Gorgias vs. Plato

The rhetorical argument between Gorgias and Plato draws strong parallels
between the disagreements of whether or not a god (or gods) exists.
Gorgias, with his Sophist idea that there is no extravagant truth to be
attained, or that if there is—humans do not possess the sensory skill to
reach or achieve this level of absolute truth—might be best represented
as an agnostic. Plato, on the other hand, symbolizes a deeply religious
man with deep-seated aspirations of an afterlife, in my metaphor.

Gorgias, and by extension the Sophists, certainly possess more of a
realist perspective on human life. What we know is what we sense. The
senses are imperfect. Therefore, what we know is imperfect. However,
certain people can be taught to grow, through rhetoric, philosophy and
language to learn through argument and discourse. There’s not some
refined enlightenment in their path—simply growth in knowledge and
persuasion. In “Encomium of Helen,” he reasons out four possible excuses
for the beguiled Helen—almost like a President trying to lay out
possible solutions that will please everyone to a national health care
problem. (That’s not a political statement—it was just an easy, relevant
comparison…). The import of Gorgias’ diplomacy is that through this
writing he proves his theory that argument allows people to see the
various sides of an issue without necessarily placing judgment on any of
the sides.

Plato, on the other hand, is an idealist who feels that through rhetoric
and discussion people can attain some form of Nirvana (or heaven)—his
truth. His dialogue between Socrates and everyone else in “Gorgias”
certainly rings with the heir of superiority and enlightenment of
someone who “knows.” It’s almost as though he’s so desperate to prove
that there’s something more in life than just living that he’s resorted
to somewhat ruthless measures. Earlier today I watched Barack Obama on
“60 Minutes” to see the context of his assertion that, “that the
loudest, shrillest voices get the most attention,” and I couldn’t help
but draw more parallels to Plato here. Throughout recorded human
history, Plato’s writings were the loudest and shrillest philosophical
and rhetorical documents. Yet, his argument that philosophers can attain
absolute truth through thought, discussion and argument seems more to
have bred the divisiveness of contemporary “I’m right, you’re wrong”
thought (Christian vs. Muslim, Liberal vs. Conservative, even white vs.
black). This kind of thinking bred the “I, I, I” American way of life
(for one) and causes many conflicts throughout the world.

It’s apparent I decided to side with Gorgias, for the simple reason that
each individual has a different path to growth. If discussion and
argument can lead a person to see all sides of an issue, and not simply
some albatross of a TRUE answer, that ability, to me, is more of a
“truth” than any one truth can ever be.