Callicles Notion Of Eudeo

In Gorgias, Socrates’ notion of eudemonia, a happy and worthwhile life, is greatly rejected by his opponent Callicles. The opponent begins the argument by displacing philosophy and justice as a shameful indulgence to continue after childhood. For the political philosopher, a worthwhile or good life is one led astray from the conventional, social contract type of justice. Subsequently Callicles denies Socrates’ eudemonia pertaining philosophy, justice, and virtue. In lieu, he insists on the hedonistic life where each person seeks to indulge in his or her personal pleasure. In this essay I will further discuss Callicles’ views on hedonism and analyze Socrates’ refutation on his opponent’s argument. I will end the essay with further insight on

After Socrates tasked several inquisitions to Callicles, the two agreed that good and evil are opposites of each other and cannot simultaneously be present at the same time. For example, a man cannot be concurrently healthy and sick (496c). Upon further questioning Callicles further agrees that appetite and lack of fulfillments, such as hunger or thirst, are painful and eating or drinking would quench that appetite. Socrates points out that a person who is thirsty feels the pain of deficiency and will drink to gain pleasure, but their thirst, though diminishing, still causes pain (496e-497a). Therefore, it is possible for a person to be in pain from the thirst, while simultaneously feel enjoyment from quenching it. However, this contradicts the earlier agreement that good and evil do not coincide with each other. If pleasure represents good and pain represents evil, it is false to say pleasure and pain causes experiences of good and bad to happen at the same time. Socrates then further points out that when an appetite is fulfilled, such as being full, then the person no longer feels pain but at the same time also no longer feels pleasure. It is again contradictory to state that something pleasant and painful can stop simultaneously, when it was agreed

While I do not fully accept Callicles’ position on hedonism, I am also unconvinced that Socrates has totally annihilated his opponent’s arguments. I felt that there were minute aspects on Callicles’ self-interest type of eudemonism that were left uncovered by Socrates, but are still worth defending. George Rudebusch, who wrote “Socrates, Pleasure, and Values,” specifically replies in his work to Socrates’ thirst and hunger argument, which I felt had at least disclaimed the straightforward tactics of Socrates’ debate. Rudebusch points out that the dichotomy between good and bad does not conclude that pleasure and pain are also contrasting. In fact Callicles doesn’t ever say that the good life is one with maximum pleasure and absolutely no pain. He quoted earlier in the dialogue in replying to Socrates’ leaky jar analogy that “when [a man has] been filled up and experiences neither joy nor pain, that’s living like a stone…”(Gorgias, 494b). He seems to be saying that if one were to live not like a stone, or by Socrates’ virtuous life, then they live a desire-satisfactory life that includes either joy or pain. Rudebusch state, “every appetite is requisite to its satisfaction,” (1999, pg. 59) which also reflects Callicles’ quote and can be seen as pleasure being the satisfaction and pain being the desire, and not necessarily the bad. In