Sunday, November 17, 2019
Plato, Gorgias Essay Example for Free
Plato, Gorgias Essay Introduction              Plato’s Gorgias is actually the story of virtue. Plato was evidently trying to resolve the ever lasting debate of what virtue was and what elements constituted virtue. In his dialogue with Gorgias, Socrates has not unilaterally concluded what virtue was; he has rather discussed what it could be. I totally agree with Plato who states that â€Å"the good is not the same as the pleasant, my friend, nor the evil as the painful†(Plato), because to be pleasant means to be subjective, and the notion of good is evidently an objective philosophical category. Virtue may be determined through the prism of its separate elements. Even when each of us individually determines what virtue is, there are still certain specific societal norms which may help us distinguish between good and evil. Plato has actually created several grounded suggestions as for what virtue was by discussing its separate elements: power, justice, temperance, and art.            â€Å"Rhetoric is to justice what cookery is to medicine†(Plato). This may initially seem surprising, as virtue and rhetoric are the two completely different philosophical categories. Moreover, there can hardly any connections between these two. However, Plato links them through the importance of rhetoric to justice, and through the importance of justice to the virtue. Objectively, the whole dialogue between Socrates and Gorgias comprises several separate discussions which are connected by one common topic: virtue. Plato was trying to depict virtue as the system of separate attributes and elements, and to discuss them through the prism of those elements: art, temperance, evil, and good. This is why Plato has concluded that good could not be equaled to pleasure due to its objectivity as opposed to the subjectivity of pleasure. Plato started Socrates’ dialogue with the discussion of art of rhetoric, and has led it to the issue of the greatest good. As virtue is determined and is directly connected to the greatest good, it is crucial that people know what this greatest good is. â€Å"That good, Socrates, which is truly the greatest, being that which gives men freedom in their own persons, and to individuals the power of ruling over others in their several states†(Plato). That was the vision of the greatest good as expressed by Gorgias. This is the individual vision of Gorgias, which may not always be accepted by others. As a result, how do we determine the difference between the false and the true arts? How do we determine what false and what truthful knowledge is? These were the questions raised by Plato in his Gorgias, and this is where the philosopher again implied that the greatest good was an objective, and not subjective philosophical category. Good and evil are the two objective categories which can even be taught or learnt. Subjective categories can hardly be learnt, this is why Plato implies that good is objective. Only objective philosophical categories can be learnt by others and can be perceived in a manner expected by other members of the society: â€Å"so he whom you make a rhetorician must either know the nature of the just and unjust already, or he must be taught by you†(Plato).            In his work, Plato speaks much about evil. Evil is opposed to good, and is also considered to be an objective philosophical category. According to Plato, evil is rooted in the wrongful and shameful acts. The seriousness of evil can either be determined by the extent of shame the person experiences, or by the severity of physical pain the person feels. It is interesting that this is the only position which is unilaterally accepted by all participants of the conversation. â€Å"Then I said truly, Polus that neither you, nor I, nor any man, would rather, do than suffer injustice; for to do injustice is the greater evil of the two†(Plato). Plato explicitly determines what the greatest evil is, and Socrates’ opponents have but to agree with him. Pain is subjective, and being involved into evil does not mean experiencing pain. Evil is the integral element of the discussion of virtue. There cannot be any effective discussion of what virtue is, without trying to define what evil can be. The importance of evil as philosophical notion is in its being linked to other crucial notions within the framework of virtue discussion. Politics, power, temperance – a philosopher cannot evaluate these categories away from evil. As Plato concludes that injustice and intemperance are the two greatest evils, he not only confirms the philosophical objectivity of evil, but he once again returns to the issue of pleasant and good: pleasant cannot always be good, and evil cannot always be pain. There is clear distinction between subjective and objective philosophical categories, and this is the key to understanding the implications of moral standards in Plato’s society.            As Plato speaks about good, evil, justice, temperance, power, and other important philosophical categories, he pursues the ultimate aim of his discussion and his lifelong philosophy: to define what virtue is. Those who participate in Socrates’ discussion, actually participate not in the dialogue, but in the brilliant argument upon the relevance and objectivity of these categories. Nonetheless, the objectivity of power, temperance, and justice is not debated: these also constitute the objective notion of virtue. As evil is not always pain, and good is not always pleasant, Plato also tries to show that â€Å"a man should be temperate and master of himself, and ruler of his own pleasures and passions†(Plato). Thus, a person should realize what common good is, what pleasures he is to suppress and to temper his passions. This knowledge of good and evil is the objective realization of societal standards and norms. This is the realization of how good or evil impacts our existence. Plato uses this key comparison between pleasant and good to show that he was correct in his assumption: virtue is the objective notion, and it can be determined in universal philosophical terms, which are objective, too. The separate objective elements (power, justice, temperance, art) ultimately constitute the philosophical structure of virtue.            I absolutely agree with Plato: pleasant is never equal to good, and pain is never equal to evil. Let’s discuss this point in detail. A simple example will help understand my position. We are constantly involved into the process of taking decisions. We must decide how to behave, how to apologize, how to avoid troubles, etc. There are the two distinctive criteria, on which we can base our judgments. First, we can rely on the universally accepted norms of human behavior in our society. Our standards make us aware and teach us how we should behave in certain situations, and what good and evil is. Second, we may also rely on our pleasure, and pleasure may become the main criterion in our decision making. This means that we will not rely on norms and standards of human behavior: we will use extremely subjective measurements which may hardly be accepted by others. Here pleasure is very close to personal tastes, which are never identical. If I enjoy historical documentaries, this does not mean that my brother will like them too; he would hardly accept the situation in which I will constantly watch this type of TV programs, and will not let him watch what he wants. This is where pleasure and good come into action. This is where objectivity and subjectivity of virtue become almost tangible. If I base my decision on pleasure, I will neglect the interests of other family members, and will keep doing what I want. Does this mean that I am good, if I experience pleasure in this situation? Certainly, it does not. Good is not similar to pleasant, and pleasure is a subjective category. What pleases me does not necessarily pleases others, but what is good is usually good for everyone. Being generous, attentive to others, and sharing is good; it is also good for those who need this attention and generosity.            This prism of discussion also possesses a different facet. When a person is good to others, does it mean that this person is pleased with such situation? Coming back to the issue with television and documentaries, a person may certainly accept the need to follow the general standards of virtue, good, and temperance. This person will do everything possible to suppress the wishes and pleasures, and to let other family members watch TV. Simultaneously, this need â€Å"to be good†will probably urge the person to step over his inner principles, and to pretend that to be good is pleasant. This person may avoid displaying the displease with such situation, or may not conceal the irritation, but it is evident that to be good for this person is not to feel pleasure of this goodness.            What I see as the key element of Plato’s argument, is the need to distinguish between the true and the false elements of virtue, between the objective and subjective standards of our conduct, and between pleasure and good. Plato was also discussing the elements of evil and pain in his work, but these issues seem less relevant to our lives. Evil is always evil, no matter whether it causes pain, but good is not good if it is based on one’s pleasures only.            Conclusion            In his philosophical work, Plato was actually trying to determine what virtue was. The philosopher used a bright parallel between good and pleasant to suggest that good was objective, and pleasant was subjective. The criteria of pleasure are mostly misleading when a person has to decide what good is. The problem is that good is an objective notion, and the standards of good are usually universally accepted within the specific society. Simultaneously, pleasure is a narrow subjective philosophical category. There is no such notion as universal pleasure. If a person pursues pleasure, this person risks being rejected by the society in the way he rejects the principles of objective good and virtue. If a person wants to follow the standards of good, pleasure should be pushed to the background. In this context, good is not always pleasant. The obligation to conform to the norms of the society is not always linked to any pleasant emotions or perceptions. In order to be accepted by the society, a person might need to overstep his personal principles, and to recognize the importance of good, temperance, power, and justice as the integral components of virtue. Ultimately, the person is to praise the objective moral categories, and to put them ahead of subjective perceptions. This is how human virtue works for the benefit of the whole society. Works Cited Plato. â€Å"Gorgias†. Translated by Benjamin Jowett. 1995. ILT Digital Classics. February 14, 2008. http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/publicATIONS/Projects/digitexts/plato/gorgias/gorgias.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.