In these pages, we have one of the most extended examples of Socratic elenchus. Socrates begins by asking Polus to take a position on an issue: is it better to be caught and punished doing wrong than to escape punishment? Polus sez it is better to escape. He supports his argument with standard rhetorical artifices: historical example (his description of Archelaus who is happy despite his many wrongdoings, p. 102), vivid and emotional description (in his description of the tortured man, p. 104). Socrates sez these rhetorical devices are rhetorical refutations that do not advance truth. Then, carefully, Socrates leads Polus to agree with a series of more basic assertions that lead up to the contrary position: it is better to suffer than to do wrong. (1) Doing wrong is fouler and more painful than suffering wrong. (2) Suffering and giving a penalty are both good acts b/c they both suit justice. (3) The man who escapes suffering a penalty is analogous to the man who refuses a doctor’s ameliorative treatment b/c of the treatment’s discomfort. Socrates concludes that these three concessions lead to the conclusion: the man who escapes punishment must be more wretched than the man who suffers it. It is difficult to say that Socratic elenchus serves no useful argumentative purpose, since the discursive process has helped Socrates to attain consent from Polus (perhaps from you) about the definition in question: who is more wretched, the man who escapes punishment or the man who succumbs to it. But the larger question still hovers here: what is justice? Can elenchus answer that question? How? If not why not? Feel free to borrow from what you have read of the debate between Callicles and Socrates to answer this prompt, since this debate is about the nature of justice.
I have always had somewhat of an issue with the Socratic method, at least in the way Socrates employs it. I think that the ethos of Socrates is too powerful for both his interlocutors and ourselves. Socrates gets us to agree to things that we might not necessarily have agreed to otherwise.
I don’t think you can judge how wretched a man is by whether he succumbs to punishment or escapes it. How wretched a man is should be dependent upon whether or not he is remorseful and if he commits the crime again.
I agree with Chris that Elenchus is not a good tool to use in obtaining justice. It is very difficult to pursue the truth with a preconceived notion already in place.
I do not believe that elenchus is a good tool for obtaining the definition of justice, especially as regards to Socrates' subjects. Elenchus relies far too heavily on the use of analogy (Socrates' arguments go something like this: A is like B is similar to C has some of the same qualities as D therefore D is justice). It does not help tht Socrates' subject concede far too easily the objectionable points he makes (for example, when he says that a teacher 'persuades' his students).
Before deciding what justice is, it is necessary to define wrongdoing. For example, I may have killed someone, but I could reason myself out of guilt by saying that this person deserved death because he was a rapist and murderer. Was killing him still a crime? I think that is something to consider before defining justice although Socrates might claim that I'm just arguing in a rhetorical fashion by using a single example or testimony.
As a rhetorical tool, I do not think elenchus is effective at reaching a truth unless, like Sarah said, the questioner already has all the right answers. If, however, you believe that no human being has all the right answers and that truth has a better shot of being reached through dialogue and discussion, then elenchus is not the tool to use. It is also a poor tool if the individual you are questioning is not deft at anticipating answers as Gorgias and Polus proved unable to do with Socrates. In that case, the person being questioned does not do a good job defending his position and consequently, fails to provide a fair representation of the opposite point of view.
Elenchus might be useful because it requires the individual who is on the receiving end to integrate those ideas and accept them as the truth because they granted all the basic assertions and followed the logical progression of the argument. Like Chris and Heath said, this method is just too drawn out to be successful in any medium although I would like to see some political figures questioned in such a manner. I think the answers would be amusing. One can only dream.
I agree with Chris in that, if you already know the truth, elenchus is a really crappy way of making it explicit. Our time is the most valuable thing we have. If someone knows the answer to a question, but rather than giving us the answer and explaining why it must be true, decides it would be just more fun to have us spend our time jumping through hoops in the wrong direction, they should be slapped.
In Socratic dialogues it sometimes seems like that is what is going on- Socrates's interlocutors concede "oh yes Socrates" "you're right, Socrates" "that must be it Socrates"... while he leads them in the wrong direction or traps them. When Plato has the interlocutors disagree with Socrates, they usually fair just as poorly.
I think the effectiveness of elenchus and the dialectical method might be hard to see because Plato wants also to pay lip-service to Socrates. If a couple of people want to work out what they believe something like justice to be, they will likely both have unique experiences and beliefs to bring to the table that will help them question each other's assumptions, and both can walk away having gleaned something more than they brought.
I don't really have anything else to add. Elenchus just seems like it isn't represented fairly because Socrate's interlocutors are too quick to concede (or are just daft). Perhaps the interlocutors are convinced, but it seems like it leaves holes to me when they agree without explanation on arguable points.
I'd also like to add that Socrates is most definitely assisted through his ability to frame the discussion in order to bring about a conclusion favorable to his assertions. That said, framing (in this case through Elenchus) seems to be quite the powerful tool in argumentation when the other side defers to the frameset.
It is instinctual to fear and avoid punishment, I wouldn't refute that, but I'm not convinced that the wrongdoer who escapes punishment can be happy. From my experience, punishment by the sufferer or by an authority figure is preferable to the guilt that you feel if you escape punishment. (For instance, I accidentally pulled the tail off my sister's parakeet when I was little, and I could have gotten away with it, but I was compelled to confess when my sister saw it) It just depends on the wrongdoer, in my opinion.
As for using elenchus to answer the question of justice, I would agree that Socrates had already arrived at his answer. His questions had to be directed at a predetermined destination, the truth (according to Socrates). Elenchus to me is just a way of making this truth explicit to the listener and to the opposition.
I agree with you that it depends on the wrongdoer. In this case Socrates is implying that the person who committed a crime did so with that knowledge, but depending on the circumstances, a person may commit a crime in ignorance, or may not feel that what they did was a crime at all. In committing a crime, they may be pursuing their own notions of what is just, and what makes a higher truth than the person who condemns them. For example, MLK went to the Birmingham jail for holding a peaceful protest. He did not feel that he was committing a crime, but pursuing justice and racial equality. I do not believe that he would be more wretched had he not been arrested, and that it was more just that he was arrested. Socrates may have been able to make the case that MLK was rightly jailed, but I don't think that the elenchus would be practical in this case because MLK could come up with one of his own to refute any opposing methods.
I think that if a speaker already knows a certain truth, at least in his opinion, the elenchus can be effective. If Socrates had not already known where he was taking his argument, it would have been very difficult for him to stay on target. It seems as if Socrates already has his entire argument mapped out in his head, and he already knows which questions will lead to which answers.
But Socrates is not utilizing elenchus to merely dismantle his opponent’s argument, he does this to bring his opponent to realize a higher truth, that higher truth obviously being Socrates’ views on justice and how it is better to be the sufferer than the offender. At the beginning of his discourse with Polus, I must admit I believed it better to be the unpunished offender than the victim, for we as a society, at least for the most part, are taught that punishment is something to be avoided. When you’re a kid and you spill milk all over the kitchen floor (I know this example doesn’t really do Socrates justice), and your parents ask what happened, the most common response is probably “I don’t know” or if you’re truly “wretched” you blame it on a sibling. People are taught to fear punishment, so I found it only natural to think that it is better for one to escape punishment.
But after reading through the discourse, I really came to agree with Socrates: it was almost as if I had to because the elenchus is so effective. Socrates knows that every question will yield a specific answer, and those answers will eventually lead his opponent to realize a higher truth, that the offender is more wretched than the sufferer.
So if the man who does wrong is punished, he will have done what is just. What is just is what is good and fair for society. So if a man avoids punishment, he is the most wretched, for he not only did evil to the object of his crime, but to the whole of society and to himself because he violated what was good and fair.
I think that if one knows the truth about what one is arguing, like Socrates knows that it is better to be the sufferer than the man who caused the suffering, then the elenchus can be a very useful means to dismantling one’s opposing argument.
Well, to begin, I’d have to say that justice could not realistically be sought through elenchus simply because your listeners would probably hit you for asking questions in such a way. Not that Socrates was doing anything wrong in his words, but I would likely consider smacking him upside the head after leading me through all those verbal hoops, even if I did end up agreeing with him. I think Calliceles is would say the same, and this is partly why he jokes about “some rascal” eventually taking Socrates to court.
I will say that Socrates’ method of questioning does merit the fact that it produces precise answers for the questions asked. You can get a pretty good view of what someone thinks or doesn’t think if you can hold the frame of everything being said in your mind. Unfortunately, that could be considered a downside (at least in my opinion), as the conversation winds about a long path full of questions and answers, and you literally need a good memory just to keep up with the fullness of it all.
On the plus side of this, if we assume the discussion is logged somehow and previous points can be remembered and tracked, elenchus will paint a very vivid picture of the thoughts of the group (be it a small group or that of mankind). You pick out points that everyone agrees on and continue to build the argument until you come to your actual goal or conclusion. It’s a pretty decent way to build up the small individual points and definitions into a larger concept.
To define justice here, Socrates first had to find the agreement of the group on which ideas would be considered good/evil and fair/unfair. To punish for wrongdoings is fair, and to be punished is both fair and good. So, even if we have an idea of justice at this point, it’s always useful to have defined all the parts which make up the whole. If all this is true, then justice is pursuing the good and fairness through public affairs, and affecting that good for all citizens. The rhetoric they spoke of earlier in the text would then be used in conjunction with the knowledge of virtue to teach the good to the citizens and persuade them to that means.
Overall, I’d say this does indeed provide us with an abstract definition of justice, at least, though I’m not sure it would be as useful in coming up with practical applications to the same extent. Elenchus seems more a method for one speaker in the discussion to take apart his opponents arguments to help prove his own than as a reasonable method for finding truth in the matter. In this case, Socrates already had this truth in mind, and all he needed to do was show that everyone else’s ideas were wrong, or that they did not actually agree with them, and instead followed Socrates’ way of thinking. If Socrates didn’t already know what he wanted to say, if he wasn’t already sure of these truths, I don’t think the elenchus would be anywhere near as effective.
Socrates' belief that the man who suffers is less wretched than he who escapes suffering by some form of punishment would justify (somewhat) the violent, retaliatory actions that the man subjected to elenchus may be inclined to inflict upon the speaker. Gorgias is a fun read, but Plato certainly could have inserted some action. A good point for this would have been when Socrates asks Polus, "Hence the effect in the thing struck is such as the striker makes it?" Instead of replying, Polus, being younger and more passionate, could have landed a aolid right cross, and let hit actions answer the question. That would have been an interesting response, much better than "Certainly."
I think Chris hits it right on the head when he makes the point that elenchus, while it can eventually culminate in a step toward truth (in this case, something containing more certainty than previosly existed), may not be the most practical method of obtaining it. I had a hard time following their reasoning on the printed page; were I to be expected to follow them during a verbal exchance, I would probably become so frustrated that I would just concede the speakers' version of the truth so that the long-winded truth-seeking may end. Or, I would do as Polus should have done.
I will echo Chris' sentiment as well. Sure, elenchus can lead us towards the truth, but the way there is easily clouded by frustration, and any attempt at productive argumentation can easily give way to conceding to the speaker's version of the truth in order to end the torture, as sageff96 wrote. In fact, I'm almost inclined to accuse Socrates of being un-virtuous for lying; I recall at the onset of Gorgias that Socrates wishes for the answers to be brief throughout the dialogue, yet I found myself reading page after page of just Socrates talking.
Well now I'm just attacking Plato's long-winded dialogue.
I don't think elenchus can necessarily help us find out what justice is, but it can help us decide what it is not. Just because a man has been punished for his wrongdoing, doesn't necessarily mean he is remorseful, or won't risk the punishment to commit the same crime again. I think justice is that which helps right wrongs, tries to put you in the position you were in before you faced an injustice, and punishes those who commit crimes accordingly.