Rhetoric, Flattery, and Power
Is the orator's craft a genuine art or a knack for pleasing crowds — and does the power it wins over a city amount to anything worth having?
Against Gorgias and his brash pupil Polus, Socrates denies that rhetoric is an art at all: it is flattery, a knack for gratifying audiences as cookery gratifies the body, indifferent to their good. The power it confers — even a tyrant's freedom to kill and plunder — is not enviable but wretched, since it wrecks the doer's own soul. What looks like mastery of the city is servitude to its appetites, and political power becomes a question about the soul that wields it.
- rhetoric
- power
- persuasion
- flattery
- politics
- leadership
- expertise
- knowledge
Enter a dialogue
- By what mark do you separate a genuine art from the knack for flattery you call rhetoric?
- You deny rhetoric is an art at all, yet orators plainly master something real. Why call it flattery?
- A person has won the power to sway a whole city. Why do you insist that power is not worth having?
- If political power is really servitude to the crowd's appetites, what must the ambitious man surrender to be free?
- You compare rhetoric to cookery, gratifying without healing. Is persuasion truly indifferent to whether it does people good?