Position-
“CALLICLES: In my opinion, that’s what natural right is – for an individual who is better (that is, more clever) to rule over second-rate people and have more than them.” (p.75)
Evidence-
“CALLICLES: Under this wonderful regime of justice and self-discipline, how could they possibly be happy, when even if they did have political power they wouldn’t be able to use it to their friend’s advantage and their enemy’s disadvantage?” (p.79)
“CALLICLES: That if a person has the means to live a life of sensual, self-indulgent freedom, there’s no better or happier state of existence; all the rest of it – the pretty words, the unnatural, man-made conventions – they’re all just pointless trumpery.” (p.79)
Position-
“SOCRATES: Unhappiness, then, is the lot of someone who’s the opposite of self-disciplined – in other words, the kind of self-indulgent person you were championing.” (p.105)
Evidence-
“SOCRATES: Now, during Cronus’ reign human beings were subject to a law which the gods sanction even to this day and which is as follows: an human being who has lived a moral and god-fearing life shall on his death depart for the Isles of the Blessed and shal dwell there, and live a trouble-free life of happiness; anyone who has lived an immoral and godless life shall be imprisoned in the place of retribution and justice, which is called Tartarus.” (129)
“SOCRATES: …scourged and covered in the scars which ever dishonest and unjust action has imprinted on it, utterly crippled by lies and arrogance and warped by a truth-free diet—and he’d also see that the promiscuity, sensuality, brutality, and self-indulgence of his behaviour has thoroughly distorted the harmony and beauty of his soul.” (131)
If Plato had not been trying to express something important, the second half of this dialogue (with Socrates and Callicles) would have been very superfluous. What this something is I am not sure; my best guess is that he is trying to show that rhetoric for its own sake is immoral, that convincing someone of a course of action while having little knowledge of the subject yourself is a moral crime. I could find no textual evidence for this (which doesn’t necessarily mean there isn’t any), so I could be completely off base. Somebody help me out with this!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
Nice post. Maybe some of the differences btwn the conversation Callicles as compared to that with Gorgias and Polus points to an additional point that Plato is making (though what that is, I too am not sure)
Schopenhauer and Nietzsche? That's an odd pairing. Don't they, largely, disagree with one another?
Yes they do in fact disagree on many points, what I should have said (I was distracted while writing that intro) was that I like both of them, but for different reasons. I enjoy Nietzsche's aphoristic and often scatterbrained writing style, but I also appreciate Schopenhauer's much more precise use of language. Our philosophies are similar only on the most broad, generic level; there are many particulars that I disagree with on both sides.
Post a Comment