Assignment 2: Gorgias (Yvonne Ong)

Socrates’ step by step argument amazes me yet appalls me. I was amazed by how he could bring forward his point by making use of his opponents’ weaknesses. I was appalled as well because such a person, in nice terms can be called witty, yet put bluntly, he is very scheming. The book did not hit me as a whole but parts of each dialogue did get me thinking.

In dialogue A, Socrates put forward additional questions to Gorgias although the answer seemed rather clear. This enabled the discussion to progress in a logical sequence instead of the usual “snatching prematurely” at each other’s statements because we have a VAGUE suspicion of the other person’s argument. I brought this up because of the nature of our work at CDC. Perhaps not only in CDC but also in our daily life, we are engaged in many discussions. And it is inevitable to have differing viewpoints in any discussions. Often, an argument ensues because we are unable to tolerate others putting down our views. I realized, after analyzing the text, that we are actually disadvantaging ourselves if we were to get worked up. On hindsight, getting emotional does get in the way of things especially since we are less able to process our thoughts rationally and hence, our arguments become flawed. We might not be the better speaker as compared to our opponents, but keeping calm and thinking logically does help.

Another point in dialogue A that struck me was that the motive for getting into the argument is important. Supposing we were to get into an argument during a discussion simply to put the other party down, nothing really beneficial to the entire discussion will result. At the end of the day, it would be a mere waste of time for all the parties involved. If instead we were to keep in mind that our final objective is to clarify an issue, like what Socrates did, we will be better able to keep our cool and have a higher probability of solving the issue at hand. At least pertaining to discussions we have at meetings at CDC, the main purpose is to get things done, it would be wrong should any personal attack be carried out.

In dialogue B, Polus appeared very careless during his discussion with Socrates. He failed to realize that sometimes the end cannot justify the means. My stand on whether the end justifies the means will depend on whether there are alternate means. Extreme measures to achieve a desired end should only be carried out if there are no better alternatives. It differs from situation to situation. As such, Polus should not have agreed readily with Socrates’ separation of means and ends. In life, there is no definite rightful approach to all issues. We have to take into consideration the situation at hand.

Polus’ failure was also attributed to his inability to clarify definitions and to consider if Socrates’ definition exhausted all possibilities. The importance of having to state definitions precisely is further highlighted in dialogue C when Callicles’ inability to define “stronger” led to many inconsistencies in his argument. This puts forward the significance in our choice of words when we are talking to others. In our daily conversations with the people around us, we tend to misuse many words and yet not realize it. Words like “cool”; “shit” or even the word “nice” are used in place of many other words in the English dictionary. No two words are perfect fit for each other, much less the above words we use to describe the many experiences we go through. Perhaps it might not appear detrimental when used in daily conversations. However, when engaged in a debate, these very words that stump our vocabulary will put us in a very disadvantageous position.

I felt that the characteristics of Callicles played a very important role in dialogue C. When Callicles started to lose his upper hand in the argument, he started to use rather rude words like “rubbish” to describe Socrates’ argument. This immediately provoked my distaste for Callicles. Similarly, in our discussions, any attempt to win the upper hand by turning aggressive will not only be a futile effort on our part, it might even backfire on us when the other parties present develop a disliking and hence prejudice against whatever we say henceforth.

To add on to the point above, I would use the act of Callicles in 495a to illustrate my point of appropriate behavior during a discussion. In 495, Callicles was reluctant to correct himself though it was apparent that he was wrong. This lack of courage added to my distaste for him. At the same time, the need to act graciously in any discussions in our lives is paramount. Not only will it stand you a good stead in any argument, acting graciously prepares a less embarrassing exit should you lose the argument.

To round up, not only is the technique important when we partake in the many discussions to come, we should bear in mind the importance of the aim and attitude we adopt.

-Yvonne Ong