On pp. 106-108, Socrates gives up on any form of dialogue and takes to answering himself in Rumsfeldian fashion. Though he claims to be Callicles’s “fellow explorer in the search for truth” (p. 103), one can’t help but feel that Socrates had already decided upon his beliefs about justice, discipline and the soul before engaging anyone. At the end of his speech (p. 108), Socrates sez that he knows all of this is true because no one can “undo this chain” of reasoning. Does this monologue violate Socrates’s promise to jointly pursue truth through dialogue with Gorgias, Polus, and Callicles? Is Socratic elenchus just a clever rhetorical way to earn the interlocutor’s trust by pretending to care about what that person thinks? In the end, must the foundationalist resort to monologically spoon-feeding truth to the audience?
Submitted by longaker on Thu, 01/26/2006 - 10:59am
Login or register to post comments
Longaker RHE 330D
I belive that Socrates is
I belive that Socrates is egotistic and I dont like his approach at all. He claims to debate with other to seek truth, but yes and no answers arent the way to go. There are exceptions, there are circumstances, many things play into effect when dealing with an issue. He claims to seek truth, but he ultimately believes he is right, and by using HIS OWN method, is able to win the debates. When reading this book, I agree with a lot of his questions, but don't agree with his conclusions. I think he takes a large leap when he puts the questions together with his conclusions. Just because a man doesn't want to do wrong doesnt mean he would prefer to be wronged. I think Socrates manipulates the others to think he is right. He does try to "spoon feed" the audience, and I dont think that he ever considers the fact that he is wrong. He is just trying to get others to think the way he does (which is understandable), but his method is just not one im too fond of.
Bad elenchus
Perhaps this quip just makes me an anti-foundationalist, but there seems to me to be a problem with the method of elenchus as a tool in finding truth. Since a logical argument can only be carried as far as the strength of its premises allows, then all inferences made through it are subsidiary to the original premise -- that is, they're not original. So if truth is (hypothetically) to be found at the END of a line of argument, then the same truth must exist (or rather its root) in the premise upon which the argument was structured. Is not Socrates' elenchus, with its adamant insistence on strict definition and the logic revealed through the elimination of contradictions, just this form of argument which I just described? Then one ought to be able to find the truth in the first page or two of the dialogue, and subsequent discussion only elaborates on it. I have a problem with this, for it assumes that we can form true premises (which means we already know some truth). Thus rhetorical debate, meaning a more relative discussion which involves making arguments about better or worse (as opposed to true/false), seems to provide a better means to pursue what's right, and perhaps reveal the nature of truth.
yes, he does
yes, I would say that Socrates' little monologue does violate his promise to jointly pursue truth, but it seems to me that he violated it long ago when he began to form his thoughts into yes or no question format. Granted these dialogues are not the best example of a worthwhile debating match in terms of opponents abilities, but in many examples it appears that Socrates words his "findings" so that any right minded person would be prone to agree. I would hope that elenchus is not just a clever way to earn trust by pretending to care about what an opponent thinks, but I think it is easily abused that way. On the other hand, if two worthy debaters are seeking truth as well as self-betterment, I believe elenchus could be a real way to obtain truth, or at least a road that might one day lead to truth.
amy_lee
It is apparent from the
It is apparent from the beginning of the dialogue that Socrates is not interested in changing his beliefs, and thus is not interested in pursuing the truth with Polus, Gorgias, or Callicles. If you cannot allow your personal belief system to be questioned, or maybe challenged, how can you truly expect to engage in a search for the truth? I don't think Callicles was a match for Socrates, simply because he was not willing to challenge him. Instead, he gets frustrated, and says childish things (such as, "I don't have the smallest interest in anything you say" [103]). After reading these dialogues, I can barely remember anything that Callicles said in response to Socrates except "certainly," "very well," "quite true," and "it would seem so."
Socrates erroneously believes that since his opponents agree to his definitions and his agenda, they ultimately agree with his philosophy about the good. It doesn't seem like Socrates has impressed his company or changed their minds; he has simply frustrated them into submission. Socrates is "spoon-feeding" what he believes is the truth to the audience by describing it as self-evident. It's as if he's saying, "That's the truth, and of course you agree with me, right? Otherwise, you're a complete idiot. So obviously, I'm right." Man, that's annoying.
what is a rhetorical question?
I think Plato might say that there is no perfect form of communictaion as a means to discovering truth. I mean, if thats what were talking about, truth, that is pretty hard to come by. Plato shows gives us ample evidence that elenchus is flawed, but that doesn't mean that its completely useless. I like the part when Socrates is retracing his arguments with Polus and reminding Callicles that each assumption he made was met with agreement, or at least was opportunity for dissent. In the end, Socrates doesn't claim to know everything. He says he doesn't know anything for sure, but so far no one else has presented a better route than the one he has taken. While the method will leave many frustrated, its structure ultimaetly encourages open, honest debate.
my conclusion
This book has left me with very little faith, if any, in the act of elenchus. If the person who seems to have developed it can't follow its rules then how can anyone else? I believe that an elenchus, the way Socrates wants us to conduct it, is nothing but a sophism. How can we embark on a search for the truth if we don't already posses that knowledge? (how do we know that we have reached the end of our jurney if we don't know our final destination?) Socrates seems to already know the truth, so he isn't conducting an elenchus he is merely pretending to, so he can lead them to "his truth" and have them believe that they have found something together, something that was unknown to both. I think that it is a great way to trick someone into accepting your truth or point of view, because, if you aproach an argument with the notion of already knowing the truth then people get on the defensive and are less likely to accept your point of view, but if you approach it from an I'm ignorant to the truth can you help me find it stand point then people lower their guard, which makes it easier for you to lead them in your direction. Elenchus is the sugar that helps the medicine go down
hmmm
I have to agree that Socrates has an obvious agenda in the Gorgias. And i think that his elenchus appears only to work if you already know where it is youre going (how can i drive myself home if i dont know where my house is -- kinda paradox) I dont believe that elenchus is totally useless either. Truth is supreme. in that since if one knows the truth you could guide another searcher toward it through elenchus. But if both parties are truly ignorent of the truth i dont think elenchus will really get you there mostly because i dont believe that the human reason is capable of discovering it on its own. Socrates was on to something when he turned the contemporary moral values upside down. the ways of the Truth are different and higher than the ways of fallen man made in the image of the Truth. However if the Truth is revealed to man, then he too, can pursue it with zeal.
I would have to agree with
I would have to agree with what Adam has to say. We shouldn't label elenchus as an ineffective mode of dialogue or debate simply because Socrates does not follow the rules.
I have to be frank here; I just wanted to punch Socrates in the face during the last 40 or so pages of _Gorgias_. His arrogance and outright disrespect to the practice of elenchus made me want to stop reading, but of course I did not.
Socrates defends his last point on p. 131 with a story that he admits will "seem just a legendary tale to [Callicles]" but then goes on to say that "[it] is fact to me; what I am going to tell you I tell you as the truth" (p. 131). Doesn't this statement completely invalidate everything Socrates has been preaching about the point of elenchus? Socrates took great pains earlier in _Gorgias_ to prove that in order to have an effective debate, one needs only to convince the person with whom one is speaking. Socrates here violates this principle, and uses a story that he knows Callicles views as false to prove a point.
Furthermore, Socrates argues that his version of how to lead a good life is truth because “the wisest men in Greece are unable to show that there is any better way of life than this one now” (p.135). Seems to me that Socrates doesn’t take elenchus seriously. He entered the debate with a predisposition to a certain story and then twisted people’s words until they too agreed with what Socrates had already determined was the truth.
In response to your last question, I do not believe that the foundationalist must resort to spoon-feeding the truth to the audience. Elenchus is designed for both foundationalists and anti-foundationalists, but the participants must enter the dialogue/debate willing to hear new ideas and put their ideas into question. If one (such as Socrates) is already firmly set in their beliefs and has no interest in hearing the beliefs of others, one would have to spoon-feed the audience the truth and thus not engage in elenchus.
Discussion Leader Post
The key issue here is figuring out whether Socrates gives his tirade because of his foundationalist perspective or because of his fundamentalist leanings. I contend it is the latter. Perhaps a more skeptical foundationalist would have criticized Callicles because his argument fails to pursue any truth—it simply deconstructs. But the big moment comes in the chain analogy, which highlights a typical feature of the Socratic method; it presumes that once something has been agreed upon, it is the truth (his later qualification that “I do not claim to know that this is so, but I have never met anybody…who has produced a different opinion without making himself ridiculous” on 108 belies his entire mode of argument—if we are to believe Socrates’ “know-nothing” front, then how are we sure he’s pursuing the truth?). The notion of the truth in foundationalist thought can be a frightening tool against free thought—“we’re pursuing the truth,” one says, “and so what we agree on is the truth or at least its proxy,” so we’re led to the unbreakable chain. And not just are we talking about a set notion of truth, but we also must agree upon good and evil, and so it goes. A logical argument is only as good as its premise, and I get the notion that if anyone put Socrates on the defensive about his definitional arguments, he’d end up contradicting himself as well.
But that’s just Socrates. A less fundamentalist person might have more patience than Socrates does, even with someone as baseless and prone to ad hominem as Callicles. So I think that still bodes well for Elenchus. Let’s suppose an argument between a more skeptical foundationalist and an antifoundationalist who could hold his topic. Perhaps their discussion is moderated. Perhaps each gets a turn to be on the offensive or the defensive, and each is able to sort out his thoughts and definitions. And, most importantly, agreed-upon points are not etched in stone; they can be molded or changed such that the premise of the argument is still sound. Aren’t these two people still pursuing the truth? Not in Socrates’ view, because, well, why pursue the truth when you already know it?
I don’t think a foundationalist can’t spoon-feed the truth to an audience monologically so long as he actually does as Socrates says, and maintains that he doesn’t know the truth. Without the premise that one party knows the truth, you’ve moved from the territory of persuasion back into the territory of argument, which for Elenchus, would be the “good” territory. Furthermore, doesn’t the idea of “pursuing the truth” presuppose that neither party knows the truth? If I want to eat a cupcake, I “pursue” it by driving to the store and buying it. If I want to eat a cupcake, and I already have it in my hand, am I engaging in the act of pursuing the cupcake?
So, to recapitulate, Socrates’ monologue violates his promise like Bush violates the English language (which is to say, egregiously). BUT that doesn’t smear the idea of Elenchus—it just shows that Socrates is not really engaging in it. This might be the clearest support of the idea that Plato is critiquing improper Elenchus in the Gorgias. With one party supposing he knows the truth (therefore not pursuing it) and the other unable to find the truth if he walked into it, Elenchus is just…not happening here.
reply
Personally, I think Socrates went into the discussion with a preset agenda. His questions seem premeditated; his traps become predictable. If I were to enter into a dialogue with him, I would most likely be shut out like his other victims, likely because I am unprepared for the type of exchange. If life is an ongoing quest for truth, why does Socrates claim to already know everything? What gave him the signal that he had arrived? Does he consider that truth could be playing a joke by his thinking that he has attained it? No one ever asks him how he can be sure of his truth. And if they did, he would likely launch into a speech of big thoughts, not actual evidence. He demands simplistic answers from his comrades, yet embellishes every word out of his mouth. I think a dialogue between him and "truth" would make for the best character interaction.
--julieann galloway--
Clarity at the end
I agree with Julieann's idea that Socrates went into the discussion with not only a preset agenda, but his style of leading his opponent with loaded questions and turning logic upside down for the sake of looking at things his way were only ploys to get to his truth. I was not surprised by the end of the novel that Socrates just wanted to speak himself, but I found that in the last part of the book, Socrates began to do the very things that he criticized such as oratory (his incesant desire to continue the argument even though all other parties were disengaged) and using witnesses. Socrates prided himself at the beginning of the book when debating Polus, but then later brings in stories about wise leaders and the ultimate eternal judgement of everything being "righted." In the end. I almost didn't even take the story seriously because I could not believe that Socrates used his entire argument (no matter how weak and unfounded it may have been from time to time) to point to a tale he believes true although he has no way of proving it's validity. I was frustrated by how his opponents allowed themselves to be led by his two-sided definitions and his specific word choice in order to prove his point, but the ending made it clear that all of his proding and questioning were only a mask for what he intended to prove to them. Socrates had already established what he believed to be true and his opponents would have been better off had they possessed similar hardened ideas in order to better prepare to cross-examine this arguements he presented rather than accepting them at the time because they had offered no other better alternatives.
Nicely put
Socrates sees himself as the expert in truth, and as such breaks his own rules concerning elenchus by not truly having the goodwill in intent. He intends to reveal his own idea of truth by trapping his interlocutors with contradictions. I definitely agree with you that if he were on the defensive he would be trapped up as well. He has several contradictions in his monologues, but he was dominating the dialogue so much at that point they were never revealed.
Callicle's argument was this extreme view against Socrates'. I would have preferred someone that could have had a more virtuous perspective that went against Socrates' - say someone to challenge his assertion that if a man lives a virtuous life but has not helped anyone is truly "good". I think there is a lot of room for debate there, but it never comes up. Not to mention how stale and boring life would be if everyone went about their lives with the utmost self-discipline. Certainly there would be no cupcake pursuit at that point.