Customer Reviews

Gorgias (The World's Classics)

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This is one of my favorite Socratic dialogues. The evidence suggests that Plato wrote it soon after the execution of Socrates, and while I would not say there is a bitter edge to this Gorgias dialogue, I can definitely say that the exchanges do get a little lively at times. At one point, I could almost hear the voices of Socrates and Polus being raised as they argued. Another positive aspect of this dialogue is the fact that it is comparatively easy to understand. Socrates does not start spouting ideas about true Forms or using geometry to prove his points; the more esoteric, more advanced Platonic ideas are to be found in Plato's later writings. In many ways, this dialogue also serves as an introduction to Plato's masterpiece The Republic. Socrates' ideas on some things seem nascent at this point, and he actually contradicts some points he would later make, but the heart of Socratic thought lies within easy grasp in the pages of this dialogue.

The dialogue begins as a discussion about the true nature of oratory. The famed orator Gorgias is in town, and Socrates is most anxious to have a discussion with him. At first, Gorgias' younger friend Polus desires to speak for Gorgias, but he proves little match for Socrates. When Gorgias enters the discussion, Socrates treats him very well, as a respectable man with whom he disagrees, and Gorgias for his part is never flustered by Socrates' description of his art as a knack and as a form of pandering. Later, Callicles bravely jumps into the mix, and things really get interesting. Socrates seemingly admires Callicles' courage to state what he means without shame, yet he winds up getting Callicles to agree with his points in the end. What is it all about? The main points that Socrates makes are that it is better to suffer wrong than to do wrong, and that it is better for a man to be punished for his wrongs than to escape punishment. Implicit in his argument is the belief that all wrongdoing is the result of ignorance; following up on this idea, he declares that dictators and politicians who hold vast powers are the most miserable men of all. He goes so far as to describe Athenian heroes such as Pericles as bad men because the state was less healthy when they left office than when they took office, the proof being that such men eventually lost power and were even ostracized.

For Socrates, happiness comes from being virtuous and self-disciplined. The orator can make a great speech and convince his peers that he is right, but he does this by inculcating belief rather than knowledge in the minds of his audience; he requires no knowledge to win such a debate, and as a result he tells the people what he knows they want to hear rather than what is truly best for them. Right and wrong are immaterial to the orator, Socrates charges. Callicles urges Socrates to give up his immature fixation on philosophy and become a public speaker; were he to be brought to court and charged with a wrong, Callicles tells him that he would be unable to defend himself. Much of the concluding pages consist of a wonderful defense by Socrates of his way of life. He agrees that a court could rather easily try and execute him, but if that were to happen, only his accusers would suffer for it. His thoughts are for the next world, and he has no fear of death because he believes a man with a clean, healthy soul such as his will be given immediate access to the isles of the blessed. The execution of Socrates was clearly on Plato's mind as he wrote this particular discourse.

I would recommend this dialogue to individuals seeking an introduction to Plato's philosophy. The entire discussion is clear throughout and easily comprehensible, and it proves interesting to see how some of Plato's thoughts changed between the years separating this dialogue and The Republic.

Plato's Gorgias is one of the masterpieces not just of the Western, but of any Canon, and Waterfield's translation for Oxford World's Classics adds an informative introduction and many helpful explanatory notes. I have used this text for years in my ethics classes, and every time I read it I come away with something new. Plato pits Socrates, the defender of moral realism, against three opponents who represent varying degrees of moral relativism: Gorgias, the Elder Statesman of Sophistry, Polus, a young turk who is quickly trapped by Socrates, and Callicles, one of the greatest characters in all of philosophical literature, who presents a case not unlike that of Nietzsche's Uebermensch. Though it is difficult to say whether Socrates is fully successful in refuting his interlocutors, watching him try is both exciting and informative, and can serve as an excellent introduction to moral philosophy.

I read these translations before they were published, and can attest that they are extremely accurate and readable. Unlike most translators, Nichols strives for the highest level of accuracy and consistency. Key Greek words are translated consistently throughout, allowing the reader to follow their usage throughout the diallogues and see how Plato subtly plays with their meaning. Also, the footnotes are both helpful and exhaustive.

Anyone who read and enjoyed Allan Bloom's famous translation of the Republic will also enjoy these -- they are written in the same spirit. Don't waste your money on any other translation of these dialogues.

Oh, and I might add, the dialogues themselves are masterpieces of philosophy, and of Western literature. The Gorgias may well be, after the Republic and the Laws, Plato's thrid most important work. Must reading for anyone concerned about the fate of justice and morality in these troubled times.

Nichols' translation of Gorgias is indeed impressive. I have heard and read other translations of Gorgias- but the word choice of those other translation is too unadmirable(like "knack"-a word that is not fitted with Platonic dialogues). Nichols keeps consistent and easily understandable words. He doesn't go about saying "smart" words- unlike others who seem to try and exhaust their vocab. before they finish the work.

An easily approachable work is not a common phrase for Plato, but this rendition of the Gorgias presents diction and translation in an accurate and approachable manner, and luckily for the reader includes the necessary Stephanus pages. The only gripe I have is the constant flipping to the rear of the book for the notes of the author. I much prefer chopped pages to a constant back and forth.

A student of philosophy and most classics students will find this a good enough translation, but of course anyone pursuing this into graduate studies will want to look at the original.

Reading Plato is excellent introduction to philosophy, and reading Gorgias is an excellent introduction to Plato. His explicit purpose here is to question orators (i.e. politicians, in modern parlance) who resort to "flattery" rather than reality to advance their aims, and to contrast their lifestyles with those of truth-seeking philosophers. Socrates (always the protagonist in Plato's dialogues) ultimately defends the seemingly radical stance that it is better even to suffer and die at the hands of an unjust person than to commit an injustice oneself. Plato's dialogues are brilliant because they outline arguments in ways both easy to read and to understand, so even those who have never formally delved into discourse will find this book both illustrative and entertaining. The translation is usually both clear and clever; Socrates's sharp wit shines through, and archaic references are dutifully explained in footnotes.

As analytic philosophy, Socrates' argument is not watertight. Most skeptics will be thoroughly unconvinced by his arguments from analogy (i.e., judges inflict punishment to heal the soul just as doctors inflict pain to heal the body, p. 49) and his tacit reliance on an afterlife (pp. 107-113) to defend law over an anarchistic free-for-all. However, Socrates's great ability is refusing to leave customs and habits unquestioned, opening the door for further exploration and inquiry. Reading this dialogue will guide you--perhaps even excite you--to thinking critically about the extent to which we should pursue selfish aims, even if we do not seem to suffer consequences from them.

Even if--or especially if--you think of philosophy as a dry and dusty discipline, you owe it to yourself to read Gorgias. Perhaps you may even be convinced that, as Socrates argues, it is not only possible but essential to incorporate philosophical inquiry into the decisions you make throughout your life.

I give this book 5 stars just for the 2 commentaries that contained in here. The first essay discusses rhetoric and how it is being utilized in Gorgias and in Phedrus. The second essay (that comes after the translation) discusses the Gorgias itself in greater details. I believe that if you are serious in studying Plato, you need to read the commentaries. Plato's work is complex and multi dimensional, its essence cannot be understood on the first reading or by reading the text alone without the commentaries.
My interpretation of Gorgias which slightly differs from Nichols is the following:
While Nichols argues that in Gorgias Socrates attempts to find the best form or rhetorics to "persuade" the demos of Athens. I argue that in Gorgias, Socrates acknowledges that rhetoric is a necessary part of dialectic, even though it is not sufficient. Dialectic by itself is incapable of persuading people, rhetoric, however, because it lacks the true knowledge, only gives us beliefs. Socrates argument is that both rhetoric and dialectice are needed. He illustrates this in several places in which he relies on Gorgias to persuade Callices to continue with the argument. Without Gorgias (ie without rhetoric) the dialectic between Socrates and Callicles will end in an impasse. Rhetoric, after all is needed for dialectic to reach its conclusion.
Just like in the Republic, Gorgias ends with a myth, and not a logos.

I had to read this for school anyway but I found a new respect for Socrates. This book was written by Plato sine Socrates could not read or write. It takes place in Ancient Greece, Socrates is talking to politicians about rhetoric and it becomes a deep discussion about morality. To put it in simple terms. Good lessons though. I would say that it is actually a must read.

I've been reading some of Plato's diologues to find out more about Plato himself.

I consider these books to be light reading. They have a certain charm and you can relate to the various speakers of which Socrates is the main one for the dialogues I have read so far.

The main point here is comparing rhetoric or the art of verbal persuasion to philosophy.

Socrates' two great loves were beautiful boys and philosophy so you can guess which side Socrates was on.

He considers rhetoric to be a form of deception really which only superficially informs people for the sake of pursuasion for selfish motives.

Philosophy on the other hand is the real truth.

It talks about how if Socrates was ever pulled into court his lack of skills with rhetoric would make him easy prey for his accusers.

Since Socrates was executed perhaps this is what really happened I don't know.

I find these books interesting because Plato and those others believed in the mythological gods.

The explantory notes indicate that the three brothers Zeus, Poseidon, and Pluto divided up this earthly domain.

Zeus took the realm of the sky, Poseidon took the surface of the earth which includes the sea, and Pluto took the underworld.

Plato apparently didn't think too much of cooks. He calls cooking a knack and compares it to medicine which is a skill he says.

Plato gets carried away sometimes with his analogies.

Undoubtedly Plato's thoughts evolved throughout his life.

All of his many writings are I guess a snapshot of his thought processes at a particular time.

After I finish a few more of these dialogues I'll read 'The Laws' which I think was one of Plato's last works.

The next one on my list is 'Symposium'.

Jeff Marzano