Socrates, as depicted in Plato's dialogues, presents a scathing critique of rhetoric, not as a neutral tool for communication, but as a potentially dangerous art that prioritizes persuasion over truth. His arguments, particularly evident in the Gorgias, contend that rhetoric is a form of flattery, akin to cookery rather than medicine. While both cookery and medicine aim at the body's well-being, medicine seeks genuine health through knowledge, whereas cookery merely aims at pleasure through sensory appeal, ignoring actual health. Similarly, Socrates argues, rhetoric aims at pleasing the soul of the audience, not at instilling genuine knowledge or virtue, and therefore constitutes a form of "empeiria" or knack, rather than a true art or "techne". This distinction is crucial because it frames rhetoric as a tool that can be used to deceive and manipulate, leading individuals away from the pursuit of truth and the betterment of their souls.
A central pillar of Socrates' critique is his assertion that rhetoric lacks a genuine subject matter or a scientific foundation. Unlike true arts, such as geometry or arithmetic, which deal with specific, knowable subjects and follow logical principles, rhetoric is concerned with opinion and belief. A skilled orator, Socrates suggests, doesn't need to understand the truth of a matter; they only need to understand how to make their audience believe they do. This is why, he points out, a rhetorician can persuade a crowd more effectively than a true expert on a subject, such as a physician discussing health. The orator's skill lies in understanding human psychology and emotions, manipulating them to achieve their persuasive goals, regardless of the factual accuracy or moral implications of their arguments. This superficiality, for Socrates, is what makes rhetoric a potentially harmful practice, capable of undermining justice and fostering ignorance.
Furthermore, Socrates links rhetoric to power and its corrupting influence. In the Gorgias, he argues that the rhetorician, by virtue of their ability to persuade, can gain immense political power. However, this power is not grounded in wisdom or justice but in deception. The most powerful rhetoricians, in Socrates' view, are those who are able to convince the masses of anything, making them instruments of their own will, and potentially leading the state down disastrous paths. He contrasts this with the true philosopher, whose aim is to guide the soul towards virtue and truth, even if it means being unpopular or seemingly powerless. The rhetorician, by contrast, seeks acclaim and influence, often at the expense of moral integrity. This pursuit of power through persuasion, divorced from any commitment to objective truth or ethical principles, represents a significant danger to both the individual and society.
Finally, Socrates’ ultimate concern is the effect of rhetoric on the soul. He posits that engaging in rhetoric, even for seemingly good causes, can corrupt one's own soul by habituating it to deception and the prioritization of appearance over reality. If a rhetorician is constantly shaping arguments to win favour, they risk becoming detached from genuine moral understanding. Socrates believed that the unexamined life is not worth living, and he championed the pursuit of self-knowledge and virtue through dialectic, a rigorous process of questioning and refutation aimed at uncovering truth. Rhetoric, with its focus on persuasive speech and emotional appeal, bypasses this essential process of critical self-reflection. Instead of leading individuals to a deeper understanding of themselves and the world, rhetoric can lead them to embrace falsehoods and live lives based on superficial beliefs, ultimately harming their chances of achieving eudaimonia, or human flourishing. Thus, Socrates' condemnation of rhetoric is not merely an academic quibble but a profound warning about its potential to undermine the very foundations of a just and virtuous life.