Abstract
In this piece, I propose a reading of Plato’s Gorgias that pays special attention to the role that the fictional audience plays in the unfolding of the dialogue. To this end, I use some of the insights that Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts–Tyteca conveyed in their seminal work, The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation in order to argue that thinking about the way in which Socrates’ arguments are shaped by the different audiences that Gorgias, Polus, and Callicles aim to address and represent provides us with a new hermeneutical understanding of what is at stake in each of the different interactions Socrates engages in throughout the dialogue. In unpacking the way in which Socrates appropriates Gorgias’ particular audience, transforms Polus’ universal audience, and challenges Callicles’ elite audience, I provide an outline of the difficulties that Plato’s Socrates has to overcome in order to achieve the ‘community of minds’ that Perelman and Olbrechts–Tyteca identify as the bedrock of fruitful argumentation. Having done this, in the last section I turn to Plato’s Phaedrus, for the purpose of making evident that thinking about Plato’s deployment of rhetorical audiences is a crucial step in the effort to expose the implicit continuity that links the discussion of rhetoric delivered by the Gorgias to that of the Phaedrus.
References
Cooper, J. M. (ed.). 1997a. Plato: Complete Works: Gorgias, trans. D. J. Zeyl, 791–869. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.Search in Google Scholar
Cooper, J. M. (ed.). 1997b. Plato: Complete Works: Phaedrus, trans. A. Nehamas, and P. Woodruff, 506–56. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.Search in Google Scholar
Doyle, J. 2006. “The Fundamental Conflict in Plato’s Gorgias.” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 30: 87–100.Search in Google Scholar
Doyle, J. 2010. “Socrates and Gorgias.” Phronesis 55: 1–25, https://doi.org/10.1163/003188610x12589452898769.Search in Google Scholar
Kahn, C. 1983. “Drama and Dialectic in Plato’s Gorgias.” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 1: 75–121.Search in Google Scholar
Kaufer, D. 1978. “The Influence of Plato’s Developing Psychology on His Views of Rhetoric.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 64: 63–78, https://doi.org/10.1080/00335637809383412.Search in Google Scholar
McComiskey, B. 1992. “Disassembling Plato’s Critique of Rhetoric in the Gorgias (447a–466a).” Rhetoric Review 11: 79–90, https://doi.org/10.1080/07350199209388988.Search in Google Scholar
McTighe, K. 1984. “Socrates on Desire for the Good and the Involuntariness of Wrongdoing: Gorgias 466a–468e.” Phronesis 29 (3): 193–236, https://doi.org/10.1163/156852884x00012.Search in Google Scholar
Perelman, C., and L. Olbrechts–Tyteca. 1969. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation, transl. J. Wilkinson, and P. Weaver. Indiana: Notre Dame Press.Search in Google Scholar
Ramsey, E. 1999. “A Hybrid Technê of the Soul?: Thoughts on the Relation between Philosophy and Rhetoric in Gorgias and Phaedrus.” Rhetoric Review 17: 247–62, https://doi.org/10.1080/07350199909359244.Search in Google Scholar
Sigler, J. E. 2015. “The New Rhetoric’s Concept of Universal Audience, Misconceived.” Argumentation 29: 325–49, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9349-3.Search in Google Scholar
Tindale, C. 2015. The Philosophy of Argumentation and Audience Reception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781316181645Search in Google Scholar
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
