Socrates: A Good Statesman from Either View

In Plato’s Gorgias, it is apparent that Socrates has no desire to be a good statesman as it is defined in the eyes of the Athenians. His calculation is that Athenian rhetoricians place no reliance on facts or truth, nor are these their aim. Instead, they rely on the illusion of knowledge, and this morally weakens both themselves and their audiences. It is clear however, that if he wishes, Socrates is able to match most or all of the other statesmen in Athens, as is clearly indicated by his very eloquent speech which ends the dialogue. Additionally, under his own definition of a good statesman, it is evident that Socrates is more than qualified. Through discussion, he is able to conclude that a statesman should be concerned solely with truth and virtue and is also best able to relay these concepts to his citizens. In numerous instances, Socrates demonstrates that of the Athenians, he is best equipped to achieve this purpose and is perhaps the only Athenian actively pursuing this end. He, at the very least, is certainly the most qualified to try, because he is able to realize the importance of truth and uses sound methods to pursue it. There are two conclusions then. The first is that if Socrates so desires, he can be successful working within the conventions of Athenian politics. The second is that if one compares him to other Athenians and considers his intent and method, he is a good statesman under his own definition, also. This is especially important because it directly applies to how Socrates habitually practices politics; whereas, the first conclusion refers only to his capabilities.

The most obvious example of Socrates’ rhetorical proficiency is in the final speech of the dialogue. The structure of this speech is extremely purposeful, and Socrates uses various conventions of the Athenian rhetorician. First is a story which illustrates how false appearances can mask the truth of one’s character and the truth itself. It analogizes clothing, beauty, wealth, and the like with smoke and mirrors which hide the truth. In addition, it portrays the most respected and powerful god Zeus, with the opinion that this is unjust. The tale is very effective in illustrating rhetoric as a false art in an eloquent way, as Athenian rhetoricians would. In fact, the speech is full of many of these masterful and emotion-evoking phrases. For instance, take Socrates’ account of the judge on judgment day inspecting the soul of a dead man with a wicked character. It uses powerful imagery to describe vice’s manifestations on the soul. Other conventions of the Athenian rhetorician are also used, such as quotation of poetry and usage of Callicles’ name in his speech for dramatic emphasis. He also offers understanding that Callicles may dislike his message and ends his last section with an invitation for Callicles to join him in his noble pursuit. It is an amiable and democratic way of closing his speech, and it firmly secures respect from the listener.

Not only does the speech effectively make use of classic rhetorical strategies, but it also has interpretational implications. For instance, the speech is several pages long with no interruptions by dialogue, and it is also Socrates’ only speech in the entire book. It therefore appears quite monumental within the context of the dialogue, and it emphasizes the fact that Socrates possesses rhetorical skill, but chooses not to partake in the pratice. In addition, saving the speech for the end seems to suggest that Socrates must stoop to Callicles’ level (classic Athenian rhetoric) in order to make his point. By closing the dialogue, it thus implies that Callicles, one of the most famous rhetoricians in Athens, is incapable of offering a response. Socrates’ speech is so monumental and powerful that the reader can assume Callicles is utterly dumbfounded. If this is not proof of his rhetorical skill from the Athenian perception, then nothing is.

To address the question of Socrates’ adherence to his definition of a good statesman, one must understand both his definition and his methods. First, many of the dialogue’s characters state that rhetoric is an art. Thus, Socrates proves through his questioning that one “âÂ?¦should fulfill only those desires which make a man betterâÂ?¦ and suppose this to be an art.”1 As Callicles agrees, rhetoric seems to be consistent with this definition of an art. However, no one is able to effectively oppose Socrates’ point that “âÂ?¦one who is going to be a true rhetorician must first be a just man himself and conversant with the principles of justiceâÂ?¦” Plato, p. 83 They are also unable to disprove that Athenian rhetoricians do not need knowledge in order to achieve their aims. In fact, most of the men admit that an art requires inquiry into and knowledge of a field, and that rhetoricians have no need for this in order to be effective. They use persuasion instead, and as Gorgias points out, a rhetorician “âÂ?¦make[s] oneself a match for the experts in the other arts, though one has learned none of themâÂ?¦” Plato, p. 19 If this is the case, then rhetoricians cannot possibly intend truth and virtue for their audiences. Clearly, these points contradict, which means that rhetoric is not an art, as it does not make a man better by neglecting truth. It is a false art then, because it appears to be an art, but does not better its consumers.

In addition, it is contradictory for someone to accuse a man of vice, if that same individual maintains that they have done virtuous deeds on the man’s behalf. Instead, a just man’s product will be innately just. In Socrates’ discussion with Callicles about rhetoricians of the past, neither man is able to name a rhetorician who was not later proven unjust in the city which he ruled. Despite the fact that “âÂ?¦no leader of the state could be unjustly ruined by the very city he controls,” Plato, p. 97 the politicians of the past all claimed that their acts for the good of the city were proof of their virtue. States Socrates: “âÂ?¦As for transforming its desires instead of toadying to them, as for persuading and coercing fellow citizens to the point of self-improvement, there is notâÂ?¦ difference between generations . Yet this and this alone is the task of a truly good citizen.” Plato, p. 95 If then, rhetoricians must be well-versed in the area of justice, but are unjust as proven, there is no way they can cultivate truth and virtue in their citizens.

Also important is the fact that rhetoricians are some of the most powerful citizens in Athens, if one defines power as the ability to obtain what one desires. The following statement by Gorgias, for instance, is maintained throughout the dialogue: “The rhetorician is capable of speaking against everyone else and on any subject you please in such a way that he can win over vast multitudes to anything, in a word, that he may desire.” Plato, p. 16 Socrates addresses this in the discussion with Polus about happiness and proves again the injustice of rhetoricians. The men conclude together that the happiest man is without vice, “the greatest of evils,” Plato p. 45, and the “âÂ?¦second happiestâÂ?¦ is he who gets rid of itâÂ?¦ And heâÂ?¦ is the man who is rebuked and admonished and brought to justice.” Plato, p. 46 The argument then leads to the understanding that men with vice realize this painful aspect of justice and are blind to its good impact on the soul. They cannot therefore, be happy. In fact, states Socrates: “âÂ?¦a man who is not brought to justice is more wretched than one who is.” Plato, p. 47 Therefore, rhetoricians use persuasive speaking to avoid being brought to justice for their vices. Their “power” then, really lies in their ability to dodge pain with flashy persuasions which mask their vices. Since power is later defined as “âÂ?¦something good to the man who yields it,” Plato, p. 27 it follows that rhetoricians cannot be truly powerful because they hide from justice and use falsehoods to do so.

In summing up these points, it is now possible to arrive at a conclusive definition of a good statesman. When one considers Socrates’ definition of politics which is, “That which presides over the soulâÂ?¦,” Plato, p. 25 it is apparent that a good statesman aims at the good of the souls of his citizens. As stated earlier, the good includes such qualities as virtue, truth, happiness, and justice, and these qualities are basically equivalent and synonymous. Thus, those virtues just named, and others, are the statesman’s sole pursuit, which he strives to impart to his citizens by implementing them as the focus on his actions. Socrates clarifies this further by saying that the role of a rhetorician is “âÂ?¦to combat the Athenians until they become as virtuous as possible, prescribing for them like a physician; [as opposed to] be[ing] their servant and cater[ing] to their pleasure.” Plato, p. 99

With these specifications in mind, Socrates is a good rhetorician under his definition. Although Socrates would probably argue he is not completely virtuous, the dialogue clearly illustrates his firm pursuit of truth. The dialogue form of this work is a testament both to the power of truth and Socrates’ commitment to this aim. The lack of rhetoric (by all characters) suggests that the truth of the dialogue is powerful in itself. There is no need to engage in the conventional speech form of Athenian rhetoric to make a strong and conclusive argument to the reader.

Also, the clear object of Socrates’ method is to eliminate all falsities through candid discussion, until truth is ultimately revealed. He effectively breaks down the character’s statements into their most basic underlying principles, and this demonstrates strong commitment and intense focus and attention to detail. He exhibits the same sort of inquiry into and knowledge of his field, which he says is necessary for a rhetorician. Also, his pursuit of truth necessarily includes that of virtue and happiness, under which justice is included. Therefore, his studies also include the justice he defines as so necessary for a rhetorician. One must conclude then, that he fits his own definition in respect to his method of pursuing truth.

One may argue however, that the concept of truth is an infinite idea that is not so easily reached and perhaps, not possible during life. While this may be true, it is reasonable to assume that Socrates, out of all other Athenians, would be the best rhetorician. Throughout the dialogue, the Athenians’ lack of understanding is obvious. In the aforementioned closing speech, for instance, Callicles seems defensive and lacks understanding of the goals of Socrates’ arguments, and it is for this reason that Socrates seems to stoop to a lower level by engaging in conventional rhetoric. Callicles, it is implied, is unable to relate to anything other than rhetoric’s showy practices. After all, this is the only instance he does not have a retort for Socrates. Perhaps, he is experienced enough in this false art to know when he has been beaten.

Moreover, the attitudes about statesmanship which are portrayed by figures in the dialogue, allow one to assume that these attitudes hold true for the general population, as well. If this is indeed the case, there is no question that Socrates is not only a good statesman, but the best choice under his definition. At the very least, he is less blind to the pursuit of virtue than his fellow Athenians. For example, Callicles, in an attempt to personally attack Socrates, demeans the importance of the philosopher. He advises Socrates to “âÂ?¦let philosophy alone and pass on to more important considerations,” Plato, p. 52 and calls philosophy “the ruin of a fellowâÂ?¦ [and] ridiculous and unmanlyâÂ?¦” Plato, p. 53 He explains that philosophers are not at all revered; that they are an embarrassment to themselves in political matters; and have no life experience. Considering this with the opinions of other figures in the dialogue, it appears likely that Callicles’ summation of public opinion is relatively accurate. An opinion such as this is grossly ignorant of the importance of the pursuit of truth and the philosopher. If this is the case, Socrates is more qualified than any other Athenian to fulfill his definition of a good statesman, as he is the only one with recognition of these concepts. While Socrates does say that he is not necessarily the only Athenian pursuing truth, it is reasonable to suppose he is the only option, as there exists no evidence of anyone equal. In addition, he declares that he strives for this pursuit habitually, and this is not true of any other living Athenian. These assumptions are additionally supported by Callicles and Socrates’ inability to name any statesman of the past who was not eventually declared unjust.

Not only does Socrates compare well against other Athenians, but he lives in committed pursuit of the truth, as stated previously. Therefore, even if Socrates was never able to fully reach the truth as a statesman, his method and intent would be correct. And again, we must assume he is the only and best option. Moreover, if his purpose is virtue, then his method must be virtuous in itself. Logically, the person with the fullest realization of the pursuit of truth, is the most capable of potentially achieving it.

Lastly, it is beneficial to note that there are multiple instances in the dialogue where Socrates states that his life’s aim is truth. The following is perhaps the most candid example:

“In my opinion I am one of the few Athenians (not to say the only one) who has attempted the true art of politics, and the only one alive to put it into practice. For this reason, then, I never carry on my habitual discussions with a view to gratification, but with my eyes fixed on the highest good, not on that which is merely pleasant.” Plato, p.100

In another example, he hypothesizes about himself being convicted of injustice despite having committed none. He states that if the false art of rhetoric were unable to free him, it would be inconsequential as compared to a situation where the truth could not defend him due to his inability to know or express it. Of this, he says, “âÂ?¦I should be utterly ashamedâÂ?¦ and if it were this inability that brought me to my death, I should be very sorry indeed.” Plato, pp. 101-102 This hypothetical further emphasizes Socrates’ seriousness about the pursuit of truth. Even if he is wrong about himself in these declarations, he demonstrates that his objective and method are still well-intended, and again, more accurate than any other Athenian encountered in the dialogue.

In conclusion, the dialogue clearly supports the general conclusion that Socrates is a good statesman, especially because he has the capability to hold this position in either of two situations. Under the conventional Athenian definition, Socrates is obviously well-versed in the popular standards of rhetoric and definitely skillful. This is well-illustrated in his speech which closes the literary work. Analysis of the literary form, interpretation, and content of the speech, reveals a masterfully crafted and effective composition. However, it cannot be said he is a good statesman in this respect. Instead, it is only possible to admit his ability to fit the Athenian definition, if he so desires. On the other hand, under his own definition of a good statesman, Socrates is equally, if not more, qualified. Evaluation of his philosopshy, shows that Socrates, at the very least, constantly strives to fulfill his definition – to pursue truth. In addition, one can assume through the attitudes of other characters in the dialogue, that Socrates is the only Athenian both capable of understanding this concept and habitually striving towards this end. Unlike the first conclusion, Socrates not only is capable of fitting his definition, but actually does live and work within these standards. This perhaps, is the more important of the two conclusions and is the greater testament to Socrates’ abilities as a philosopher and politician.

Endnotes
1 Plato, Gorgias (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall/Library of Liberal Arts, 1997), translated by W.C. Hembold, p. 77