from it. Socrates followed by saying “…one ought not to return an injustice or an injury to any person, whatever the provocation” (49c-d Crito). The victim should not retaliate because just as Socrates believes, committing an unjust act will always end badly. In the reading, Socrates says that even if the consequence is worth it to the person committing the unjust act, the act should still not be committed. On top of that, no matter how intense the provocation, Socrates still says do not return an injustice or injury to any person at all.

On the first point of violence, Socrates sees no justice in its practice. In conversation with Crito, they establish that doing any person an injustice is wrong. They also establish that injustice is equated to the infliction of injury. Thus, in true Socratic logic, “one ought not to return an injustice or an injury to any person, whatever the provocation” (Crito, 88c). Socrates is

Justice is the advantage of the stronger according to Thrasymachus. He even goes a step farther to say that injustice is stronger and freer than justice, yet justice is the advantage of the stronger. Socrates shows that justice is in the receiver of it, not the provider. According to Socrates, a just man will be the healthier and happier man because he is wiser.

Socrates responds to Thrasymachus’ argument that justice is what is advantageous for the stronger by saying that justice is actually what is advantageous for the weaker. He gives an example of a horse trainer. The horse trainer is obviously the superior of the two and in charge of the horse but it does what is advantageous to the horse not himself. The same goes for a doctor who does what is good for his patients and a captain does what is advantageous for his sailors.

If we believe that the one who does good for one's soul participates in a life of true happiness, then Socrates is correct. By harming others, we are truly harming ourselves, destroying our chances for happiness and the good. It is an interesting point, however, that although Socrates claims that no one knowingly does wrong, is he not crediting his accusers, such as Meletus, with the evil intention of trying to unjustly put Socrates to death?

Socrates would rather be punished or die before he breaks the laws that were set forth by his state, and this he says later in the same passage, “I should run any risk on the side of law and justice rather than join you. (Cahn pg. 38 Apology b10-c2).”

Though defeated on this point, he's not yet satisfied with Socrates' argument, and sticks by one of his previously stated views which held that injustice is more profitable than justice. However, he shrinks back and seems no longer able to speak for himself after Socrates refuted his argument on justice. Despite his withdrawal from the argument throughout the rest of the Republic, his early ideas help lead Socrates farther on his search for justice through the construction of a hypothetical just city. In describing the education of the guardians of this city, Socrates discusses the need for a balance between gymnastics and poetry. He relates how too much gymnastics lead the spirited part of someone to be overtightened and hard. "He'll be museless and hate discussion" explains Socrates. This hardness and hate for discussion reminds us of the actions of Thrasymachus at the beginning of the argument defining justice. Thrasymachus becomes an example of a "badly tuned soul" that Socrates goes on to describe.

This paper argues that Socrates makes a plausible case for justice. Socrates raised two main questions in the first two books of Plato’s Republic, what is justice? And why should we act justly? Thrasymachus and Glaucon both have different and more negative views of justice than Socrates. Throughout books one and two, Socrates, Glaucon and Thrasymachus go back and forth discussing the definition and application of justice in society. He starts his discussions with Glaucon and Thrasymachus by stating simply, “What is justice?”

Socrates’ rhetoric in the argument of pain versus pleasure stems from his desire to actually make the audience understand his argument through emotions; he wants to make them grow a better understanding of the difference between pain and pleasure and show him how the proper use of rhetoric can impact rather than just persuade. Throughout Gorgias, Socrates makes it a point to attack Gorgias’ position as an orator by asking questions about the true meaning of his craft, like when he states “Then

Justice is useful to the individual and to the state. Justice is useful when they are useless and useless when it is useful. Polemarchus asked Socrates about him, Homer and Simonides agreeing on justice as an art and can be practiced to help good people and to harm enemies. Socrates doesn’t agree with that and he still doesn’t give us a good answer of what justice is and how to define it. It’s clear that Socrates is not giving answer of what it is he’s just saying what’s wrong but not right answer. In the text Socrates states, “Let me first understand you, I replied. Justice, as you say, is the interest of the stronger. What, Thrasymachus, is the meaning of this? You cannot mean to say that because Polydamas, the pancratiast, is stronger than we are, and finds the eating of beef conducive to his bodily strength, that to eat beef is therefore equally for our good who are weaker than he is, and right and just for us?.’(Jowett, page 12) Leading on, Socrates didn’t mean the word stronger as someone who is actually physically strong he meant deep within, someone who is strong minded. Justice is the compliance which subject provides to their commands, the weaker are commanded to do, not what is for the interest but what is for the injury of the stronger.

Socrates was considered by many to be the wisest man in ancient Greece. While he was eventually condemned for his wisdom, his spoken words are still listened to and followed today. When, during his trial, Socrates stated that, “the unexamined life is not worth living” (Plato 45), people began to question his theory. They began to wonder what Socrates meant with his statement, why he would feel that a life would not be worth living. To them, life was above all else, and choosing to give up life would be out of the picture. They did not understand how one would choose not to live life just because he would be unable to examine it.

Polomarchus worked diligently to vindicate his father’s beliefs by refining Cephulus’s understanding of justice. Soon, Polomarchus came to the conclusion that, “justice is helping friends and harming enemies (334b).” However, Socrates quickly recognized this definition to be inherently problematic. In order to implement this form of justice one must differentiate friends and enemies. In addition our assessment of friends and enemies, will largely be based on our various, but equally bias opinions of what good or bad entails. Polomarchus’s understanding of justice doesn’t allow enemies to view one another as equally deserving to themselves, which alludes to the selfishness and potential consequences of this definition of justice. If this definition of justice was extended in the future and the rest of the world this logically leads to nationalism as well as imperialism, which seemed align with Machiavellian views of justice and the world. Clearly, Socrates did not resonate with these views as he continued to exert himself in order to help Polomarchus further refine his views, by acknowledging the incoherence present: “Should we not assets same of human beings, my comrade— that when they are harmed, they become worse with respect to their human virtue (335c)?” Furthermore, Socrates gets Polomarchus to concede that justice is equivalent to human virtue (335c, 335d). However, Socrates’s methodology to coerce this concession was complex as he first related harming a horse or dog