Rhetoric in Plato’s "Gorgias"

An Argument to Socrates, from Gorgias- in Plato’s “Gorgias.”
Because rhetoric is so ambiguous, it is easy to dismiss it as something which is not a “true art.” As you say, “seeing that rhetoric is one of those arts which works mainly by the use of words, and there are other arts which also use words, tell me what is that quality in words with which rhetoric is concerned…” We have many people who consider themselves masters of the arts in various disciplines who do not partake of rhetoric or the use of words or language. For example, someone who practices yoga or who paints does not use words for the very essence of their art. They use their bodies in motion, or they use paint mediums to draw what they think is beautiful. Just as they do this, so do rhetoricians construct speeches or teachings using words as art. It is not an abstract art, but concrete. We use words deliberately and with great meaning behind them. With words used properly, we can strengthen ourselves as politicians, we can convince others of our beliefs, and we can discourse with extremely intelligent people and hold our own. We may not have the level of knowledge that they have in whatever we’re discussing, but we can debate, we can challenge thoughts, and we can persuade others to see our point of view- all with words. Not every art that exists, has been determined to “feed the soul” as you say. Sometimes, man learns a specific art so he can provide for his family, as in being a mechanic, or he may love to paint because he sees beauty in things even though no one else does. Well, I see power in words, even if you do not. I believe it feeds our souls because if we learn to use words correctly, we can understand anything, and this gives us much pleasure and much authority in society. You say that rhetoric is mere flattery, because you think it “aims at pleasure without consideration of what is best” (Gorgias, 465). However, it is not for us to decide what is best for everyone else, only for ourselves. A way with words can give us personal power and a sense of authority and intelligence. You might say “A sense is not the same as the real thing,” but does it really matter, if the means to the end is achieved? Therefore, I say that rhetoric is an art, by your definition of the word- which is that it is a discipline that arrives at a good result that it both aims at and regularly achieves. (Herrick, p 56.)

Question 2: Gorgias’s position on rhetoric, its value, and Socrates’s argument against his work.
Gorgias argues that rhetoric is concerned with the class of things that is the “greatest…and the best of human things.” To this end he describes how words are used to persuade many people in highly regarded professions, such as judges, senators, assemblypersons, and politicians. He says by the use of words, rhetors can turn people into slaves and get people to turn around and do things for you instead of for themselves. He goes on to clarify that the chief reason behind rhetoric is actually persuasion. He admits that rhetoric only persuades someone using belief and not knowledge- something which Plato, through Socrates, obviously considers a travesty of justice. If a rhetor was to make a persuasive speech about whom should treat people, himself or a talented Doctor who has saved many lives, and the rhetor won the argument- it would be only through the suggestion or persuasion by belief that he was as good at treating patients as the doctor. But it does not matter, because, a rhetor would not generally use his “power” against people, only for himself. The fact is, he is more talented at his art of rhetoric than the doctor, and because this argument/speech would have been based on the power of words, the doctor would lose the argument, and this illustrates the power and importance of rhetoric.Plato (through Socrates) refutes the position that Gorgias takes on many levels. The persuasion by belief is something he does not take lightly. He calls it something “artificial” because there needs to be no true knowledge of a subject behind rhetoric, only the use of words to confuse and persuade those listening. He makes a point that only those who are ignorant of the doctor’s knowledge would believe a rhetor with more persuasion talking about medical subjects. Therefore, if it is only the ignorant who follow the rhetors- what power do they actually have? In the online passage, Socrates states “…the rhetorician need not know the truth about things; he has only to discover some way of persuading the ignorant that he has more knowledge than those who know…” Plato believes rhetoric is a dangerous art which will use the ignorance of society to rule it, and do so under the façade of knowledge and not actual knowledge. I believe Plato has shown us a valid argument against rhetoric as a pretense- something that only the rhetor believes is valuable, and that no one else should. I don’t believe he means to say that the use of words is good or bad, just that the use of words to persuade others to believe something based on nothing of knowledge could be dangerous for the society, and also shows the power-hungry nature of rhetoricians who choose to enter into it as a career for money and authority.

References
Herrick, James. The History and Theory of Rhetoric: An Introduction (3rd edition). Allyn & Bacon