Virtue Meets Its Match - Plato's Gorgias

-Gorgias (c. 485-380 BC) was an infamous sophist.
   -Believed that words have an almost irresistible power.
      -It could be argued that his philosophy was perhaps almost proto-Machiavellian.
-In Plato's (c. 427-347 BC) dialogue "Gorgias", Socrates asks what "rhetoric" is.
   -The story:
      -Socrates is meeting with his friend Chaerephon, and they're talking to Gorgias and his sophist bros Polus and Callicles at the latter's house.  Polus and Callicles are kind of noobs, but Gorgias is a badass rhetorician (and an honored guest at Callicles' house).
      -According to Gorgias, rhetoric is an art- the art of speech!  Against a truly effective speaker there is no defense.  If a doctor and rhetorician were to debate over how to cure a patient, an audience would favor the rhetorician.  He could even get away with murder!  Anyway, it's just a power (like using the Force from Star Wars), so it's not good or evil unless you use it for those purposes.  Don't blame the art, blame the student!
         -Socrates points out that Gorgias could use his power to teach people to do good so that they'll do good things.  Gorgias agrees that he can teach people goodness AS WELL AS rhetoric, I guess implying that those who learn rhetoric may still choose to use it for evil anyway?
            -It's unclear that Gorgias actually felt this way IRL, because it seems like he was only really interested in teaching rhetoric only.
      -Anyway, Socrates then argues that rhetoric isn't actually an art at all; it's actually more like a "know-how" or "knack".
      -He argues that a rhetorician can convince you to do something, but that may not be the RIGHT or GOOD thing to do.  Also, a rhetorician can teach you what is actually right or good.
         -Polus then interjects by saying that who cares what is right or wrong if you have absolute power?
            -Socrates argues that this is not true power.  True power is the power to do what is truly "good" for oneself.
               -Polus thinks this is silly.  Who would turn down power over life and death?
                  -Socrates again argues that this isn't real power- "It is better to suffer wrongdoing than to do wrongdoing oneself."  Of course, Polus thinks this is a ludicrous argument.
                     -Socrates counters by getting Polus to agree that justice is a good thing, and that injustice is a bad thing.  Things are are good are good because they are either pleasurable, beneficial, or both.  Justice can be unpleasant sometimes, so therefore it must be beneficial (and, thus, good).  Injustice is bad, so thus it is the opposite of both pleasure and benefit.  However, being an unjust tyrant isn't a bad thing because it is so pleasurable with all of its feasting and orgies.  Therefore, if injustice is a bad thing, it can ONLY be so because it's harmful and not beneficial.  So, VIRTUE is the knowledge of what is good so that you can do good to benefit yourself.  If you don't know what is good for you, you are bound to choose shit that is bad for you.  Thus, the greater power you have, the worse damage you can do to yourself because of your ignorance of virtue!
                        -So, does this mean we should only be virtuous because it's for our own benefit only?  What about altruistic acts / Good Samaritans? This is more difficult to answer.
      -The conversation then takes a turn when Callicles enters the debate.  He accuses Socrates of exploiting Polus and Gorgias' feelings of shame.  He tricked Gorgias into admitting that he could indeed teach his students virtue.  It was also a mistake to agree with Socrates about justice.
         -Polus then argues that justice is actually bad and INJUSTICE is actually GOOD!  "Justice" is just a bunch of rules made up by society to keep the strongest from abusing their power.
            -Nature actually shows that it is the strong who rule ("power") and enjoy their power ("pleasure").  Power and pleasure are good, so therefore injustice is good!
               -Socrates admits that this is actually a very powerful argument (and is also an attack on morality made over 2000 years later by Friedrich Nietzche!).  However, he counters by focusing on this idea that everything we do is to satiate our desire for pleasure (and is thus what life is all about), and he points out that that is actually slavery, not mastery.
                  -He then draws upon the traditional wisdom of Italian/Sicilian wise men or something in "the Allegory of the Jar".  In this allegory, the soul is a jar.  But a hedonist has a jar full of leaks, so that liquid pours out of the jar no matter how much he is pouring in.  Pleasure-seeking is an endless task and becomes increasingly difficult.
                     -Callicles disagrees, saying that the hedonist life is at least continuously fun and new.
                        -Also, eventually Callicles refuses to continue debating with Socrates.
      -The point of this dialogue is also maybe to demonstrate the futility of arguing with someone like a hedonist because they are impossible to refute.