In reading Gorgias I was very interested in Socrates views of oratory. Socrates seems to slam oratory in several places. Socrates claims, “Oratory doesn’t need to have any knowledge of the state of their subject matters; it only needs to have discovered some device to produce persuasion in order to make itself appear to those who don’t have knowledge that it knows more than those who actually do have it” (804). Socrates seems to dismiss, or is skeptical of oratory because it is not a tool for arriving at knowledge, but a tool used to persuade an audience of a foregone conclusion, and Socrates prefers dialectal exchanges because according to him it allows two people to exchange ideas which will allow the discovery or a better understanding of the ideas being explored and investigated through dialectical exchanges. However, I think if we explore the translation of empeiria then it alters the intent of the discussion, and made provide an alternate reading of this dialogue. Socrates goes to state that oratory is a knack meant to produce “a certain gratification or pleasure” (806).
A knack is defined in the OED as “a trick; a device, artifice; a deceitful or crafty device, a mean or underhand trick; later esp. an adroit or ingenious method of doing something, a clever expedient, a ‘dodge’” (OED Online). A footnote to this translation states that the word empeiria which the author translates as “knack” also translates to “experience” (“6. Gk. Empeiria, translated “experience” at 448c” is the exact footnote). I wish the author had provided more details about what this foot note means because if the translation could also be accepted as experience instead of knack it changes the entire tone of the reading. In the OED experience is defined as “A tentative procedure; an operation performed in order to ascertain or illustrate some truth; an experiment. Proof by actual trial; practical demonstration; the actual observation of facts or events, considered as a source of knowledge” (OED Online). I went through the reading and replaced the word knack with the word experience, and the altered the reading tremendously.
When I read the reading as knack it made me think that the group was debating whether oratory is an evil thing, a trick meant to misinform people so that one could persuade an audience that bad is good, or that wrong is right. While I still think this was Socrates goal, if I read the translation as experience with a definition of a tentative procedure or an operation performed in order to ascertain or illustrate some truth, or an experiment then it alters what the discussion of oratory is about somewhat. When viewed as experience an argument can be made that oratory is a heuristic a heuristic for ascertaining truth as opposed to a trick akin to flattery, and that this is what Gorgias is arguing. This does not alter Socrates belief of what oratory is, but does alter the conception of the term that the group is arguing for or against, and alters the tone of the discussion.
If the translation can be taken to mean experience then the debate seems to shift somewhat from whether oratory is evil to whether oratory is a heuristic which can be used to arrive at truth, and Socrates then seems to be arguing that it is not a heuristic, and uses their discussion as a proof that dialectic is the main means of arriving at truth, and understanding which is why he likens it pastry baking, etc. This also can help explain some of the confusion that Callicles, Polus, and Gorgias express because they seem to arguing from a standpoint of law while Socrates seems to be arguing from the point of nature. Callicles points this out when he discusses Socrates’ “trick” for winning arguments. They take Socrates to be confounding the issues in attempt to win the argument.