Talk:Gorgias (dialogue)

Comments
In the revisions I made, I added more content to the introductory paragraph to give the reader a better foundation for the discussion about the dialogue. I noted that Socrates is not simply setting “the rhetorician in opposition to the philosopher;” he is trying to define the essence of rhetoric, asserting that good rhetoric cannot exist without philosophy.

When first reading the page, I was confused by the section headings. I eventually realized that they were in chronological order, but as such, it was sometimes unclear how the headings fit into the dialogue, like the heading “Philosophy is a bitter draught,” for example. Even after reading the section, I was unsure the significance of this title. Is it a quote, and how does it relate to the dialogue?

Because I did not want to delete the work of the previous authors by editing the current headings and their content, I added additional sections under the heading, “Major Themes.” In this section, I discussed key issues in the dialogue that I feel were not adequately discussed, whether rhetoric is an art or a knack, the morality of the orator, the quest for truth, and the definition of rhetoric. I would suggest to future editors that the headings be reconsidered. Karatechop08 (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps 'transcendent' is better than 'transcendental' since the latter has obvious Kantian connotations and would easily lead to confusion? 70.37.8.95 17:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "Transcendent" was also a term used by Kant. It means erroneously considering a perceived object to be an unperceived object.Lestrade 20:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

I think this article is in need of a major revision. It's pretty brief, and it doesn't seem to stress the significant themes in the dialogue. Should we mark it as needing expert attention? Even Sparknotes has a much better summary. --treyjp 04:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm with treyjp on this one. I might put it on my to do list, because it's quite lacking in discussions of the arguments (like one of the main ones on pleasure/pain vs. good/bad [495d-499a])... Rockstar915 05:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Also the Sophists did not refer to themselves as "rhetoricians," as rhetorike was not even invented, either as a term or as a discipline, until after they were gone (arugably, the first instance of the term rhetorike is in Plato's Gorgias. See Schiappa (1999) for the full argument.

A Slight Qualm with this Article
This article reads as if rhetoric is a good thing when it teaches philosophy, but my take on this text is that rhetoric is, in the main, an inherent flaw within all of politics, but can be utilized well in the one specific case of teaching virtue. Socrates isn't so much as saying that rhetoric is good when combined with philosophy as he is identifying that rhetoric poses an apparent danger to any form of politics with the caveat that it can be utilized well if it teaches virtue. He's basically suggesting that it's generally detrimental to society, though. I mean, he thinks it can be good if and only if it teaches virtue, but, by in large isn't so.

I don't have a source for that, but it was what I was taught in my philosophy class, and, so, I don't think, an uncommon interpretation.

Also, this article could use a section on what other texts this influenced or how it has been criticized. Personally, since I'm particularly fond of it, I'm curious to see what other people to have applauded it have to say. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 03:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)