Figuring out a "dizzying" dialogue

After reading Plato’s Gorgias, I was left a bit dissatisfied and confused. Socrates tags rhetoric as “a craftsman of persuasion,” but an actual definition is never revealed (453a). Granted, I am not sure a concrete definition of rhetoric would ever be possible. I found myself shaking my head when certain arguments developed such as Socrates’ assertion that it is better to suffer injustice instead of doing the injustice. Reading Kastely’s article helped put the work into perspective concerning the historical context surrounding the characters.  

Kastely states:“Gorgias seeks to justify rhetoric by its communal utility, while Polus and Callicles admire it for its ability to confer power on the individual agent” (98).  The communal aspect becomes lost as Socrates argues with Polus and Callicles and leaves Gorgias behind. The arguments then become muddled within issues such as nature and convention. Callicles states it this way:

“For, Socrates, you really lead the discussion into such tiresome things, suited to a popular speaker—while claiming to pursue the truth—things that are not fine by nature, but by convention. And in most cases these things are opposed to each other, nature and convention” (482e).

Kastely points out the philosophical idea that “we can never arrive at a natural state,” because we are influenced by culture (102). This influence is known in politics, especially, and adds to the concern of rhetoric being a useful tool or just a means of gaining power. The complexities of the different arguments are identified in what Kastely calls a “philosophical rhetoric”(100). In Gorgias, Callicles compares philosophy with “something slavish” in that it is almost like a game (485b). Socrates even adds to this idea in the following exchange in lines 490a:

CAL.: How you always say the same things, Socrates!

SOC.:  Not only that, Callicles, but also about the same things.

Engaging in these kinds of discussions led me to think of a scene in The Princess Bride in which Westley challenges Vizzini in a “battle of wits” over a cup of poisonous wine. Vizzini even references Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle and makes it known that their intellect does not compare to his. Starting around 1:23, Vizzini gives a “dizzying” speech about where the poison resides and thus offers reasons why he would choose neither the cup in front of him nor Westley. He draws on contextual clues such as the poison’s country of origin and his claim that Westley must be a “clever man.” He then resorts to trickery as he switches the cups while Westley turns his head. However, Vizzini’s tactics do not work, because what he does not realize is that Westley had built up immunity to the poison and thus defeats Vizzini.  

http://youtu.be/U_eZmEiyTo0

Vizzini attempts to think critically about his situation, but it is of naught once he takes a sip of the wine. His confusing words are playfully styled after those of Socrates, but they present a significant question: Are humans afraid to “engage critically” (106)? Because we are shaped so much by ideologies, it is easy for beliefs to become rigid and unquestioned. According to Kastely, “rhetoric needs to undertake the more difficult task of making us available for dialectical refutation” (106). Callicles and Polus clearly backed away from this idea, thus causing their discussions with Socrates to become dissatisfying.  After reading both Gorgias and Kastely’s article, I am left with this thought to ponder: One must be open to criticism, and it is the power of rhetoric that allows this openness.  And in return, this openness will lead to greater truth or perhaps more confusion.