Relativization of justice through rhetoric: Plato's Gorgias as paradigm

Abstract

Through analysis of the works of Plato, particularly his dialogue Gorgia, the authors attempt to perceive prospective of rhetoric as the art of persuasion which could relativize truth and justice. The authors firstly try to solve a preliminary issue about qualification of participants in the dialogue as sophists or as rhetors. After examination of different attitudes on that issue in the current theory, the authors take stand that, at least in Gorgia, Plato's Socrates is combating with rhetors (Gorgias, Pollus and Callicles), and not with sophists. Zone of accordance between Socrates and rhetors is, without any doubt, that rhetoric is the art of persuasion, but they do not agree on the outcomes to which that persuasion leads. The tendency to achieve absolute truth (justice), knowledge, is the goal of the philosophers (as Socrates states), which contradicts to the chief aim of the rhetors - a belief or creating a conviction of the truth (justice). The authors also draw attention that Socrates is all the time aware of all the weaknesses of philosophy which, contrary to rhetoric, could not handle real life problems due to the lack of pragmatism. The authors underline that those who are undoubtedly considered as sophists (like Hippias and Antiphon) as their starting principle place the idea of innate equality of people, while those who are predominantly rhetors (as Callicles and Trasimach) start from the concept of natural inequality of people and uphold natural right of the stronger. In that way rhetoric appears as an art which leads to accomplishing the natural right of the stronger. Finally, having in mind examples from antiquity, the authors take position of value relativism. They find that rhetoric stays morally neutral even today and that it has great potential to morally justify (or only to show as just) any desired outcome.