How would an Epicurean respond to Callicles argument (in Platos Gorgias) on pleasure?

Authors Avatar

How would an Epicurean respond to Callicles’ argument (in Plato’s Gorgias) on pleasure?  Explain your answer.

The Gorgias, composed in the early 4th century BC by Athenian philosopher Plato, presents us with a dialogue between Socrates and four rhetoricians, as they discuss a variety of philosophical ideas and themes including the power of art, justice and evil.  Callicles, an older rhetorician, is introduced straight away in the discussion; the dialogue takes place in his house, as he takes on the role of Socrates’ most fervent opponent.  Devin Stauffer notes in his own discussion of the Gorgias:

 ‘Callicles has come to be regarded, together with the likes of Thrasymachus, as one of the most vehement representatives of the moral outlook diametrically opposed to that of Socrates... he is always described as a radical critic of the restraints of Socratic moralism and rationalism.’ (2002: 627-8)

            The subject of ‘pleasure’ arises towards the end of the dialogue, following a debate between the two on the nature of justice.  Here, Callicles sees ‘natural’ justice as, quite simply, the weak being ruled by the powerful.  It is only when Socrates’ offers the consideration that a slave might therefore have power over his master due to superior strength that Callicles must adjust his argument.   He concludes that it is the wisest – the most superior of people – who ultimately rule over everyone else.  From this, the discussion shifts slightly as Socrates ponders whether such people – or indeed, anyone – can rule not only others, but themselves.  He clarifies:

            ‘One who is temperate and self-mastering, ruler of the pleasures and desires.’ (491d)

            It is this concept of temperance – by which all desires must be limited – which seems to offend Callicles the most.  He responds unambiguously:

            ‘You will have your pleasantry! You mean “the simpletons” by “the temperate.”’ (491e)

            Callicles, then, sees temperance as a negative human trait, characteristic of those who are both unwise and inferior.  For Epicurus, asserting one’s authority over those who are fundamentally ‘weak’ is to be avoided – Callicles, here, is setting himself up for a fall.  He continues:

            ‘For how can a man be happy if he is a slave to anybody at all? No, natural fairness and justice, I tell you now quite frankly, is this—that he who would live rightly should let his desires be as strong as possible and not chasten them, and should be able to minister to them when they are at their height by reason of his manliness and intelligence, and satisfy each appetite in turn with what it desires.’ (491e-492a)

            For Callicles, true happiness and power exist in those who seek to satisfy all desires without restraint.  In his mind, temperance is synonymous with the forced restraint a slave might experience: a slave cannot be happy, because a slave is not afforded the freedom to do as he pleases, and, since everyone must fulfil all of their desires to be happy, temperance would be an obstacle to this. (Berman, 1991: 123)  To understand how an Epicurean philosopher might respond to such a statement, we must first understand the Epicurean approach to desire and the need to satisfy them.  The Epicurean philosophy was founded in the late 4th century BC and based itself on the belief that pleasure is not only the most natural object of human life, but also the most congenial.  Callicles continues, using the notion that sons of kings – those with the greatest potential for power and greatness – could never be temperate:

 ‘Finding themselves free to enjoy good things, with no obstacle in the way, they would be merely imposing on themselves a master in the shape of the law, the talk and the rebuke of the multitude. Or how could they fail to be sunk in wretchedness... by that “fairness” of justice and temperance, if they had no larger portion to give to their own friends than to their enemies, that too when they were rulers in their own cities?’ (492b-492c)

Join now!

 Epicurus himself tells us:

            ‘Pleasure is our first and kindred good.’ (Let. Men. 129)

            From this, we might see the first distinct similarity between the professed hedonism of Epicurus and that of Callicles – both aspire to obtain a life of pleasure.  And yet, whilst Callicles seeks pleasure with largely egotistical motives, for an Epicurean, the only way one should receive pleasure is through altruistic means. An Epicurean’s self-interest is conditional on those around him – friendship, and surrounding one’s self with like-minded folk is something Epicurus himself emphasises is of great importance.  With an agreement that all ...

This is a preview of the whole essay