In Gorgias, Socrates concludes that rhetoric is the power of persuasion. By questioning Gorgias, it’s as though he reveals the truth about rhetoric by revealing that in itself it offers neither truth nor knowledge. When Gorgias states, “he should not therefore seek to defraud the physician or any other artist of his reputation merely because he has the power he ought to use rhetoric fairly, as he would also use his athletic powers,” I agree that rhetoricians of law and justice should be honest; however, Gorgia’s statement raises an interesting question. How can a rhetorician use his “power” fairly without any knowledge of the subject or without any truth about justice? This leads to the concept of flattery that Socrates mentions. With flattery comes pleasure without goodness. In today’s society this appears to flood the courtrooms with the phrase “it’s not what you know it’s what you can prove”. Unfortunately, the reality is that we base decisions without truth or knowledge. As mentioned before, a constant questioning of what truth is leads to an endless search and therefore we form accepted truths. In Physics, this is through observation and experiments (or a scientific method) but in other fields like metaphysics knowledge is based on reasoning. One intriguing moment in Gorgias occurs when Socrates claims that to commit rather than suffer injustice is the worst of the two. Polus, at first, disagrees remarking that a man who is found guilty and undergoes violent punishment must be worse off than the tyrant who commits a crime without consequences. To this, Socrates bases his retort on the assumption (accepted truth) of the soul’s existence. Using this belief, Socrates deduces that one who commits injustice is more miserable if one does not receive punishment. This line of thinking can only lead to the conclusion that Socrates believes in the ultimate judgment of the soul or in the torment of one’s conscience. For some, the consequences of injustice only apply themselves to physical outcomes. In other words, an agnostic or an individual not concerned with his conscience may view Socrates’ grounds as ineffective because they don’t consider the soul or conscience to exist or be negatively affected. Quite persuasively, Socrates convinces Polus that punishment for injustice leads to liberation of the soul as medicine cures ailments. Another thought that came to mind when reading Gorgias was the concept of social Darwinism. Callicles maintains justice operates by the laws of nature; therefore, the powerful (better) control the weak (worse) through force. Using the jar analogy, Socrates claims that pleasure does not equal goodness, and he concludes by stating that temperance among other factors constitutes proper existence. One is apt to believe that humans should strive for virtue, goodness, and righteousness, but these subjective terms hold little meaning in themselves unless thoroughly defined. While Socrates bases part of his argument on the function of the soul, a wrench is thrown into his reasoning when one does not believe in this metaphysical concept.