Plato's Gorgias

[Anonymous No.20403965]

In Gorgias from 488b-491d Callicles struggles to define the stronger/superior/better. Here an accurate definition of the stronger/superior/better that conforms with Callicles view could be: Those who are naturally the most powerful, that is those that have the greatest ability to influence outside all forms of nomos. What do you think of this definition? How would Socrates object to this definition?

[Anonymous No.20403983]

SOCRATES: Ah, how about I punch your teeh out, eh?

[Anonymous No.20403993]

>>20403965
>influence outside all forms of nomos
what does this mean?

[Anonymous No.20404027]

>>20403965
Is it purely physical strength and power?

Because all strong men start out as weak children, and a relatively weak man can kill all children (future superior men) so it is due to kindness and tolerance that superior strong men are able to come into existence.

Also a naturally strong man may not fare well naturally (weaponless) against a lion or bear in the ring. Sometimes it's been the less than strongest men of history, sacrificing body points for brain points, that developed weapons for defense and offense against predation of animals, men, and elements.

[Anonymous No.20404049]

>>20404027
retard christcuck lol

[Anonymous No.20404051]

>>20403965
You mean something along the lines of "The strongest are those who exercise their power via physis, not nomos?". I'm not sure that definition holds, especially when we consider that nomos is ultimately predicated upon the power of physis too.
Callicles's quotes Pindar's fragment 116 on Heracles' seizure of Geryon's cattle and uses it to justify the supremacy of force over convention. However, by seizing the cattle it could be argued that Heracles is himself establishing a nomoi by demarcating the domain of property rights. He is asserting that the cattle belong to him, backed up by the power of force. Schmitt takes this argument further in 'The nomos of the earth', where argues that force is the ultimate foundation for all law. When one uses force to seize or acquire property, particularly qua land expropriation, we can say they are asserting a physical and spatial order. This order can be seen as the most primitive form of the law. Thus we find that the most powerful are those who exert their force via physis AND by nomos.
The truth is, Callicles argument is incomplete. Just because one has the force to exert influence on their external surroundings doesn't mean one does. There has to be a higher goal to aim for, some motivation to rise above and seize what by nature is justly his. Callicles comes close to this realisation when he prophesises the coming of an individual who will throw off the fetters of the morality of the weak and exert his own will for the sake of natural justice but lets himself down when he later implies the ultimate purpose of this should be the hedonistic pursuit of pleasure.
It is Nietzsche who completes the argument via the doctrine of the will to power and the overman. Nietzsche like Callicles believes in the coming of a man who will topple the morality of the weak (slave moralilty) and exert their own natural justice. This is roughly the prophecy of the overman. Importantly however, the motivation for this desire comes from the will to power, a quasi spiritual drive within man to conquer and seize what can be taken. This will to dominate is a necessary part of what it means to be 'stronger'. Not just being 'stronger' but having the drive to do so via the will to power.

[Anonymous No.20404053]

>>20404051
retard nietzschean lol

[Anonymous No.20404072]

>>20404053
I'm not a Nietzschean you illiterate fag.

[Anonymous No.20404229]

>>20403965
In the dialogue, he refuted it by saying that egalitarianism is the leading view of morality and it was implemented by the most powerful forces of humanity. Ie. Most people would prefer liberty to might makes right and ironically, they would use their might to enforce this.

[Anonymous No.20404373]

>>20404051
Great post, thanks for the answer

>You mean something along the lines of "The strongest are those who exercise their power via physis, not nomos"?
Yes

>nomos is ultimately predicated upon the power of physis too.
Good point, I suppose I would even go as far claiming that the entire dichotomy between nomos and physis is false; nomos and physis are one and the same, and Callicles argument fails. Socrates touched on this point, when enquiring into whether the people Callicles calls inferior are not actually superior, in that they hold the power thanks to their status as a majority. I don't actually agree with Callicles' views, I just couldn't help but play the devil's advocat since his argumentation is so obviously weak in the dialogue.
Your point about how Callicles argument is missing a real purpose, and that Nietzsche completes the argument via the will to power is fitting. I just want to point out that the will to power is not necessarily incompatible with my definition, as you easily could claim that the will to power simply is a part of the ability to influence. That just depends on how you define 'ability'
>Just because one has the force to exert influence on their external surroundings doesn't mean one does.
Here you could again simply claim that willingness is a part of the ability to influence, or alternatively use another word than 'ability'.

>>20404027
Here I would simply claim that it is not incompatible with Callicles' ideas that would-be strong men can be killed as children. That fact that the power balance can tip in the future, doesn't rule out that some are superior to others. Secondly 'ability to influence outside all forms of nomos' might well be mere physical strength, and it might not. As I mentioned above, I would personally reject the dichotomy between nomos and physis.

[Anonymous No.20404536]

>>20404027
>>20403965
A silly question, the superior man is the coalition between the strongest and smartest men. The smart men design the aquaducts, the strong men construct it

[Anonymous No.20404552]

>>20404229
Yes, the strongest men should prefer to live in a peaceful human world over being constant warring monkeys in the jungle

[Anonymous No.20404572]

>>20404373
Also this just bring up the idea, I don't know if OP is specific enough in refering to a singular specific superior man, or a superior type of man.

The former is like every man in the world having to compete to prove their superiority? It just seems difficult to determine 1 over all the rest that is absolutely the current most superior man.

For then if things are branched out into groups of man, and types of man, then the changes the discussion. For surely the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th most superior men in the world together likely is more superior than the 1st

[Anonymous No.20405742]

>>20404536
That's two men

[Anonymous No.20405813]

>>20405742
Callicles’ argument never hinges on one individual but it was simply that the strongest make right.

[Anonymous No.20406989]

>>20405813
This is like the continual war and competition of predators in the animal kingdom, in ones own species trying to prove the best of the group (elks smashing horns together), and in inter species, fighting over territory and access to prey.

Is it so, as with lions, and bears, and wolves, and top predators, they don't really fight and compete with other top predators? A top predator species pretty much takes control of a territory, and that's their prey hunting grounds, and other top predator species don't bother trying to challenge other top predator species, they just go to another territory rich in prey?

[Anonymous No.20407873]

>>20406989
>Is it so, as with lions, and bears, and wolves, and top predators, they don't really fight and compete with other top predators? A top predator species pretty much takes control of a territory, and that's their prey hunting grounds, and other top predator species don't bother trying to challenge other top predator species, they just go to another territory rich in prey?
Is this generally true? In the animal kingdom weak creatures overcome their weakness with sheer numbers? There are more ants than lions and wolves?

[Anonymous No.20408699]

>>20405813
>Might makes right
and ignores, such an idiotic philosophy.

[Anonymous No.20408711]

>>20405813
So you're going in the direction of Plato and suggesting that right makes might?

[Anonymous No.20409605]

The reason it seems strong men may be bitter about living in the smart man's world, is the greater distances of utility of smartness. While there being not much much difference in the grand scheme of things of the amount of time is may take this or that group of average joes to build a house compared to the time it would take for a group of Mr. Universe winners.

The group of strong men labor like beasts of burden for pittance, while the smart man makes a million dollars a year comfortably moving and clicking a mouse.

These were the general ideas that led to desires of communism and socialism.

[Anonymous No.20409616]

>>20409605
>while the smart man makes a million dollars a year comfortably moving and clicking a mouse.
There are real difficult mental labors involved in the smart man's world, look at electronics text books, medical text books, I recently looked at industrial building architecture plans and the breadth, depth, thoroughness, organized ness, details, information, ideas, letters, numbers, keys, maths, made me nervous

[Anonymous No.20409620]

>>20409616
But the strong man at times can't help from thinking, is being able to watch tv every night and playing lazer tag sometimes worth more than eating the smart man and raping his wife