Alright, so I might need to brush up on my Homer, and maybe I'm looking into this with too much of a modern perspective instead of looking at the context of the times, but...
I felt that Gorgias summed up his argument for Helen's innocence in his Proposition where he states, "For either by fate's will and god's wishes and necessity's decrees she did what she did or by force reduced or by words seduced or by love induced" (Kennedy, 253).
However, I feel that both of these options are a bit reductive and sexist towards women, as both arguments assume that Helen has to be a victim of forces greater than herself to leave for Troy. He paints Helen as this defenseless female who has no ability to think for herself, or control her own emotions; her destiny is utterly at the whim of everything except her. How do we know Helen didn't decide on her own terms to go to Troy with Paris? Maybe she was pissed off at her dad about something.
Also, I feel like playing it off as an act of divine will is kind of a cop-out. Whether or not it's true, you can't prove something like that. I mean, that sort of discourse would never fly in today's courtroom where freedom of choice is the accepted philosophical stance: "It's alright that this man murdered his entire family. God made him do it." But then again, times could have been different back then.
Like I said, maybe I shouldn't be looking at this with a modern perspective. Maybe Homer made it clear in The Iliad that Helen was, in fact, forced to go.
But either way, isn't Gorgias being a little one-sided in his assumption that Helen didn't want to go to Troy, or that it was persuasion that made her do it? Was it really an issue of strong forces overcoming weaker forces, or is Helen an able-minded woman capable of thinking for herself?
I am very confused...
I agree with you that it is a very one-sided argument. I also think that it is pretty sexist, but that's a comment for another day.
ReplyDeleteIn response to your question I would just say that 1)I agree that this would not fly in a modern courtroom setting 2)I think Gorgias was well aware that it was not a complete argument and 3) I don't think he gave a shit.
His whole purpose was to present rhetoric. A lot of people hated Helen's choices so he said, "Hey! If I can show people that she's right despite that fact that everyone says she is wrong, then people will totally believe in the power of rhetoric!"
Also, I laughed out loud when you said the thing about the guy that murdered his family.
I definitely think that this is completely one-sided. I've always kind of viewed Socrates as a one-sided, "I'm always right" type of character. That makes me question rhetoric though. If the rhetor in Plato's writings is totally one-sided, does that mean all rhetoric is one-sided in some way or another?
ReplyDeleteI also agree that Gorgias chose a one-sided argument. I think Carson has a good point that he probably didn't give a shit :) That the point of his argument in favor of Helen was to make her seem guiltless to save her from persecution. So much of this writing is confusing to me, but I get the sense that Socrates believes that the problem with rhetoric is that the arguments such as Econium of Helen are not based on just truths or what is truly good, but rather rhetoric can convince an audience of something whether or not it is actually true...
ReplyDeleteWe've got truths that are fact, in the mathematical sense, like addition and subtraction formulas, and then we've got truth that's more like things we all agree about - like "murder is bad" or "people should try to go to college.” These aren’t the same sorts of truths, and they have different sorts of arguments. I mention this because someone like Gorgias is exploiting those differences, working to use the things that are “the kinds of things most people think are true” and using it to justify a conclusion that most people think is untrue. It’s a game of sorts, rhetorically, that demonstrates his prowess. But it has, in the process, something interesting to say about the malleability of the things we hold to be true, and how to use them in arguments. So no, it wouldn’t fly in a court of law; but an attorney in a court of law still needs to work not only from facts or claims about “what really happened,” but also from arguments based on “the kinds of things most people think are true.” In other words, Gorgias is highlighting the game of rhetoric.
ReplyDeleteOh - More. Write more on your blog. And stop coming in late.