1

John J. Binkowski II

Professor Sebell

Classical Political Philosophy

29 November, 2016

Gorgias and Callicles: Two Inspiring Individuals

Plato’s The Gorgias provides us with intensive dialogue primarily between Socrates and

Callicles, with some dialogue throughout with Gorgias and his pupil Polus. I will attempt to

describe in specific what both Gorgias and his close friend Callicles have in common, as well as

their distinct differences. Both of these characters’ personalities and characteristics shine brightly

in their discussions with Socrates. Socrates does a good job at playing “devil’s advocate” even

when he isn’t even trying to. This characteristic about Socrates causes conflict with both Gorgias

and Callicles. Their conflicting views with Socrates provide colorful dialogue that is both

informative and entertaining. Gorgias claims to be someone who is a master of the profession of

oratory. Oratory can be defined as an individual who speaks in a persuasive manner to “educate”

the masses with his words. Whether true or not, the people he speaks to most often do not know

any better anyhow, and take his word as gospel.

Let’s begin with the differences between Gorgias and Callicles. Firstly, Gorgias is

quicker to concede an argument with Socrates on the topic of whether oratory really promotes

justice. You could even assume that he may be afraid of confrontation altogether. When Socrates

is calling the practice of oratory a “knack” rather than a craft, Polus, Gorgias’ student comes to

his defense. You would think that since Polus is the student and Gorgias is the teacher that the

older, more mature one would defend himself and his profession in the situation of an argument.

This may be because Gorgias is trying to mask something dark about oratory and how it may
 2

have the potential to promote injustice. In this instance it’s Polus that speaks out for an extended

period against Socrates’ rather harsh judgment of Gorgias’ doings and oratory itself for that

matter. When Socrates claims that oratory can give gratification to those who hear the speeches

Polus responds saying, “Don’t you think that oratory is an admirable thing then, to be able to

give gratification to people?” (462c). Socrates meant to say gratification in a different context

than Polus read into. Socrates meant to say this more sarcastically, but that’s beside the point.

The fact is that Polus is defending Gorgias’ original argument and Gorgias couldn’t do it himself

for reasons unknown to the reader. Gorgias participated in a short argument with Socrates until

he was contradicted by Socrates’ reasoning and in essence shut down from arguing further to

prevent revealing dark things about oratory that would prove Socrates to be correct. The nature

of these arguments is rather tense due to the fact that Socrates is taking aim at Gorgias’

profession. Polus also takes a considerable amount of offense from Socrates’ statements too

because he is a student of Gorgias, who is teaching him to become an orator. Earlier in the

discussion Polus points this out. “…Or do you really think, just because Gorgias was too

ashamed not to concede your further claim that the orator knows what’s just, what’s admirable,

and what’s good…” (461b).

Here Polus explains that Gorgias is too ashamed to carry the conversation further only

because he fears being contradicted again by Socrates’ complex situational dialogue. This came

off as really surprising to me that a “master” of rhetoric like Gorgias is so quick to concede to

Socrates’ rhetoric and speaking skills. Gorgias in this circumstance appears to be weak, as he is

receiving some of “his own medicine” so to speak. On the other hand, he may be restricting

himself from revealing any information he doesn’t want Socrates to know. This situation still is

ironic because a rhetor, being Gorgias is being outspoken by a non-rhetor, being Socrates and he
 3

is forced into having his student Polus stand up and defend him. On the contrary, Callicles

proves to be just the opposite of Gorgias in this regard. Callicles has the same mindset as Gorgias

in regards to oratory, but the way they each handle Socrates and his contradictory set-ups is very

different. One of the reasons for this may be the fact that Gorgias is a sophist, meaning his

primary profession is speaking to crowds and thus gets paid doing so. Callicles is more of a

philosopher much like Socrates, but they have many conflicting views. The communication

between philosophers may be more colorful only for the reason that both individuals practice

philosophy making the language better flowing. Unlike Gorgias, Callicles doesn’t easily accept

Socrates’ reasoning. Callicles though may reveal information that Gorgias would not have

wanted to reveal himself, thus protecting his identity as an orator. Due to these facts of the

dialogue it may be argued that Gorgias is cleverer than Callicles due to the fact that he doesn’t go

into great detail about the practices of oratory. Still Callicles and Socrates often bash heads

throughout the text on several issues, both using in-depth dialogue in long, drawn out passages.

The two have good conversation however, for example Callicles takes a jab at Socrates for using

his own remarks against Callicles’ views saying, “By the Gods! You simply don’t let up on your

continual talk of shoemakers and cleaners, cooks and doctors, as if our discussion was about

them!” (491a). Socrates often uses off topic examples that don’t always line up with what

Callicles’ original intentions are, but in reality, Socrates’ examples offer a parallel example of

what Callicles argues in his reasoning. Socrates rather accepts a standard for certain things like

expertise, and that those who are experts in a certain field know more and could offer more than

a rhetorician that knows very little on the subject, whatever that subject may be. Socrates

describes shoemakers for example, and how the expert would have more to offer to the common

man than an orator that may know about shoe making, but doesn’t practice shoe making daily.
 4

Callicles on the other hand means to describe rulers, and people of power rather than shoemakers

and common workers, but that doesn’t matter. The fact of the matter is that Callicles puts up

more of a fight than Gorgias. This too is something that Socrates reveres about Callicles. That

being Socrates’ three crucial qualities about a man: knowledge, good will, and frankness. All

three of these things are prevalent throughout Callicles’ dialogue with Socrates. Another passage

that presents Gorgias’ reservedness comes from some dialogue from Gorgias to Callicles shortly

into Callicles and Socrates’ argument. During this time of conversation between Callicles and

Socrates, Gorgias remains mostly silent in the background until Socrates seems to be winning

Callicles over. Gorgias says, “Don’t do that, Callicles! Answer him for our benefit too, so that

the discussion may be carried through.” (497b). Here Gorgias backs Callicles against Socrates

but feels no need to jump in himself. This statement proves that he would rather not get

personally involved in argumentative matters, especially with Socrates.

Gorgias and Callicles are not entirely different however; they have similarities as well

that set them apart from Socrates and his ideals. It’s obvious that both Gorgias and Callicles were

contradicted by Socrates, both on different accounts. Another similarity between Gorgias and

Callicles however is how they agree with Socrates quite often even with their conflicting

viewpoints with him. On the face of each of their arguments, Socrates breaks down the situation

to them piece by piece, and both Gorgias and Callicles agree with Socrates on these individual

accounts, thus contradicting their original arguments. For example, after a long discussion

pertaining to orators Socrates says, “But now it appears that this very man, the orator, would

never have done what’s unjust, doesn’t it?” Gorgias responds, “Yes, it does.” Socrates responds

again saying, “And at the beginning of our discussion, Gorgias, it was said that oratory would be

concerned with speeches, not those about even and odd, but those about what’s just and unjust,
 5

Right?” Gorgias: “Yes.” Socrates again responds, “Well, at the time you said that, I took it that

oratory would never be an unjust thing, since it always makes its speeches about justice. But

when a little later you were saying that the orator could also use oratory unjustly, I was surprised

and thought that your statements weren’t consistent.” (460e-461a). The nature of this argument

allows Socrates to ask Gorgias several questions that make sense individually, but when

connected to a greater argument, the overall stance contradicts the individual questions. When

this occurs, it stirs the pot further, creating a greater discourse.

Throughout this discussion between Gorgias and Socrates, Socrates provides numerous

situations involving non-orators that would cause them to commit injustice, even if it wasn’t

intended. Gorgias’ views on justice and what it stands for are mostly confused, as it’s unclear

what Gorgias really thinks about it. He withholds from talking about certain things which hints at

him possibly thinking injustice is in some instances just. Socrates caught Gorgias in a trap when

he asked him these questions and blindly agreed with Socrates. He may have done this because

the argument was getting long and tedious, and Gorgias was tired of arguing, or because the

information when spaced out made sense to Gorgias. In this instance Gorgias, may have said that

orators would never intend on committing unjust deeds because he himself is an orator, but what

he failed to recognize was the potential for orators to commit unjust deeds. These final ending

statements around 460-461a silenced Gorgias for some time after he realized he had contradicted

himself yet again.

Callicles also finds himself being contradicted by Socrates by his intense questioning

process. In regards to justice, Callicles believes that might is right, and the more mighty man

should rule over the lesser man, thus proving his authority. Callicles believes these types of

situations to be just simply because that’s how things should be according to his view. Socrates
 6

was at least fair in questioning both Gorgias and Callicles by asking them similar circumstantial

questions involving subject matter from their arguments. Around 495-496 Callicles claims that

the terms pleasant and good are the same. Throughout this part of the argument Socrates

constantly asks Callicles to go back and recall what they’ve agreed upon, thus giving him a

chance to retract his statements hinting that Callicles has already contradicted himself. The

argument takes a strange turn when Socrates spells out everything he’s explaining to Callicles.

After Socrates had asked Callicles a series of short questions, he wraps up this portion of the

argument by asking him a question; “Do you observe the result, that when you say a thirsty

person drinks, you’re saying that a person in pain simultaneously feels enjoyment? Or doesn’t

this happen simultaneously in the same place…?” Callicles responds saying “It is.” Socrates

comes back saying, “But you do say that it’s impossible for a person who’s doing well to be

doing badly at the same time.” Callicles: “Yes, I do.” Socrates: “Yet you did agree that it’s

possible for a person in pain to feel enjoyment.” Callicles: “Apparently.” Socrates: “So feeling

enjoyment isn’t the same as doing well, and being in pain isn’t the same as doing badly, and the

result is that what’s pleasant turns out to be different from what’s good.” (496e-497a). In regards

to justice for Socrates, he believes that everybody, regardless of social status should have access

to equal shares of everything. These conflicting views form the basis of majority of these

arguments.

At this point Callicles makes a remark acknowledging that he just contradicted himself,

but then claims that he was simply agreeing because the argument was approaching the point of

ridiculousness. Whether he said this because that’s how he felt, or if he said it because he simply

had nothing else to say we’ll never know. But the fact of the matter is the same thing happened

to Callicles as happened to Gorgias in both of their conversations with Socrates. Callicles came
 7

to a point of humbling himself around 483a where he went on a rant towards Socrates, calling

him out on his ways of using tedious techniques of contradicting questions against both himself

and Gorgias. He then took a step back from his own beliefs when Socrates explained how even

the just man, the mighty man, also receives injustice in some instances. Callicles was surprised

by this, and immediately changed his view on justice and equality. In the end, neither Callicles

nor Gorgias knew what they were trying to accomplish arguing with Socrates, because both

individuals had different perspectives altogether than Socrates. Nevertheless, when Socrates

broke the parts of both Gorgias and Callicles’ arguments down, he revealed that they feel quite

differently about their stances on justice and pleasure than they did originally.
 8

Reference

Plato. The Gorgias. Print.