Plato: The Gorgias
In order to illuminate the conditions of rhetoric, MacIntyre explicates the two divergent styles of persuasion. MacIntyre, in essence, conveys that whether a person is persuaded by reasoning or by pressure, he or she cannot be held responsible for the behavior they conduct. This view of human responsibility is held by Plato’s Socrates and is challenged by the likes Gorgias, Polus and Callicles, all of whom are sophists. Sophists argue that persuasion does not require the orator to have knowledge of the concept but rather to be a just individual. Rhetoric used by the orator to convince a person to commit unjust acts cannot be labeled as “bad” as it is only the tool which the unjust orator utilizes. The tool, along with the person, are both to be regarded as …show more content…
MacIntyre perceives that even though rhetoric itself is neutral, it can be abused. Following this is what he is expressing. After stating that it is worse for a man to do evil than to suffer it, MacIntyre challenges Polus on the view that all people would like to have great power. In short, he says that the only reason people want to have such a power is because they do not know what is good for themselves. This imparts upon the reader that power is useless without knowledge, as without it, the people would be falling into an endless cycle of gaining power, abusing it and then having it stolen from them. Polus’ argument falls apart when MacIntyre increases focus regarding the definition of “good.” If one tries to assume what another sees as “good,” they see that person’s perception of another person’s “good,” thus, resulting in a never-ending paradox. To clarify upon the notions of good and evil, it is essential that we understand their connections to the notions