Hi everyone, I'm Josh Prenosil from Omaha, NE.
I come to Purdue by way of a series of lateral moves: I graduated with my B.A. in English from Saint Louis University in 2004. Then, I did a two year service in education M.Ed. program at Notre Dame called ACE. Last year I taught at a magnet school in Omaha.
I'm in this class because I think the Greeks are fascinating and I might like to teach classical rhetoric/philosophy some day. Also, I would like to develop an actor-network theory of language (maybe for my dissertation), and I think Western literacy is one place to ground such a project.
I’m going to follow Stone’s lead with this post, so I thought I should explain the difference between his position and mine when it comes to Socrates and Plato. I think Stone makes a lot of good points in The Trial, but I dislike that fact that he views Greek literature with one, fixed terministic screen. I got the impression from the book that he’s not interested in thinking about Socrates as a spiritualist or, in Rick’s words, as “a tragic figure,” or as a human with flaws and disappointments. My simpleton brain has always found Plato’s writing complex, working on a variety of philosophical levels and encompassing, with one character or another, an array of positions. Basically, I can see why Whitehead said that everything in Modern/Postmodern philosophy is a footnote to Plato (which is not to say that I agree with the statement). I think critics that don’t acknowledge alternative readings of his texts and figures miss out on a lot.
That said, I’m interested in the crowd as a character in the dialogue. It seems to me that they begin the dialogue as subjects and they end the dialogue as an object, that they, more than Gorgias, Polus, or Callicles, lose their locus of power throughout the course of the dialogue. They begin the dialogue with a lot of sway. In 447b we find out that the crowd has been sitting for quite a while listening to Gorgias’ oration. Presumably, Gorgias would alter his speech if the audience were becoming annoyed or bored, so their action hold some practical value in the forum. When Socrates shows up, the “entertainment changes” so to speak as Socrates locks Gorgias into an adversarial form of speech (449b). The change of medium from musical, periodic oration to verbal battle would probably renew the crowd’s interest as much as showing a Youtube clip renews attentiveness/engagement in a sleepy 106 class. But, it also changes the dynamic between the performer and the crowd. The form of dialectic Socrates proposes presupposes a silent, passive, uninvolved public.
The difference between the two approaches to the public first manifests itself at the break in the dialectic between Socrates and Gorgias (457d-458c). Here, Socrates defines the conversation’s worth in terms of Gorgias’ disposition. Socrates is concerned with the attitude of Gorgias toward himself and toward what he sees as the method of diving truth. However, Gorgias defines the worth of the conversation in terms of the engagement of the audience. He briefly assuages Socrates’ concerns and then says, “Still, perhaps we should keep in mind the people who are present here, too. For quite a while ago now, even before you came, I gave them a long presentation, and perhaps we’ll stretch things out too long if we continue the discussion” (458b-c). He’s concerned about the spectators whereas Socrates is concerned about Gorgias’ willingness to play the game. In the light of Charephon’s proceeding lines (458c-d), one might argue that Gorgias is actually concerned with Socrates because he doesn’t realize that the crowd is very engaged with the dialogue. Or, one might argue that he senses Socrate’s analytical power and wants to bow out before a defeat. In response to both I would say that, as an orator, Gorgias is intensely aware of the audience’s engagement. I see his question about their attentiveness as a kind of rallying cry. In a sense, he’s saying, “Alright guys, you’ve heard my awesome speech. Now who wants to see me battle Socrates? Who’s with me?” It’s a way of securing allies in already friendly audience.
In terms of “stage direction” in the dialogue, I see Gorgias and Polus both addressing Socrates in a non-linear fashion. Instead of facing him and speaking to him directly, I envision them answering laterally, to the attendant crowd, speaking in an “outside voice” while Socrates questions his interlocutor directly and quietly. This is particularly apparent as Polus begins to lose his footing and makes an appeal to the crowd (473e-474a). Of course, Socrates reiterates the rules for the discussion, thereby removing the people as participants in the dialogue completely. Thereon, Socrates and Callicles both appeal to the people without appealing to the attendant crowd (which seems really weird to me). Callicles cites the peoples’ champions (Pericles, etc.) as exemplars of the good orators while Socrates argues for technically competent politicians, presumably for the benefit of the people. But the people are never asked which they want. If they side with Callicles, they really get a proto-Nietzschean tyrant for a leader. If they side with Socrates, they get an ideologue whose plan enacted may be effectively the same. (From the hoplites’ perspective, who cares if you’re being banished from Athens because someone wants your land or because someone wants to build a perfect Republic?) They are objects in the verbal battle, addressed as ‘it’ and not ‘you (all)’. They began the dialogue in position of powerful consideration and end as beach ball knocked back and forth between two intellectual giants.
Of course, this isn’t the only way to read the text, but I think the disparity between the populace invoked and the populace utilized deserves some attention.
I’m going to follow Stone’s lead with this post, so I thought I should explain the difference between his position and mine when it comes to Socrates and Plato. I think Stone makes a lot of good points in The Trial, but I dislike that fact that he views Greek literature with one, fixed terministic screen. I got the impression from the book that he’s not interested in thinking about Socrates as a spiritualist or, in Rick’s words, as “a tragic figure,” or as a human with flaws and disappointments. My simpleton brain has always found Plato’s writing complex, working on a variety of philosophical levels and encompassing, with one character or another, an array of positions. Basically, I can see why Whitehead said that everything in Modern/Postmodern philosophy is a footnote to Plato (which is not to say that I agree with the statement). I think critics that don’t acknowledge alternative readings of his texts and figures miss out on a lot.
That said, I’m interested in the crowd as a character in the dialogue. It seems to me that they begin the dialogue as subjects and they end the dialogue as an object, that they, more than Gorgias, Polus, or Callicles, lose their locus of power throughout the course of the dialogue. They begin the dialogue with a lot of sway. In 447b we find out that the crowd has been sitting for quite a while listening to Gorgias’ oration. Presumably, Gorgias would alter his speech if the audience were becoming annoyed or bored, so their action hold some practical value in the forum. When Socrates shows up, the “entertainment changes” so to speak as Socrates locks Gorgias into an adversarial form of speech (449b). The change of medium from musical, periodic oration to verbal battle would probably renew the crowd’s interest as much as showing a Youtube clip renews attentiveness/engagement in a sleepy 106 class. But, it also changes the dynamic between the performer and the crowd. The form of dialectic Socrates proposes presupposes a silent, passive, uninvolved public.
The difference between the two approaches to the public first manifests itself at the break in the dialectic between Socrates and Gorgias (457d-458c). Here, Socrates defines the conversation’s worth in terms of Gorgias’ disposition. Socrates is concerned with the attitude of Gorgias toward himself and toward what he sees as the method of diving truth. However, Gorgias defines the worth of the conversation in terms of the engagement of the audience. He briefly assuages Socrates’ concerns and then says, “Still, perhaps we should keep in mind the people who are present here, too. For quite a while ago now, even before you came, I gave them a long presentation, and perhaps we’ll stretch things out too long if we continue the discussion” (458b-c). He’s concerned about the spectators whereas Socrates is concerned about Gorgias’ willingness to play the game. In the light of Charephon’s proceeding lines (458c-d), one might argue that Gorgias is actually concerned with Socrates because he doesn’t realize that the crowd is very engaged with the dialogue. Or, one might argue that he senses Socrate’s analytical power and wants to bow out before a defeat. In response to both I would say that, as an orator, Gorgias is intensely aware of the audience’s engagement. I see his question about their attentiveness as a kind of rallying cry. In a sense, he’s saying, “Alright guys, you’ve heard my awesome speech. Now who wants to see me battle Socrates? Who’s with me?” It’s a way of securing allies in already friendly audience.
In terms of “stage direction” in the dialogue, I see Gorgias and Polus both addressing Socrates in a non-linear fashion. Instead of facing him and speaking to him directly, I envision them answering laterally, to the attendant crowd, speaking in an “outside voice” while Socrates questions his interlocutor directly and quietly. This is particularly apparent as Polus begins to lose his footing and makes an appeal to the crowd (473e-474a). Of course, Socrates reiterates the rules for the discussion, thereby removing the people as participants in the dialogue completely. Thereon, Socrates and Callicles both appeal to the people without appealing to the attendant crowd (which seems really weird to me). Callicles cites the peoples’ champions (Pericles, etc.) as exemplars of the good orators while Socrates argues for technically competent politicians, presumably for the benefit of the people. But the people are never asked which they want. If they side with Callicles, they really get a proto-Nietzschean tyrant for a leader. If they side with Socrates, they get an ideologue whose plan enacted may be effectively the same. (From the hoplites’ perspective, who cares if you’re being banished from Athens because someone wants your land or because someone wants to build a perfect Republic?) They are objects in the verbal battle, addressed as ‘it’ and not ‘you (all)’. They began the dialogue in position of powerful consideration and end as beach ball knocked back and forth between two intellectual giants.
Of course, this isn’t the only way to read the text, but I think the disparity between the populace invoked and the populace utilized deserves some attention.