10 October
2001
These minutes
were spoken on 12 October; for another version,
[Professor Hutchinson began
with a few announcements. As of
Wednesday, scribes are required to aim for a 1200 word count for their lecture
summaries so as to repeat ideas consistently and concisely. (This update is
listed on the course website).
Also, starting October 12, 2001 the “Understanding Islam”
Film Series will be presenting movies on Fridays at the Town Hall, Innis
College.]
* * *
Affiliated
with the Sophistic movement, Gorgias of Leontini, Sicily, shared many interests
and occupations with his predecessors.
Gorgias was an ambassador who initially won fame for his
“electric” speeches in the city of Athens. Like Protagoras and also Prodicus,
Gorgias was a marketing success.
He promoted his oratorical skills through impressive sample lectures to
the public. The equivalents to modern-day ‘infomercials’,
Gorgias’ orations were designed to encourage members of the audience to
register for his seminars. Like
other Sophists, Gorgias charged students a hefty fee for his services and
amassed a considerable fortune in his lifetime.
In addition to public speaking and
teaching, testimonial evidence suggests that Gorgias had wider interests. T13 and T14 allude to the theory
of emanations- a physical explanation of sight attributed to Empedocles. Alongside his knowledge of Empedoclean
theories, evidence reveals that Gorgias was also familiar with the
philosophical work of Zeno of Elea- another predecessor from western Greece,
and responded to him in his writings.
While some scholars are inclined to dismiss Gorgias’ writings as
playful and of little philosophical value, Professor Hutchinson suggests that
the two paraphrased versions of Gorgias’ philosophical treatise: On
What is Not or On
Nature (T11 and T12
respectively), were directly intended to exploit or parody Zeno’s
“technology” of argumentation. Using the same schematic of a
destructive argument, Gorgias contradicts the monism of Parmenides and his
followers and proves that nothing has being. Deducted in the same way every
time, Gorgias’ logic accomplishes this by proving the falsehood of a
given proposition and then affirming its negation. The argument is structured
as follows:
whether P?
if P, then A or B
not A
not B
therefore, not P.
An
interesting point of departure that distinguishes Gorgias from other Sophists
is the absence of any claim to teach virtue. While other Sophists were committed to the idea that they could
elevate their students to higher standards of morality, Gorgias only guaranteed
that he would successfully transmit the technical skill of persuasion to
others. Never the less, Gorgias
held these skills of rhetoric in the highest regard and applauded himself for
his own mastery of what he considered to be the greatest of abilities. Thus, if
Gorgias were to hypothetically teach students who possessed no virtue, and who
went on to pursue improper ends- such as say, careers in advertising- this
would not have troubled Gorgias too greatly. He had no obligation to teach virtue- and rightfully so,
even by contemporary standards. While we do believe in moral guidelines in
public education, professor Hutchinson remarked, there are no moral
prerequisites per se. For example, if we sign up for a course in
“defensive biking” we are not expected to fill out a moral
questionnaire or have our values scrutinized. Similarly, Gorgias presumes his
students have already received moral education and so he assumes his only duty
is to transmit to students how to become effective orators. However reasonable this stance, Plato
attempts to discount and humiliate Gorgias on the absence of virtue in his
teaching through Socrates. In conversation, Gorgias is asked to consider a situation
where a former student who acquires powers of persuasion goes on to use his
acquired skills to commit a crime (Gorgias 456a-461b). As professor Hutchinson
suggests, the discussion of culpability for immoral actions in this context
reflects more on Plato than it does on Gorgias. That Gorgias was baffled by the presumption that virtue
accompanies skill acquisition is a perfectly legitimate reaction (Gorgias
456d-457c). It was Plato and Protagoras who believed that it was possible to
train someone in “outstanding virtue”- an ideal of education we now
retreat from at most institutions.
Tests at universities for example, are strictly of a technical nature
and do not attempt to deconstruct our moral defects.
The most evocative examples of
Gorgias’ rhetorical skill were funeral orations- solemn, public speeches
delivered over the fallen. The most famous and impressive speech was recited
for the great statesman Pericles. Gorgias himself would not have read this
speech aloud as this was not a privilege granted to foreigners. Professor
Hutchinson quoted an excerpt from the speech in Dionysius’ On Types of
Style (F2), as an
example of Gorgias’ ostentatious style and clever use of rhetorical
devices. The speech includes many
symmetrical clauses, such as: “May I be able to say what I want, and may
I want to say what I should…”- a clever paradox. Or the phrase, “Often they
preferred gentle fairness to inflexible justice…” is read as adjective
noun, adjective noun. When
delivered by a good orator, these speeches were quite intoxicating. To catch
all the symmetries, paradoxes and inversions however, was intellectually
taxing. The words were often so enticing that most listeners forgot to notice
that the utterances themselves did not make much sense. The speeches were designed to rouse and
generate waves of euphoria. Such emotional appeals were persuasive but not in
any way illuminating- somewhat similar to the speeches of “Dubya” Bush…
Gorgias was a “trailblazer and
innovator” in the use of effective language. Many of his techniques are still used by contemporary
writers, such as balanced clauses and assonants in poetry (words beginning with
the same syllables). However, many devices eventually became obsolete, as they
were excessive or too ‘flowery’.
Gorgias was so confident in his
persuasive powers that he took up most unlikely cases and argued against widely
accepted Greek conventions. For example, he composed an elaborate speech in
praise of salt- a worthless mineral of great abundance in the Aegean. Even his
philosophical proof that nothing exists was ostensibly orchestrated to show the
superiority of his rhetoric.
Gorgias’ most famous promotion of his expertise occurs in The
Encomium of Helen,
where he attempts to praise Helen of Troy- a legendary figure in Homer’s Odyssey who allegedly instigates a 10-year
war by committing adultery and fleeing with her lover Paris of Troy. Professor Hutchinson read from (F1)
examples of the arguments Gorgias invoked in Helen’s defense:
“She did what she did either because
of the desires of Fortune, the decisions of the gods, and the decrees of
Necessity, or because she was abducted by force, or because she was persuaded
by the spoken word, or because she was overwhelmed by love.” (p 228)
This argument takes on the form of the
“quadri-lemma”:
whether P?
if P, then A or B or C or D
not A
not B
not C
not D
therefore, not P.
Professor Hutchinson discussed in
greater detail Gorgias’ fourth argument that defended Helen on the basis
that she was unable to repel love:
“…If it was love that
did all this, she will easily escape the charge of a crime she is alleged to
have committed. For the things we
see do not have the nature we want them to have, but the nature each one
actually has, and through organ of sight the mind receives an imprint even in
its characteristics…and it disturbs the mind, and the upshot is that
often people flee the danger which is looming as if it were actually
present…So if Helen’s eye found pleasure in Alexander’s body
and transmitted the eager flirtatiousness of love to her mind, why should that
be found surprising?” (p 230)
Within this passage we see inklings of a discussion of free
will that is later taken up by the Stoics, Epicureans and Aristotle. Professor Hutchinson suggests that Gorgias
had more than a playful intention in writing this piece. The idea that what we see is generally
mediated by our emotions and perceptions of a thing and that we are somewhat
passive in our responses to stimuli, is a root explanation of human behavior as
an effect of previous causes. If
we accept Gorgias’ argument, we commit to the belief that the agent is
something passive. Similarly, the reasoning of the third argument- suggesting
that Helen was persuaded by the spoken word lends support to the above
conclusion:
“The spoken word is a mighty
lord, and for all that it is insubstantial and imperceptible it has superhuman
effects. It can put an end to fear do away with distress, generate happiness,
and increase pity…When the power of the incantation meets the beliefs of
a person’s mind, it beguiles, persuades, alters by its
sorcery…techniques which cause the mind to err and deceive
beliefs…For if everyone could remember everything that had happened in
the past, could understand everything that was happening in the present, and
could foresee everything that would happen in the future, the spoken word would
not have the power that it has.” (p 229)
Gorgias argues that through speech, we are not able to
communicate clearly. Thus, we are
all powerless at some level, and so Helen too must be exonerated for succumbing
to persuasion. This poses problems for conceptions of freedom of the
individual.
A student inquired whether Athenians
truly believed that Paris had duped Helen. Professor Hutchinson suggested that
while the reference in The Odyssey was not particularly hostile toward Helen, all Greeks did
not see her in the same light. As
a legendary figure, Helen’s most unsympathetic critics portrayed her as
vicious, untrustworthy, guileful and deceitful.
Whether Gorgias was a ‘trickster’ or whether his works reflected his own beliefs is uncertain. His use of formal modes of reasoning was most innovative and his infomercials would put the home shopping network to shame.