Assignment 2: Gorgias (Yvonne Sim)

What strikes me most about this book is no doubt Socrates' clarity of thoughts. I dislike his way of subtle, inconspicuous tricking and trapping (if anybody tried to have such a 'dialogue' with me I will glare him down till he melts) but I must admit that the consistency in his definitions and careful manoeuvring throughout the arguments are rather admirable.

There is one issue that caught my attention—that of nature vs convention. Callicles (in dialogue C) believes that "natural right consists in the better and wiser man ruling over his inferiors and having the lion's share", and that conventions invented by the majority (for eg, having excess at the expense of others is bad) are but an attempt "to make slaves of those who are better by nature". Survival of the fittest and the strongest—sounds like there's some sense in this. As such, his stand is that nature and convention are at odds with each other. And then Socrates comes along, elicits from Callicles that 'stronger' and 'better' and 'more powerful' are synonymous, and then embarks on such an argument:
1) By virtue of numbers, the mass of people are naturally stronger than the individual.
2) Then the laws imposed by the majority are laws imposed by the stronger.
3) And therefore the better.
4) Then since they are stronger, the laws which they establish are by nature good.
5) And since majority believes that equality is right, it appears to be founded in nature as well as in convention.

Oh Socrates, you good.

Anyway, moving on to other points that are relevant to cdc as well as my own world.

Challenging conventions for the greater good: one must admire Socrates' courage in this aspect, for "What [he says] on any occasion is not designed to please, and [he aims] not at what is most agreeable but at what is best". We are often encouraged to voice our opinions and all that, but sometimes it is difficult to do so when we see certain disadvantages in taking a stand opposite to what had previously been established. With every opportunity to plump up our bank of knowledge and experience we become duty-bound to point out changes that can be done for improvement, with the best judgement possible. Alas, "each demos takes pleasure in hearing sentiments which are in harmony with its own nature and detests the reverse". Around us are demos aplenty (in many different forms, used in a metaphorical sense)—some are open to feedback and change, but others take advantage of their weight to try and oppress those beneath. When it comes to challenging a notion, I may hesitate at times due to uncertainty over the validity of my own stand considering the lack of experience on my part, in some cases. But to tread carefully and push for one's viewpoint to be accepted is a process that is vital to many aspects of life (from trivial school projects to crucial decisions like policy-making and business management). Well, I'm learning. (Here, we take it that we want to push for something better and non-airy—me no support pandering, hurhur.) It is bad to be paralysed by the fear of the consequences of initiating change. Good change, that is.

Duties and moral obligations of a politician: "am I to do battle with the Athenians with the intention of making them as good as possible, like a doctor, or to behave like a servant whose aim is to please?" Brings to mind the Chinese saying: medicine that is good is bitter. Pandering, selfish politician vs. farsighted, noble politician. The above quote is very relevant to all involved in public policy. It is always tempting to take it easy and make the choice that everyone will be happy with—hey, if it secures your smiles, it secures my seat too. But that deceiving feeling of security will last for only a while. To avoid the pain that inevitably ensues after a gravely wrong choice, sometimes it is better to start off with a tougher plan. Tougher on you initially, but 99% guaranteed to work out better in the long run. In leading the masses, there is a need to be firm. And that leads to the question of who then, would be suited to lead.

The disciplined man: he will "pursue or avoid the actions and people and pleasures and pains that deserve the appropriate course, and he will stand his ground firmly where duty requires it". We need disciplined people in the public sector, whose character and leadership we can place trust in. Apparently, Plato believes that self-discipline is the origin of other good characteristics in a man, ie. the other good characteristics will come along when you have self-discipline. I find no fault with that view. Self-discipline is an extremely good thing, and is the precise quality that, upon being absent in Man, leaves the door to self-destruction dangerously open. Humans are so smart—we are so smart we create new tools and gadgets; we are so smart we scheme and manipulate others; we are so smart we propel ourselves to outer space. Self-discipline is the only thing that keeps our desires in check and prevents us from employing our skills for the wrong purpose. You could also view it as the quality that blocks us from the temptations of wrongdoing (like snacking at night) and evil (like bribery, corruption). Need to reflect on this? Go meditate in a cave.

The last point I want to bring up for now, is the empowerment of the masses: this is important in all democracies. If they want the right of choice, they've got to be capable of making a worthy choice. Education the right way, minus all the propaganda, is essential. As Socrates says, "The greater each evil is, the finer it is to have the power to mount a defence against it, and the more shameful it is to lack the power."