Some commentators have stressed that the first words of the Gorgias are crucial for understanding the dramatic framing of the dialogue: polemon kai machen (a war and a battle). Of course, this points out the fact that philosophy and rhetoric have conceived themselves as rivals that pursue antagonistic aims. To interpret those first words under the light of a battle that is going to take place between the rhetorician and the philosopher is not absurd. But still, it seems to me that Socrates' allusion to his being late for a feast shall not be interpreted in an ironical way, but rather as an acknowledgement that there is something to share and learn from Gorgias. After Socrates blames Chaerephon of his late arrival he immediately states: boulomai gar puthestai par autou, tis he duvamis ths techne tou andros (I want to find out from the man what is the function of his art. 447c1-3). If we take this statement seriously then there is something that Socrates desires from Gorgias. I take this desire to be either the concern of the philosopher to come into terms with some type of rhetorician, that is, the recognition that philosophy lacks something which rhetoric has, or that this dichotomy should be overcome in the name of a philosophical rhetoric.  If it is the former, then the question is in what sense could rhetoric be helpful for the philosophical activity in the terms that Socrates understands it. Therefore I think that the framing of the dialogue has to be understood not only as a confrontation between two enemies in a war, but also as a feast share by friends that need each other. We have inevitably to ask the following question: Would real philosophers "naturally reject rhetoric for dialectics?"(Doyle 2006)

 

It's important to remember that the Gorgias is a dialogue posterior to the Protagoras -in the dramatic temporal life of Socrates. This is crucial because we can only understand the outcome of the Protagoras by relating it to the Gorgias. The reason why I say this, is because I think Socrates has, in certain degree, changed his perspective regarding certain rhetoricians. The agonistic conversation that Socrates had with Protagoras is transformed by a peaceful and harmonious conversation between he and Gorgias. If we conceive rhetoric in a non-technical and wider sense, then we can sustain that rhetoric has a motivational component that allows somebody to move another toward a certain direction, without forcing her. In other words rhetoric opens the space to be receptive to the claims of others, it "opens the capacity to be moved by the other as a result of the persuasive appeal"(Colapietro 1988, 157).

 

Andrew Stauffer in his book "The Unity of Plato's Gorgias. Rhetoric, Justice and the Philosophic Life" argues that the implicit analogy that Socrates poses at the beginning of the dialogue between rhetoric and weaving clothes, as well as that of rhetoric and music (449d1-5), reveal something essential to rhetoric: "[it] resembles an art that provides protection through the creation of cloaks and an art that sways men's passions than it does an art that clarify the path to true health"(Stauffer 2006, 21). This shows the tension that appears within rhetoric, on one hand, conceals something by protecting it, while on the other, moves us towards something else. In short, with the rhetorical art we are concealed and swayed, protecting us and at the same time giving ourselves to the other. Yet the fundamental thing here is that rhetoric cannot clarify the path to true health, that is, rhetoric cannot clarify the path towards the good.

 

Nevertheless, it can move us toward one path or the other. If Socrates is trying to turn individual souls toward the good and if, as Ryan Curtis stated in his post couple of months ago, "those who practice virtue, whatever this would ultimately mean, cannot in advance of their undertaking have a precise conception of their final goal" (Curtis), then rhetoric becomes crucial for the practice of dialogue. Without a robust conception of the good and a determinate conception of what it would mean to turn individuals toward the good, rhetoric becomes fundamental. It allows that the people that engage in a dialogue are open to be moved by the other, are open to sway their passions in the direction that the other suggests, in other words, allow themselves to hear the music of other's utterances but without giving away their cloak that protects them from blind sway of their passions. It seems to me that when Gorgias tells the anecdote of the one time that he went with his brother to the sick person that was not willing to take his medication, and then Gorgias declares: "the doctor being unable to persuade him, I persuade him, by no other art than rhetoric" (456b4-5); the sick person was able to be receptive to the other, that is to say, he was open to be moved by the words of the other. It was the rhetorician who was able to move the sick person, not the doctor that had the knowledge of his illness. As I said in class, this kind of interplay between rhetoric and dialogue is crucial for the exercise of the true political art, an art that aims to turn individuals towards the good, by being also open to be moved by the other. In short, this interplay can be conceived as overcoming the traditional prejudice of separating with an axe, using Peirce's metaphor, philosophy and rhetoric as two unrelated activities.

 

Perhaps the war and battle that was referred to at the beginning of the dialogue is more an anticipation of what would be the conversation between Socrates and Callicles. I think this is why Callicles was the one that expressed those words, and not Gorgias. While Socrates really wanted something from Gorgias, maybe he knew that a feast was waiting for him, a feast that was going to be shared with a future friend, a friend from whom he would learn something important for his philosophical practice. It seems to me that the dialogue is not only about battle and war, but also about friendship, alliance, and community between two old enemies that might become future friends. Philosophy and Rhetoric have to come into terms; the alliance between the two can intensify both activities, and thus open new possibilities of meaning of what is the philosophical life.

Works Cited

-Colapietro, Vincent. "Human Agency: The Habits of our Being." The Southern Journal of Philosophy XXVI, no. 2 (1988): 153-168.

-Doyle, James. "On the First Eight Lines of Plato's Gorgias." The Classical Quarterly 56, no. 2 (December 2006): 599-602.

-Plato. Gorgias. Great Britain: Loeb Classic Library, 1996.

-Stauffer, Andrew. The Unity of Plato's Gorgias. Rhetoric, Justice and the Philosophical Life. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

 

I like Bertrand Russell. I enjoy his critiques of religion, superstitions, and governments. Even more so, I enjoy his essay An Outline to Intellectual Rubbish: an essay depicting the history of superstitions corrupting and corrosive influence on society, governments, individuals, and philosophy. Here's a link to an online edition of the essay, http://www.solstice.us/russell/intellectual_rubbish.html .

I just want to remind everyone who's interested in the podcast that we are currently taking a poll to see what times fit the best for the most people. Professor Long has set up this site to help facilitate this process: http://www.doodle.com/3bxpy77s9buncv4g

Right now it looks like December 9th at 11:00 AM-1:00PM is the best fit so far, but please put in your available times if you wish to do the podcast. The list of possible discussion points are as follows:

1. Pursuit of the Good - The swan, effect on the soul, what is it?

2. The Nature of dialogue -- Agonistic (Protagorus, Gorgias) vs. Harmonic (Phaedrus)

3. Gorgias -- Rhetoric in pursuit of the Good, Callicles' leaky jars

4. Protagorus -- Can ethics be taught?

5. Do the ends justify the means?

6. The Soul -- The Chariot Allegory, punishment as a means of cleansing one's soul, its relationship with "the good"

7. Erotic Love and the role of the lover in Phadreus

8. Piety -- the role it plays in informing one's soul

9. Socrates' use of story and metaphor in Gorgias and Phaedrus.

If you have any additional questions or concerns feel free to shoot out an email to me at cjy5020@psu.edu

Update: Professor Long has locked in the December 9th 11:00 AM -1:00PM time slot for the podcast. This is the last call for anyone interested in the podcast to vote at  http://www.doodle.com/3bxpy77s9buncv4g  

While reading all of these speeches concerning love, I noticed there is an ongoing discussion of lovers and the darling. In the Symposium, Pausanias's speech reiterated some of the ideas brought up in the Phaedrus, but he also brought to the forefront some of the questions I had been having. Why is there such a strict dichotomy between the beloved and the lover? Why is it that it is never an equal loving relationship?

Pausanias seems to attribute "custom".

"Our custom aims at testing well and properly whom to gratify and whom to avoid. For this reason, it encourages one to pursue and the other to flee, setting up a sort of contest and putting to the test which of the two kinds the lover and the beloved are," (184a).

While this seems to approach my questions, it merely poses more. Why are loving relationships characterized by a chase? Why is it not a complementary relationship between two people?

Additionally, in characterization of those to love and be loved, I have serious questions about Pausanias's idea that heavenly love completely excludes the female sex. He quickly glosses over this attributing it to the fact that it is the weaker sex and less intelligent. While this may have been an understood cultural norm, does this suggest that the most powerful kinds of love that were known in their society strictly male - male? What then of the example of Alcestis and Orpheus?

I am really intrigued by the exchange in the Symposium between Eryximachus and Aristophanes after Eryximachus' speech.  While exchanging roles--exchanging positions, from audience to speaker, from speaker to audience--they exchange strangely polemical lines. 

After Aristophanes jokes at Eryximachus' expense, Eryximachus says, "Aristophanes, my good man, watch what you're doing!  Though you're supposed to be giving a speech, you're making jokes, and forcing me to be on my guard against your speech in case you say something funny, when you could march out to speak in peace" (189a6-189b1, emphases mine). 

Aristophanes responds, "...Don't be on your guard against me; what I'm afraid of is not that I may say something funny (that would be a good trick and natural for my Muse), but rather that I may say something ridiculous" (189b3-5).

"Do you think you can make me a target and get away with it, Aristophanes?" asks Eryximachus (189b6-7, my emphasis).

As you might note by my emphases, the war imagery is explicit here, but its signficance is less apparent.  I find it interesting: first, that the topic of discussion here is love, and yet it is a polemics (an argumentative discussion, a war of words) on love; and second, that the rules of discussion seem to be so innately oriented around war metaphors.  Even in jest, Eryximachus must be on his guard, for even the most pleasant of exchanges, in this case, joking, hides the potential for violence.

What to say about this war on love?  A more general question: Does every discussion hold the potential for war?  Is every a discussion a polemics-in-disguise?  Perhaps a question to get us started on the latter: Does every speaker/interlocutor feel threatened (like the object of attack) when another participant compromises his/her position, or jokes at his/her expense, however lightheartedly? 

 

When doing the reading for tomorrow's class, I was puzzled by the end result of Pausanias' speech at 185b.The speech discusses the idea that "loving and Love are not in every case noble and deserving of praise, but the loving that points us in a noble direction is" (181a) before ending with this idea:

 

"This youth has demonstrated for his part that he would eagerly do anything at any for the sake of virtue and in order to become a better person, and that is the noblest and most beautiful thing of all. Thus, to gratify someone for the sake of virtue is entirely noble. This is the Love of the heavenly goddess, and he is heavenly and of much worth, both in public and in private matters. For he compels both the lover and himself and his beloved to care deeply about virtue. All other Loves are connected with the other goddess, the common one. "

 

So, Pausanias is saying that the only good type of Love is the one that brings you towards a virtuous end. Does this mean that according to his theory, the only real Love that exists is a selfish one? If this is so, isn't that circular- virtue is achieved out of acts towards others, which actually benefit the self. This is a philosophical theory, but I can't remember to whom it belongs. Thoughts?

As I have been reading through The Symposium, I came across a passage that caught my attention.  From this passage, I believe there are several different topics that may arise from this; mainly, I wish to focus upon human desires.  As I believe we are all aware, Socrates is an advocate of moderation, temperance, and self-control.  Certainly, there are times when these impulses are subdued, possibly when that person approaches the situation with generous intentions and a clear conscious of what is good.  What I wish to focus on, though, is what we truly gain from restraining ourselves from these precarious situations.  I wish to use the conversation about drinking in The Symposium as the topic of my post.

"Well now, gentleman," Pausanias said, "what will be the most moderate way for us to drink?  I can tell you that I myself am in quite dreadful condition from yesterday's drinking, and I need some relief.  I suspect most of you do, too.  You were present yesterday.  So, let's look for a way to drink as moderately as possible."...

"Then, it seems it would be a bit of luck from Hermes," Eryximachus continued, "for me, Aristophanes, Phaedrus, and the others, if you hardiest drinkers would stop now, since we always fall short by comparison.  Socrates I exempt from the account; he'll be satisfied either way, and it will be alright with him whatever we do... I probably will provoke less displeasure when I tell you the truth about the nature of intoxication.  I believe it has become clear from medical practice that intoxication is a harmful thing for human beings..."
(Symposium, 176a- 176d).

Why I bring this matter up is because it has a direct correlation with how we carry ourselves as students.  I'm sure everyone knows that Penn State is the #1 party school in the nation; The Collegian ran an article about how student's blood alcohol content (BAC) has been on the rise when they are admitted into the hospital.  Whatever you may take from this, it seems fairly obvious to me: we are not a society who bases itself on moderation.  Because of this, it may be viewed that the philosophy of Callicles (the Leaky Jar Analogy) has become a dominant force in our time.  As we can see, Pausanias and the fellow men are unable to drink because of how terrible they feel from the previous day.  If they are drinking in a moderate way, should they have a hangover?  Does moderation rely upon the impulses of indulging for a person to learn what is truly moderate - in a good sense?

So, I leave to question, why is this?  Is it that our human desires are so powerful and self-gratification is that great?  Is it because we are spoiled and have many objects readily available whenever one wants?  Any other ideas?

 

Since we have a few discussions going on with Pausanias' speech I figure it is only fair to put Eryximachus' idea of love to the test as well, perhaps get a few points to discuss on Thursday -

Eryximachus, at least by my reading, takes an extremely biological view of love. Love, to him, is much like a basic need, something that we need to have to be healthy. He encourages people to be temperate in their love and take things only in moderation, trying to find a harmony between them.

While I am normally one that is all for doing things in moderation and not taking things to extremes, this doesn't settle well with me. He takes a view that fits what he does perfectly; he is a man of medicine, and (it seems to me) sees Love as some sort of basic need, something that only needs to be fulfilled when it is depleted.
 
"In sum, the medicinal art is a knowledge of the activities of Love in the body in terms of filling it up and emptying it out." (186d)

I feel like this is terribly reductionist to the nature of Love, by boiling it down to the 'mechanical properties' of what it does for oneself. If you are looking for love to satisfy yourself, as if you were going out to a restaurant to nourish your need to eat, how can we really say you are being passionate about it? Is passion not a desperately important part of what we think of as Love?* While there is obviously a sort of passion that is bad (the kind that overtakes you), the sort that seems good (one that helps you excel) isn't exactly temperate.

Thoughts on this? Am I not giving the poor doctor enough credit? 


* - A less rhetorical question: Should it be?

We have begun the reading for our final dialogue in Phil 200: Plato's Symposium. Having just concluded a dialogue that spoke about the nature of love (the Phaedrus), we now see a similar look at the beauty and greatness of love. Furthermore, the nature of love surfaces once again as Apollodorus recounts the speeches praising love that were told to him by Arisodemus.

Erycimachus observes that "isn't it terrible that hymns in honor of each of the other gods have been written by the poets, but none of the many poets that have existed has ever composed a single poem or hymn of praise for Love, who is such a great and ancient god?[.....] On the contrary, this great god has been ignored!" (177a-177c).

However, if we reflect on our society today, would you all agree that Love and praise for it has been ignored? Like Erycimachus says, on the contrary, I think Love has NOT been ignored. Today, there are so many songs, books, films, magazine articles, and even educational classes that are about Love (love with a capital 'L' as we know it). In fact, admiration and pity for love is voiced so much in our culture that I think it has turned into an icon, so to speak, with no meaning behind it anymore because it is so overused. Even in everyday language, when we greet or bid farewell to one, many of us, I have noticed, say 'I love you," for example, without truly meaning it. It is more of a phrase that has become a habit of saying. And on the radio, there are an overwhelming amount of songs "in the name of love," that it's almost pitiful. Our culture is so tied to the concept of love that we further lose ourselves in being able to truly grasp what Love is - we may just be in love with the idea of being in love.

In our last couple of classes we have been trying to understand what the nature of love is as both the Phaedrus and the Symposium inevitably raise this question. To me, personally, love is more than what binds two lovers together. Love can encompass many things, and a song I know, ironically, voices it well. It is a Greek song titled "Αγαπη Ειναι," that is, "Love Is." Here is my translation of the song:

Love is to cry and to laugh
Love is, my friend, love you should spread
And whenenver you can, others you should help
And all those who helped you forget them never.
Love is...
Grandma's food
And that flavor of the village that you will always carry.
Love is...
A divine night
And nine months after a baby to fill with kisses
Love is life itself, only him that respects it will come to understand that.
Love one feels who can forgive
Love is truth and truth is need
Don't leave her [love], believe in something
She is everywhere and on her own she will come, love is:

Faith and belief together, it is to live life for every moment,
Love is....
The light that the sky gives
Love is a god.

Love is a sunny day, happiness in the air.
It is my eyes that look on wanting to be the best for you,
Love is to give blood because in the end you may need it too,
Someone of yours, or maybe even me.
Love is, can happen to anyone.
It is the caress and the hug of a mom, only she will love whatever you do, and wherever you go.
It is dad's advice to understand the mistake from right.
.......
Love is a song like this where I mean what I say,
Love is to do that which is simple that will bring a smile to another's face.
.....

(The song goes on...Here is the link to the song on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnAovInMNtQ)

So, to everyone out there, what is the nature of love for you?