Socrates, Polus and the Two Miserable Dwarves
Socrates, Polus and the Two Miserable Dwarves
History of Ancient Philosophy
Christopher P. Camp, Jr
February 18th, 2013
In part of Plato’s Gorgias, Socrates begins a debate with a student of the orator, Gorgias, named Polus. Polus and Socrates argue about if someone who commits unjust acts and is not caught is more miserable than someone who was caught for their unjust acts. Socrates argues for the position that the person is less miserable if they are punished. Polus finds this absurd and Socrates shows his reasoning. In this paper I will go through and evaluate the main points of their argument and discuss whether or not I support them. I will be explaining how Socrates position flows logically from the points he makes and show how Polus’ position goes from very strong to weak. Socrates states, “a man who acts unjustly, a man who is unjust, is thoroughly miserable, the more so if he doesn’t get his due punishment for the wrong doing he commits, the less so if he pays and receives what is due at the hands of both gods and men.” Socrates is arguing that tarnishing one’s own virtue with unjust acts is worse than any earthly punishment that could be put before him. This point seems to be contrary to what most people would normally choose rationally. Polus deems Socrates’ statement absurd and refutes it well by asking if a man would be happier if he had not been caught doing something unjust if the punishment for his action is to be tortured then have his family tortured in front of him before he is executed.
Personally, I believe Polus’ objection here to be his strongest refutation in the argument and it creates a worst of both worlds scenario. If you are not caught for your unjust behavior then you are tarnishing your virtue and the punishment is most severe in your soul. While if you are caught for unjust behavior then you are punished in a physical earthly way among your fellowmen, but just because you are caught for unjust behavior does not necessarily
History of Ancient Philosophy
Christopher P. Camp, Jr
February 18th, 2013
In part of Plato’s Gorgias, Socrates begins a debate with a student of the orator, Gorgias, named Polus. Polus and Socrates argue about if someone who commits unjust acts and is not caught is more miserable than someone who was caught for their unjust acts. Socrates argues for the position that the person is less miserable if they are punished. Polus finds this absurd and Socrates shows his reasoning. In this paper I will go through and evaluate the main points of their argument and discuss whether or not I support them. I will be explaining how Socrates position flows logically from the points he makes and show how Polus’ position goes from very strong to weak. Socrates states, “a man who acts unjustly, a man who is unjust, is thoroughly miserable, the more so if he doesn’t get his due punishment for the wrong doing he commits, the less so if he pays and receives what is due at the hands of both gods and men.” Socrates is arguing that tarnishing one’s own virtue with unjust acts is worse than any earthly punishment that could be put before him. This point seems to be contrary to what most people would normally choose rationally. Polus deems Socrates’ statement absurd and refutes it well by asking if a man would be happier if he had not been caught doing something unjust if the punishment for his action is to be tortured then have his family tortured in front of him before he is executed.
Personally, I believe Polus’ objection here to be his strongest refutation in the argument and it creates a worst of both worlds scenario. If you are not caught for your unjust behavior then you are tarnishing your virtue and the punishment is most severe in your soul. While if you are caught for unjust behavior then you are punished in a physical earthly way among your fellowmen, but just because you are caught for unjust behavior does not necessarily
Bibliography: Plato and Donald J. Zeyl. Gorgias. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1987. Print.