Gorgias , livre ebook

Pub One Info - Plato

Découvre YouScribe en t'inscrivant gratuitement

Je m'inscris

Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne
En savoir plus

101 pages

English

Vous pourrez modifier la taille du texte de cet ouvrage

Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne
En savoir plus

A propos
Informations
Extrait

Description

pubOne.info present you this new edition. In several of the dialogues of Plato, doubts have arisen among his interpreters as to which of the various subjects discussed in them is the main thesis. The speakers have the freedom of conversation; no severe rules of art restrict them, and sometimes we are inclined to think, with one of the dramatis personae in the Theaetetus, that the digressions have the greater interest. Yet in the most irregular of the dialogues there is also a certain natural growth or unity; the beginning is not forgotten at the end, and numerous allusions and references are interspersed, which form the loose connecting links of the whole. We must not neglect this unity, but neither must we attempt to confine the Platonic dialogue on the Procrustean bed of a single idea. (Compare Introduction to the Phaedrus.

Informations

Publié par	Pub One Info
Date de parution	06 novembre 2010
Nombre de lectures	0
EAN13	9782819933915
Langue	English

Informations légales : prix de location à la page 0,0100€. Cette information est donnée uniquement à titre indicatif conformément à la législation en vigueur.

Extrait

GORGIAS
by Plato
Translated by Benjamin Jowett
INTRODUCTION.
In several of the dialogues of Plato, doubts havearisen among his interpreters as to which of the various subjectsdiscussed in them is the main thesis. The speakers have the freedomof conversation; no severe rules of art restrict them, andsometimes we are inclined to think, with one of the dramatispersonae in the Theaetetus, that the digressions have the greaterinterest. Yet in the most irregular of the dialogues there is alsoa certain natural growth or unity; the beginning is not forgottenat the end, and numerous allusions and references are interspersed,which form the loose connecting links of the whole. We must notneglect this unity, but neither must we attempt to confine thePlatonic dialogue on the Procrustean bed of a single idea. (CompareIntroduction to the Phaedrus. )
Two tendencies seem to have beset the interpretersof Plato in this matter. First, they have endeavoured to hang thedialogues upon one another by the slightest threads; and have thusbeen led to opposite and contradictory assertions respecting theirorder and sequence. The mantle of Schleiermacher has descended uponhis successors, who have applied his method with the most variousresults. The value and use of the method has been hardly, if atall, examined either by him or them. Secondly, they have extendedalmost indefinitely the scope of each separate dialogue; in thisway they think that they have escaped all difficulties, not seeingthat what they have gained in generality they have lost in truthand distinctness. Metaphysical conceptions easily pass into oneanother; and the simpler notions of antiquity, which we can onlyrealize by an effort, imperceptibly blend with the more familiartheories of modern philosophers. An eye for proportion is needed(his own art of measuring) in the study of Plato, as well as ofother great artists. We may hardly admit that the moral antithesisof good and pleasure, or the intellectual antithesis of knowledgeand opinion, being and appearance, are never far off in a Platonicdiscussion. But because they are in the background, we should notbring them into the foreground, or expect to discern them equallyin all the dialogues.
There may be some advantage in drawing out a littlethe main outlines of the building; but the use of this is limited,and may be easily exaggerated. We may give Plato too much system,and alter the natural form and connection of his thoughts. Underthe idea that his dialogues are finished works of art, we may finda reason for everything, and lose the highest characteristic ofart, which is simplicity. Most great works receive a new light froma new and original mind. But whether these new lights are true oronly suggestive, will depend on their agreement with the spirit ofPlato, and the amount of direct evidence which can be urged insupport of them. When a theory is running away with us, criticismdoes a friendly office in counselling moderation, and recalling usto the indications of the text.
Like the Phaedrus, the Gorgias has puzzled studentsof Plato by the appearance of two or more subjects. Under the coverof rhetoric higher themes are introduced; the argument expands intoa general view of the good and evil of man. After making anineffectual attempt to obtain a sound definition of his art fromGorgias, Socrates assumes the existence of a universal art offlattery or simulation having several branches:— this is the genusof which rhetoric is only one, and not the highest species. Toflattery is opposed the true and noble art of life which he whopossesses seeks always to impart to others, and which at lasttriumphs, if not here, at any rate in another world. These twoaspects of life and knowledge appear to be the two leading ideas ofthe dialogue. The true and the false in individuals and states, inthe treatment of the soul as well as of the body, are conceivedunder the forms of true and false art. In the development of thisopposition there arise various other questions, such as the twofamous paradoxes of Socrates (paradoxes as they are to the world ingeneral, ideals as they may be more worthily called): (1) that todo is worse than to suffer evil; and (2) that when a man has doneevil he had better be punished than unpunished; to which may beadded (3) a third Socratic paradox or ideal, that bad men do whatthey think best, but not what they desire, for the desire of all istowards the good. That pleasure is to be distinguished from good isproved by the simultaneousness of pleasure and pain, and by thepossibility of the bad having in certain cases pleasures as greatas those of the good, or even greater. Not merely rhetoricians, butpoets, musicians, and other artists, the whole tribe of statesmen,past as well as present, are included in the class of flatterers.The true and false finally appear before the judgment-seat of thegods below.
The dialogue naturally falls into three divisions,to which the three characters of Gorgias, Polus, and Calliclesrespectively correspond; and the form and manner change with thestages of the argument. Socrates is deferential towards Gorgias,playful and yet cutting in dealing with the youthful Polus,ironical and sarcastic in his encounter with Callicles. In thefirst division the question is asked— What is rhetoric? To thisthere is no answer given, for Gorgias is soon made to contradicthimself by Socrates, and the argument is transferred to the handsof his disciple Polus, who rushes to the defence of his master. Theanswer has at last to be given by Socrates himself, but before hecan even explain his meaning to Polus, he must enlighten him uponthe great subject of shams or flatteries. When Polus finds hisfavourite art reduced to the level of cookery, he replies that atany rate rhetoricians, like despots, have great power. Socratesdenies that they have any real power, and hence arise the threeparadoxes already mentioned. Although they are strange to him,Polus is at last convinced of their truth; at least, they seem tohim to follow legitimately from the premises. Thus the second actof the dialogue closes. Then Callicles appears on the scene, atfirst maintaining that pleasure is good, and that might is right,and that law is nothing but the combination of the many weakagainst the few strong. When he is confuted he withdraws from theargument, and leaves Socrates to arrive at the conclusion byhimself. The conclusion is that there are two kinds ofstatesmanship, a higher and a lower— that which makes the peoplebetter, and that which only flatters them, and he exhorts Calliclesto choose the higher. The dialogue terminates with a mythus of afinal judgment, in which there will be no more flattery ordisguise, and no further use for the teaching of rhetoric.
The characters of the three interlocutors alsocorrespond to the parts which are assigned to them. Gorgias is thegreat rhetorician, now advanced in years, who goes from city tocity displaying his talents, and is celebrated throughout Greece.Like all the Sophists in the dialogues of Plato, he is vain andboastful, yet he has also a certain dignity, and is treated bySocrates with considerable respect. But he is no match for him indialectics. Although he has been teaching rhetoric all his life, heis still incapable of defining his own art. When his ideas begin toclear up, he is unwilling to admit that rhetoric can be whollyseparated from justice and injustice, and this lingering sentimentof morality, or regard for public opinion, enables Socrates todetect him in a contradiction. Like Protagoras, he is described asof a generous nature; he expresses his approbation of Socrates'manner of approaching a question; he is quite 'one of Socrates'sort, ready to be refuted as well as to refute, ' and very eagerthat Callicles and Socrates should have the game out. He knows byexperience that rhetoric exercises great influence over other men,but he is unable to explain the puzzle how rhetoric can teacheverything and know nothing.
Callicles, in whose house they are assembled, isintroduced on the stage: he is with difficulty convinced thatSocrates is in earnest; for if these things are true, then, as hesays with real emotion, the foundations of society are upside down.In him another type of character is represented; he is neithersophist nor philosopher, but man of the world, and an accomplishedAthenian gentleman. He might be described in modern language as acynic or materialist, a lover of power and also of pleasure, andunscrupulous in his means of attaining both. There is no desire onhis part to offer any compromise in the interests of morality; noris any concession made by him. Like Thrasymachus in the Republic,though he is not of the same weak and vulgar class, he consistentlymaintains that might is right. His great motive of action ispolitical ambition; in this he is characteristically Greek. LikeAnytus in the Meno, he is the enemy of the Sophists; but favoursthe new art of rhetoric, which he regards as an excellent weapon ofattack and defence. He is a despiser of mankind as he is ofphilosophy, and sees in the laws of the state only a violation ofthe order of nature, which intended that the stronger should governthe weaker (compare Republic). Like other men of the world who areof a speculative turn of mind, he generalizes the bad side of humannature, and has easily brought down his principles to his practice.Philosophy and poetry alike supply him with distinctions suited tohis view of human life. He has a good will to Socrates, whosetalents he evidently admires, while he censures the puerile usewhich he makes of them. He expresses a keen intellectual interestin the argument. Like Anytus, again, he has a sympathy with othermen of the world; the Athenian statesmen of a former generation,who showed no weakness and made no mistakes, such as Miltiades,Themistocles, Pericles, are his favourites. His ideal of humancharacter is a man of great passions and great powers, which he hasdeveloped to