Themes
Key
LitCharts assigns a color and icon to each theme in Gorgias, which you can use to track the themes throughout the work.
The Practice and Goal of Oratory
Justice, Injustice, and the Treatment of the Soul
The Pleasant Life vs. the Good Life
Philosophy vs. Politics
Summary
Analysis
Socrates asks another question. Since doing what’s unjust and suffering it are both evils to be avoided, how might a person protect himself from both of these? Callicles says that someone should acquire a power or craft against both. To avoid suffering anything unjust, Socrates argues that one ought to be a ruler in his city. He goes on to say that a friend is someone who is most like another. That being the case, a savage tyrant would certainly fear a person in his city who was much better than he; the same goes for someone inferior to him. A man of similar character to the tyrant, on the other hand—who thinks like the tyrant and goes along with him—will likewise enjoy power and security in the city. Such a person would have to be accustomed from childhood onward to the tyrant’s way of doing things. Wouldn’t this person then be immune from unjust treatment, “as you people say?” Callicles agrees.
In this section of the dialogue, Socrates applies what he’s previously established about the soul being characterized by justice to politics and living happily in general. How does philosophy apply to the life of the city? If avoiding suffering what’s unjust is truly one’s priority in life, Socrates says, then one should be in a position of power that lets them avoid such suffering (something Callicles agrees with). This inevitably involves befriending those in power and agreeing with them. Socrates’s implication here (“as you people say”) is that this is what orators (politicians) do—rather than pursuing a life of integrity, they seek self-protection through political alliances.
Themes
On the other hand, Socrates goes on, because of his position of power, such a person would have the ability to commit wrongdoing and avoid punishment—meaning that, after all, he’s susceptible to suffering the greatest evil, corruption in the soul. Callicles points out that, at the same time, that person would have the power to put to death the one who refuses to imitate the tyrant. Socrates concedes this—but this isn’t the worst thing. Does Callicles think that a person should seek long life at all costs and practice crafts which will prevent against dangers, like oratory? Callicles heartily agrees.
The problem with being in such a position of power is that it also places a person in the position to do wrong to others—and to avoid being called to account for it. In other words, it makes for exactly the kind of miserable, shameful life Socrates has already condemned. It basically forces a person to dedicate his life to looking out for his own safety and security by flattering those whose approval he needs.
Themes
Socrates gives examples, like expertise in swimming or in helmsmanship, by which a person’s life might be preserved. Isn’t it true that a helmsman of a ship doesn’t know which of his passengers might have been better off drowning during the voyage, either because of an incurable disease in body or (worse) in soul? That’s why a helmsman doesn’t boast about his career. Yet “you people” constantly boast about politics and urge others to join in, saying that other careers are worthless.
Socrates’s point in these examples is that mere prolongation of life isn’t necessarily the best thing. Ship captains don’t brag about their ability to safely transport people because they don’t know if a longer life necessarily benefits any given passenger. Socrates suggests that the same is true of politicians and orators—yet they boast as if their flattery of people (only paying attention to the pleasures of life) is a great achievement.
Themes
Socrates argues that there’s more to goodness than thinking about how long one will live. A person should be more concerned about living well during the time that’s allotted to them. Can it really be true that living well means endearing oneself to a political regime?
Socrates comes to his main point about the goal of philosophy: it’s more important to focus on the goodness of one’s life than its length. There has to be more to life than seeking power in order to preserve one’s position in life.
Themes
Get the entire Gorgias LitChart as a printable PDF.
Callicles is unconvinced. Socrates recalls the distinction between flattery and craft, the latter aiming to make its subject as good as possible. Isn’t it the case that we should try to care for the city and its citizens by making them as good as possible? Without that effort, there’s no good in offering anything else to citizens.
Here, Socrates argues that politics is actually misguided in the way it goes about caring for citizens. Politicians might boast of providing good things that improve people’s lives, but these things generally don’t make leaders into better people themselves.
Themes
Socrates offers an illustration. Suppose that he and Callicles were taking up building projects, like constructing a city’s walls, ships, or temples. Wouldn’t they first have to examine themselves to determine whether they’re experts in building? And wouldn’t they also need to check whether they’d previously built structures, and whether those structures were admirable or not? If so, then it would be wise to proceed. But if not, it would be foolish. The same would hold true if they were seeking to establish a public medical practice. It would be folly to do so without having established Socrates’s and Callicles’s state of health and whether they’d ever improved anyone else’s health.
Socrates imagines that he and Callicles are undertaking a public building project—something that would be foolish to pursue unless they could demonstrate competence in this area. Unless they can show expertise, past experience, and successful outcomes in building, then they should never presume to undertake such a role. The same is true for medicine—how can the unhealthy presume to improve others’ health?
Themes
Building on this, Socrates continues. If he and Callicles were to engage in the business of the city, shouldn’t they first examine whether either of them had ever improved any citizens? In other words, is there anyone who was wicked before who is now good? After all, this is what they’ve agreed that a person active in politics ought to be concerned about. Did Pericles make his citizens better than he found them? If he was truly a good politician, shouldn’t his people have turned out more just than they were before? Socrates goes on to name other Athenian politicians, like Themistocles, who were ostracized, impeached, or exiled by the people.
These same principles apply to the management of a city, Socrates continues. If neither of them can prove that they’ve made anyone else a better citizen—the purported goal of politics—then they shouldn’t take on that role. Socrates suggests that the fates of historical figures—their people’s hostile treatment of them—shows that these rulers didn’t succeed in improving their citizens. For example, Pericles was put on trial by Athens for embezzlement in 430 B.C.E.
Themes
Socrates concludes that, despite Callicles’s earlier assertion, they don’t really know any politicians who have done the city good. This shows that, if any of those men were orators, they didn’t practiced neither authentic oratory nor mere flattery.
Socrates can’t name any politicians who have benefited their cities in this way. Therefore, they didn’t practice oratory as a genuine craft. And, for that matter, they failed to effectively flatter their citizens, too—so they didn’t even master oratory as a knack.
Themes
Socrates observes that even though they’ve established that there are crafts which apply to both the body and soul, and that the former are subservient to the latter, Callicles keeps naming politicians as exemplary who’ve primarily been caretakers of bodies and servants of the people’s appetites. When this indulgence leads to sickness later, people blame those advisers who try to tend the sickness, while praising those who caused the sickness in the first place. But it’s those earlier leaders who have made the city what it is.
Socrates says that Callicles still misunderstands what politics ought to be—he persists in thinking of good politicians as those who give people things that they like. Such indulgence actually harms citizens. When others (implicitly philosophers) later bring this harm to people’s attention, they blame the messengers, not those who indulged them and led them to such condition in the first place.
Themes
Socrates asks Callicles what type of care for the city Callicles is calling him to—trying to make Athenians as good as possible, like a doctor, or simply gratifying them? Callicles suggests it’s the latter, implying that if Socrates doesn’t do this, he’ll be put to death. Socrates thinks that’s likely. He explains why: he thinks he is one of the only Athenians who truly practices politics. That’s because his speeches don’t aim at what’s most pleasing, but at what’s best.
Callicles again says that he thinks Socrates should practice the flattering kind of oratory. It’s not clear if he fully disagrees with Socrates’s critique of such oratory, or if he’s just warning Socrates that ignoring this practice will likely lead to his own death. Socrates actually agrees that this will probably happen—because he genuinely cares for the city (practices true politics), people will condemn him for failing to give them what they want.
Themes
In the end, then, if Socrates wound up accused in court, he would be in the same position as a doctor facing a pastry chef in front of children. He would be accused of harming the children by cutting them, making them hungry, and forcing bitter potions on them, instead of giving them sweets. If he gave the defense that he was acting in the interest of health, it would cause an uproar with the judges. That’s exactly what would happen to Socrates in court. He wouldn’t be able to point out any pleasures he’d given the people, or to counter the charge that he’d confused the young or abused the old. Presumably, then, he’d get a harsh punishment.
Socrates comes back to Callicles’s earlier critique of him. Callicles is right that Socrates probably wouldn’t fare well in court—but this is because people like to be flattered. Like children, they would object to Socrates’s harsh “medicine” of philosophy and reject his claim that he’s doing what’s best for them. Therefore, it doesn’t matter what Socrates would say under those circumstances—the people would probably condemn him anyway.
Themes
Callicles asks if a man like that is to be admired. Socrates says yes, if such a man has protected himself against doing anything unjust—the most important kind of protection there is. If he were put to death because he failed to be a flattering orator, he’d accept such a death peacefully. That’s because death shouldn’t be fearful for a reasonable person. Only doing what’s unjust—arriving in Hades with a soul marked by unjust actions—is something to be feared.
Callicles still doubts that a condemned man can be admirable. According to Socrates’s view of what’s good and just, such a person is the most admirable of all—much more so than someone who preserves life by aligning oneself with the unjust. For someone who behaves justly, death holds no fear.
Themes
