Thoughts On Socrates' Condemnation of Rhetoric In "What Socrates Said" by Jacobs

Appendix I. B. “Socrates’ Critique of Sophistic Rhetoric, ” denotes the dialogue between Gorgias and Socrates up to the point when Polus stands in and asks Socrates whether or not Socrates considers rhetoric an art. Kennedy introduces section I. B. suggesting that Socrates is in search of understanding and conviction. And, he states that “[t]he question of the subject of rhetoric and the morality of the orator are important issues for Aristotle as well [as for Socrates]” (256). In the text of I. B. Socrates agrees with Gorgias as to the nature of rhetoric and the premise that if a person (a rhetor) “knows what is good he will do it.” As a reader, I expected that Socrates would respond to Polus’ question stating that rhetoric is an art and then give the reasons for it being so.

I was surprised at Socrates’ response in “What Socrates said: And Why Gorgias and Polus Did Not Respond: A Reading of Socrates’ in which Bernard E. Jacob presents an argument about Socrates’ statement “that rhetoric . . . is a defective art and no more than base sucking up or flattery” (77). Jacob claims that it is possible to read Socrates’ statement with less absolute condemnation if it is read within the “dramatic context in which it appears”. Apparently, Socrates has the motive to win “new students” from his audience, and the affect of Socrates about rhetoric plays into achieving that goal. Political positioning by Socrates begins in Jacobs’ essay when Polus stands in for Gorgias.  It became easy to make a connection between wrestling, boxing, and rhetoric and get a sense of the dynamic of Greek dialogue. But, Socrates’ statement refutes Gorgias’ claim that rhetoric is an art. What I found hard to reconcile is that if Socrates believed that “if a person knows what is good he will do it,” then how can he say as a moral orator “rhetoric . . . is a defective art and no more than base sucking up or flattery.” His statement is an insult to Gorgias and Polus and seems to contradict his dialogue with Gorgias in which he agreed that "the rhetorician is incapable of using rhetoric immorally and of wanting to do wrong.

Socrates' claim that Rhetoric is not an art indirectly categorizes Gorgias and Polus as not being artists and that in turn implies that Polus lacks experience. So, how can Socrates as a rhetor be moral when he is insulting the persons he is in dialogue with by using a “shock” effect to gain students for his school? The movement of Socrates’ words seems to condemn not only rhetoric but everything around him including himself. According to Jacob, Socrates explains that rhetoric does not have the quality of a self-conscious art because “it cannot assign causes” (80). Jacob then implies that the relevance of the meaning within Socrates’ condemnation of rhetoric is constrained by temporality and suggests that if some “theoretical part . . . would explicate the nature of its [rhetoric’s] routines” then the “art of rhetoric” will emerge (80). Aristotle provides the missing elements of that which are “plausible in a particular case” such that rhetoric may be classified as an art rather than an “undefined ‘device for persuasion’” as Socrates claimed. So, the temporal constraint of meaning at the time of Socrates’ condemnation is lifted by Aristotle. The “theoretical parts” to which Jacob refers to are defined in On Rhetoric.

These have been some thoughts and a summation of what I read by Jacob. I find the history of rhetoric through Socratic dialogue and the work of Aristotle to enhance my understanding of rhetoric. It shows the pre-existing needs of rhetoric during the time of Socrates that were later fulfilled by Aristotle. As Jacob writes, "If one is to preserve one's own identity in using persuasive speech, one needs some further aid than can be given by a rhetoric that is not anchored in a larger understanding of politics and language" (93). After reading Jacob's essay, I appreciated that Socrates condemned only a type of rhetoric. I had some problem trying to think about what Jacob meant by politics and if I thought of politics as political positioning it seemed to help.