The dialogue is named after the famous sophist orator Gorgias with whom and his students Socrates debates the nature of oratory with. Other prominent ideas are whether its better to do as one pleases without consequence or to suffer what is due. The dialogue starts out with Socrates discussing with Gorgias, then his student Polus and finally Callicles. Gorgias was mentioned previously in the [[Meno dialogue]] as the one who teached Meno about what virtue is.

Orators are not the only ones convincing people through speeches, most professions also make speeches and attempts at conviction using their knowledge of a subject. An orator can better convince someone to take their medicine than a doctor. The orators conviction must be less based on knowledge than the doctor. If oratory is not intrinsically tied to truth, does that mean it is an unjust profession? Gorgias disagrees and says it is like a martial skill where the responsibility lies with the practicioner, not the teacher or the skill itself. Gorgias still holds that oratory is just. At this point Polus takes over the conversation and disagrees over Socrates judgement of what oratoryis .

Socrates makes the case that oratory is in fact not a skill like shoemaking and is instead a knack like flattery. While a skill relies on knowledge to produce effects and understands their causes, a knack instead relies on experiences, guesses, hunches, to produce effects. Oratory is grouped together with sophistry and cosmetics. However he is not sure that Gorgias practices oratory in this way.

Polus claims that oratory is a great skill as it can give you the power to do as you see fit. Socrates disagrees on the benefits of power and goes so far as to claim that even the most powerful tyrants are the most miserable, as their power to do as they see fit misleads them dong what they really want which is to live justly and be good. Archelaus, the king of Macedon is brought up as an example. Starting out as a slave, he schemed, murdered and committed other unjust acts in order to become a tyrannt. Archelaus's riches and power should make him the happiest person in the kingdom, but Socrates disagrees with Polus and makes the opposite case that he should in fact be the most miserable due to having committed these unjust acts without consequence. It is in fact better to suffer what is due for ones actions instead of committing injustice without any consequences.

Education and justice determines a person's happiness, not power and richness. With power you can do as you see fit, which is different from doing what you want, which is to be good and just. Socrates says the powerful are in fact the most powerless as they are ruled by their desires without inhibition.

Suffering due punishment is good as it cleanses the soul from corruption, i.e injustice. We should welcome it like medicine, something which is painful but preferable to being sick.

The debate with Polus is concluded by Socrates saying that if you really wanted to hurt your enemies, you would do everything in your power to ensure that they would never get their due punishment and become as corrupt as possible.

At this moment another student of Gorgias, Callicles takes over. He vehemently disagrees with Socrates and says he tricked Polus into agreeing that commiting injustice is more shameful than undue suffering, distinguishing between whats shameful under law and nature. Callicles takes a hedonist might is right position where the strong are right to rule over the weak and take what they desire where pleasures are the key to being good. Constantly through their dialogue Callicles will change his position after Socrates points out a flaw. In comparison with Polus, he is much more belligerent in his argumentation and goes on the offensive against Socrates. By the end of their debate he stops responding to Socrates questions, leading to Socrates having to monologue to finish the investigation. Callicles is not characterized as someone that holds himself to positions based on principles, Socrates accuses him of constantly bending to please the crowd in his speeches.

Initially declaring that law is made by the weak to restrain the strong from taking whats their right by nature, Callicles has to agree that the many are stronger than the one and that further they have to be better and worthier than just physically overpowering.

Socrates attacks might makes right hedonism on two points: First that weak and strong both feel pain and pleasure the same which disqualifies pain and pleasures as measures on good and bad. Furthermore a person can both feel pain and pleasure at the same time, like a hungry person eating. But a person cannot be both good and bad simultaneously. Secondly that not just any pleasure is good and that expertise is necessary to separate good pleasures from bad pleasures, which leads back to self-discipline and regulation. Once again we see the flattery and knack vs skill distinction. The history of politicians in Athens is brought up as an example of flattery. Legendary leaders like Pericles are brought up as having served the desires of the city to please it, but they did not improve its character and did not leave it in a better state.

Callicles claims Socrates philosophy has made him defenseless and weak. Since he would rather suffer injustice he would be unable to defend himself and his friends from bad people. If a wicked accussor so wished he could sentence Socrates to death in court. Much like in Apology we see Socrates defends his position that its better to live good and just.

The dialogue ends with Socrates telling a myth of the after life in which people's souls are judged in Hades. The three judges Minos, Rhadamantus and Aeacus will see the souls for what actions they committed in life. For those that have lived a wicked life this has disastrous consequences where the corruption in their souls sentences them to the worst fate in the afterlife. We should leave fate to the gods and live a good and just life, not just seem to be good.

Observations:

Like in Phaedo there is a discussion around pain and pleasure and their connection to good and bad.

Like in Apology we see Socrates defending living the good life of a philosopher despite the consequences.

Callicles idea that the strong should rule over the weak and that what they command is just reminds me of Thrasymachus from Republic. I have not read any Nietsche but Callicles reminds me of what I've heard of his philosophy

Ironically, Socrates insists that the orators he debates to not do speeches, yet he himself has to go on long monologues.

One reason I started reading Plato was because his texts and philosophy are fundamental for abrahamic religions and their mysticist branches. In this dialogue I can really see the connection to Christian theology with the importance of living a good life and the consequences of your actions in the afterlife.

Socratic question: Unlike in Apology this Socrates is not unsure of the afterlife. Perhaps this is more Plato speaking than the historical Socrates.