This is my second and final Gorgias read-along essay. In the first, we heard Socrates’s unconventional view that Rhetoric is contemptible because it persuades without creating understanding. He also insists it’s better to be wronged than to do wrong to others. Now we get to see what the opposite of these opinions looks like when played out to their natural conclusion.
Socrates comes out swinging!
This time, he’s struggling against a kind of shadow Socrates holding polar-opposite values — Callicles, a proto-Nietzschean Übermensch
Right off the bat (481), Socrates mocks Callicles (Callicles takes it as a joke), noting that the sophist has two loves — “the Athenian populace and Demus the son of Pyrilampes.” The latter is the teenage boy Callicles has a pederistic relationship with.
In ancient Greek, “demos” also means “the people,” so the jab insinuates that Callicles only loves one thing — public adoration. He’s also so desperate for public love that he can’t stand up for what he believes in.
“You’re incapable of objecting to anything your loved ones say or believe. You chop and change rather than contradict them. If, in the assembly the Athenian people refuse to accept an idea of yours, you change tack and say what they want to hear, and your behavior is pretty much the same with that good-looking lad of Pyrilampes.”
Socrates just accused Callicles of being enslaved in a way Epictetus would understand. And isn’t this just like modern politics? Today’s politicians mostly shrug at their people’s incorrect beliefs and say you can’t lead the masses toward justice. Most trot after them down whatever dark road they’re on with a bullhorn, advocating for constituents’ desires rather than their good.
Socrates is the opposite of this. He says he’d rather be the lone voice of harmony leading an out-of-tune, unruly choir than like Callicles, debasing himself to please the crowd, out of sync with truth.
But Socrates isn’t done.
If Callicles fails to refute Socrates’s point that unpunished wrongdoing is the greatest wrong, then Socrates says he’ll forever be at war with himself and miserable.
Shame:
Callicles fires back that Socrates’s tricks won’t work on him, because while Gorgias and Pollus have shame, he has none, and will tell it like it is.
So what’s this great truth? The “weaklings who constitute the majority of the human race,” make all the rules, Callicles says. In doing so, they hobble the strong for their benefit. Who are these stronger people? Those superior enough to increase their share of things. So the weak define justice in ways that leave them more than the scraps they’d normally be stuck with by restraining the best people around them.
The Other Natural Law
Drawing on a kind of "law of the jungle” to justify his views (483), Callicles suggests “we only have to look at nature to find evidence that it is right for better to have a greater share than worse, more capable than less capable.”
Callicles’s theory of “natural law,” is different from the one we’re used to hearing about. Plato had an idea of an ordered universe based on laws, particularly the “Form of the Good,” which Plato calls "the brightest region of Being."
But it took the later Stoics — particularly Seneca — and Cicero to develop natural law into the fundamental equality of human beings. It was a startling break from what came before. Most Western ideas of justice, equality, and natural rights are built atop this foundation.
But all that lay in the future. Amid the Peloponnesian War, there is only Socrates and Callicles.
A Jab At Philosophy:
Callicles insists his claims are self-evident to those who don’t spend their days with their heads in the clouds practicing philosophy, like Socrates. Oh, sure, a little philosophy when one is young is fine. It makes one cultured. But it’s impractical, and too much deludes a person, as Socrates is deluded.
Callicles is voicing the idea prevalent in modern philosophy departments (and among the general public) where philosophy is more an intellectual pursuit, a way of addressing abstract problems, or a sign of being cultured rather than something that changes us and makes us better.
He continues that philosophy leaves one completely unprepared for life. Socrates would be incapable of defending himself if he was ever hauled before a law court (another preview of Socrates’s Apology, in which Socrates is sentenced to death.)
What Is Superior?
Callicles defines stronger and superior as synonyms.
But isn’t the public as a whole stronger/superior to any individual, no matter how great? So shouldn’t the masses rule?
By 489, Callicles is forced to change his tune. Now he thinks superior means more intelligent. A single clever man is better than 10,000 idiots. He should rule over them and have more of what’s good.
And what are these things they should have more of? Food? Clothes? Shoes? Callicles is getting annoyed at Socrates but doesn’t offer a better example.
Now he revises his definition of the best to mean clever people who’ve considered how best to run their communities and are courageous enough to do it.
Can The Rulers Rule Themselves?
Socrates wants to know if these superior rulers of men can rule themselves. Are they disciplined?
Callicles scoffs. Of course not (491):
“…happiness is incompatible with enslavement to anyone…the only authentic way of life is to do nothing to hinder or restrain the expansion of one’s desires, until they can grow no larger. …if a person has the means to live a life of sensual, self-indulgent freedom, there’s no better or happier state of existence…”
Callicles sees discipline as enslavement to the self, which is a fascinating, kind of mind-bending perspective. Socrates thinks that unbounded, limitless desire is what enslaves us.
Socrates’s Analogies:
Now we get Plato/Socrates at his best, coming up with great analogies for the kind of life Callicles endorses.
* It’s like a man trying to fill a container with a hole in it, emptying almost as fast as it can be filled.
* It’s like a man with an itch who loves to scratch and scratch.
And the implied analogies get worse.
Here, hilariously, Callicles says it’s Socrates who should be ashamed to say this, but it’s his ideology being examined.
Through a series of concessions, Socrates gets Callicles to grudgingly agree that to live well is not the same thing as experiencing pleasure. Good is not synonymous with pleasure either.
Gorgias Butts In:
Callicles begins to grow obstinate, unable to rebut Socrates but also not agreeing with him. So Gorgias — Callicles’s mentor, who we heard from in part one — butts in and urges him to continue talking to Socrates.
This will continue, and we get the sense that Callicles would flee without Gorgias urging him on. Gorgias is either committed to finding the truth in a way his students are not, or he’s actually a bit revolted by the ideology of his students. Maybe he didn’t realize just how immoral they were, and what they wanted to use his rhetoric to promote.
I won’t review every piece of the argument, but by 505, Callicles is refusing to talk anymore. Gorgias urges Socrates to continue giving both the arguments and the refutations, which he does with aplomb. Here are some of his points:
* Unhappiness is the fate of the undisciplined person (those with unlimited desires)
* The just person devotes all their own or their community’s energy toward ensuring justice and self-discipline, which guarantees happiness.
* Hinting at universal laws, Socrates says, “ co-operation, love, order, discipline, and justice bind heaven and earth, gods and men. That’s why they call the universe an ordered whole…rather than a disorderly mess. You’ve failed to notice how much power geometrical equality has among gods and men…”
As this continues, Callicles says, “I do think you’re making your points well. All the same, I’m feeling what people invariably feel with you: I’m not entirely convinced.”
Around 517, Socrates starts an interesting argument about leaders delivering “good things,” to the people, such as Athens’ prior leaders building up its empire, infrastructure, navy, and tribute. But these accomplishments only made the Athenians worse people. The current generation was morally worse than their poorer, more vulnerable grandparents who bravely fought the Persians at Marathon.
A Truthful End:
Socrates finishes up the dialogue by asking Callicles to join him, since he couldn’t refute his ideas. “Once we’ve completed our training together…we will return to public life…to contribute ideas of our own to political debates.”
But is anyone listening to Socrates’s monologue? Certainly not Callicles.
We see the true limitations of Gorgias’s rhetoric and Socrates’s philosophy. Rhetoric persuades without granting understanding, and philosophy often grants understanding of our errors, but with no guarantee of persuasion or anyone changing their life.
And so the true philosopher often finds himself alone. He might call into the void and be joined by a small group of the like-minded, but the crowd looks on in disdain and disinterest, their eyes on the glitter of the rhetoricans.
Socrates’s invitation to Callicles is an invitation to us. You’ve seen the two options on the table.
What will you choose?
If you want to discuss Gorgias with us on August 28th at 7:30 p.m. Central Standard Time, we’re having a reading group meeting for paying subscribers (discounts available!).
I hope you’ll join us.
Thanks for reading Socratic State of Mind.
If you liked this article, please like and share it, which helps more readers find my work. I’d also love to hear what you think in the comments below.
