Plato’s Gorgias

Week 5: Polus (461b-481b)

Whether because Gorgias is getting tired or because he’s actually getting drubbed pretty thoroughly in the discussion, his young friend and supporter Polus (whose name means “colt”, allowing Socrates to pun on his frisky impulsiveness, enters the fray. He doesn’t edge Gorgias out totally, and we occasionally come back to the elder sophist in the course of this section, but it is largely dominated by a changed line of attack.

Perhaps perceiving that Socrates’ method of inquiry is apparently working to his advantage, Polus gets the idea of reversing the flow: instead of answering Socrates’ question of definition, he turns it around and asks Socrates what he thinks rhetoric is. Socrates, much to Polus’ initial puzzlement, answers quite readily that he considers it a form of flattery — something designed to gratify the hearers in much the way cooks (whose goal is chiefly the appeal to the senses) are falling short of excellence of nutrition. Polus is not happy with this, and there is some back-and-forth effort to clarify what Socrates is driving at. By Socrates’ metric, anything that has this kind of goal, without taking into account the long-term correct benefit to the one perceiving (whether a speech or a meal) has mastered a knack, but not the true art (the Greek term is τέχνη (techne).

He follows this up by proving to a very reluctant Polus that such influence and gains as one can win over others by these means are not actually beneficial even to those who apparently exercise the power, but are ultimately acting to their disadvantage. Polus is not entirely persuaded, and Callicles at this point comes into the dialogue in highly indignant response, condemning Socrates’s approach as ridiculous and contemptible.

For discussion:

• Is Polus out of line by reframing the question Socrates has asked without his (or Gorgias’ having provided an answer themselves?
• Is Polus’ idea of power tenable? It does seem to correspond generally to a contemporary American perspective on power — that is it the ability to get and do what one wants, without restraint.
• Does the fact that the person unfairly gaining an advantage (like the dictator/tyrant) is not really getting what he wants (or should want in the long view, if only he knew what was good for him) mean that it is any the less real power?
• What are the goals and means of power generally? How do we understand them politically and socially?