The Framework: Why It is Important That It is Better to Endure Suffering

Allan Nguyen

Kwan Hua

Rhetoric 103A

8 October 2016

The Framework: Why It is Important That It is Better to Endure Suffering

            In Gorgias, Socrates’s long, discourse-filled journey to discover rhetoric’s true nature, and of course denounce it, has lead him to one of the fathers of sophistry, Gorgias. Though Socrates initially begins his debate with Gorgias, one of Gorgias’s young, fervid disciples, Polus, attempts to step in and defend Gorgias and the power of rhetoric after Socrates deems rhetoric to be a form of flattery. Starting at 466a, Polus challenges Socrates by asking him how rhetoricians could have possibly become so highly regarded by the state and amassed such power if people had viewed them as flatterers. Polus wants to show that rhetoric is much more subtle than simple flattery and through its subtleness can achieve much more. However, to Polus’s surprise, Socrates, who first responds by taunting Polus as per usual, does not address rhetoric’s subtlety at all and instead goes for a much more radical claim: rhetoricians have not gained power at all. In fact, Socrates claims that rhetoricians have the least power of all citizens.

Of course this is not a claim that Polus can simply accept as a lot of rhetoricians seemingly have tons of influence over the cities they live in, and so Socrates is urged to explain the first of the many steps he takes to prove his claim. Socrates begins by stating that “power is a good to the possessor” (466b). This is intuitively true, and Polus agrees pretty readily. People tend to view the power that they have as a benefit more than a burden. The next step that Socrates takes is by pointing out that rhetoricians only do what they think is best. Polus at first sees no problem with that, as being able to do what you think is best seems to be a good indication of power. However, Socrates then creates a distinction between doing what you think is best, and doing what you will to do. He illustrates this distinction with an example about medicine and an example about voyaging. People take medicine because their will is to feel better, and likewise people go on voyages because their will is to acquire wealth. People do not simply take medicine for the sake of taking medicine since medicine is bitter and unenjoyable to drink. People do not go on voyages for the sake of voyaging because voyaging can be pretty dangerous. Like taking medicine and going on voyages, other actions that people take are also done because they will for something beyond the action itself. Some actions are done in accordance with what a person wills to do while others are not.

The distinction Socrates wishes to make is that not all of the actions that people think are best are actually in accordance with what a person wills to do. Rhetoricians, who clearly are allowed to do what they think is best, might not actually be doing what they will to do. Socrates connects this distinction with the notion of power by asking Polus, “if a fool does what he thinks best…would you call this great power?” (466e). Polus denies this is possible. If a fool does what he thinks is best, his actions are likely to misalign with what he wills to do. Thus, his actions cause more troubles for him instead of benefitting him. Then, the actions cannot be a good since they cause trouble. Since power was agreed to be a good for its possessor, the fool, who is allowed to do what he thinks best, does not have power. Furthermore, the fools who are the least restricted in being able to do what they think is best must have the least amount of power since their misguided actions can more easily bring them trouble.

            So far the argument has only proven that it is merely possible for the rhetoricians to have the least amount of power in the city since Socrates has not yet proven that rhetoricians are fools who believe the best actions are different ones from the actions that will actually help them achieve what they will to do. Socrates attempts to prove this by showing that all men, rhetoricians included, do things for the sake of a good. To prove that all men act for a good, Socrates first has Polus agree that everything is either good, evil, or neither. Things that are neither, which he calls indifferent things, include actions such as walking or speaking and objects such as rocks and chairs.  Socrates backs his claim that men act for the sake of the good by stating that “indifferent things [are] done for the sake of the good” rather than “good for the sake of the indifferent” (468a). The example that Socrates gives to support this statement is that we get up and start walking around when we think walking will lead us to some good. Even when we kill someone and take their belongings, we believe it is for some good, according to Socrates. Since we all will for the good, our actions would stray away from our will if they did not achieve the good.

With all those steps taken, Socrates has created a framework to try to show that rhetoricians have the least amount of power in the city because their actions work against the good which they will to do. With that framework, Socrates goes on to try to prove his claim through the famous argument on whether causing suffering or enduring it is more closely aligned with the good.