Response for 9/4/07

I would like to begin by commenting on The Gorgias by Plato. Like Plato’s other work, I found Socrates to be longwinded and rather boring. I have a feeling that his other listeners did too. For instance, both Polus and Callicles resort to giving Socrates one word or one sentence responses. I know that for others, giving such short answers is usually an indicator that they hope the speaker will hurry up and make their argument. On the topic of arguments, I thought the one Socrates made about pleasure and pain was very interesting. He uses the example of quenching thirst as a pleasurable thing because in it is the absence of pain, and in turn pleasure and pain can’t be present at the same time. I find his argument faulty because to feel pleasure you don’t have to be in pain first. Like it was demonstrated in class, someone could be very happy and then more happiness could come to them. More happiness wasn’t a result of pain, it just occurred.

Departing from Plato’s Gorgias, I would like to comment on Gorgias’ own work the Ecomium to Helen. While at first it appears to be a story about Helen not being responsible, it turns out to be a defense of rhetoric. While if that was the point of Gorgias’ work, we will never know, but John Poulakos makes a great case for it in his essay. Like Poulakos said, Gorgias probably disguised the argument because the art of rhetoric was adopting a bad reputation and the Athenians were intolerant of anything that disrupted their culture. Since his art and profession were under scrutiny, he wanted to find a way to defend it without getting into major trouble. So, he disguised the argument by making rhetoric=Helen. The argument I found most interesting was that the blame shouldn’t be on the art of rhetoric, but instead on the men who use it unwisely. I feel that same line of reason can be adapted to other things. I am probably way out there in my reasoning, but it reminds me of people who don’t take the blame for their own actions when they use something in a manner it wasn’t intended for.

Overall, I think I am understanding rhetoric a little bit better, but there is still a mountain of information that I don’t. I am glad that I was able to lead the discussion on the opening chapter in our text book because I was able to look up a lot of new terms in order to better understand the subject. I thought it was interesting to read how Plato and Aristotle still dominate the modes of thought for the western world when Plato was such a totalitarian. Maybe it’s just me, but I am more attracted to the sophist side. I like how they view values coming from within a person. I also liked how they attempted to get a sense of the community they were addressing. As a technical writer, one of the most basic components in creating a document is to perform an audience analysis. Your document won’t be successful if it isn’t tailored correctly. I also like the sophists because I tend to root for the underdog. In what we have read so far, the culture of the time didn’t accept them. However, I keep crossing my fingers that somehow will see them pull ahead.