glass house philosopher / notebook 2
Wednesday, 19th May 2004
Walking down to my office this morning I was trying to come up with some ideas for my CCELS article on advertising and business ethics. I couldn't help thinking back to Gorgias, the renowned Greek Sophist and his infamous Defence of Helen. You'll see why in a minute. Here's the story, as told by Jonathan Barnes in The Presocratic Philosophers (Routledge 1982):
Helen left her husband Menelaus and sailed to Troy with Paris, thereby launching a thousand ships and the Trojan War. The Greek poets liked to berate her for her indiscretions. Gorgias in his Helen sets out to defend her:
I wish to give a certain reasoning (logismos) in my argument and so to remove responsibility (aitia) from her who has a bad repute and to remove stupidity from those who blame her by showing them up as liars and proving the truth.
Gorgias' defence has a lucid structure:
She did what she did either by the wishes of Luck and the decision of the gods and the decrees of Necessity; or seized by force; or persuaded by arguments; or captured by love.
Successive paragraphs argue that Helen bears no responsibility if her rape was due to the gods, or to force, or to persuasion, or to love:
Then how can one think the blame of Helen just, who, if she did what she did either loved or persuaded by argument or seized by force or compelled by divine necessity, in any case escapes responsibility?
Gorgias ends his oration on a note of self-deprecation:>
I wished to write a speech that would be praise for Helen and a plaything (paignion) for myself.
(The Presocratic Philosophers p. 524, textual references omitted)
As Barnes notes, Gorgias' defence could equally well be used to excuse any action undertaken by anyone at any time. Yet Barnes praises this piece as "the first detailed and challenging contribution to the vexed question of human responsibility; we may take Gorgias seriously whether or not he did so himself" (p. 525). It remains true that Gorgias' argument, if we take it at face value as a defence of Helen, is sophistical. And so, in a rather more subtle way, is Barnes' defence of Gorgias.
Now Troy has become a blockbuster movie, and the makers no doubt have their take on Helen's responsibility for the tragic events that followed her alleged betrayal of Menelaus. Rightly or wrongly, we allow film makers a certain license to express personal bias when retelling history, to bend the facts a little to make a more compelling story line.
Philosophers, like film makers, are trained in their art. A philosopher can, if he or she so wishes, "make the weaker argument appear the stronger". Words are weapons, which can be used for good or evil. What distinguishes the philosopher from the sophist is that the philosopher accepts the responsibility to seek the truth, and only the truth. so Plato argued in his dialogue Gorgias through the mouthpiece of Socrates.
In Defence of Advertising, now wouldn't that make a fine demonstration piece for a modern-day sophist?
(By the time that tempting thought entered my head, I had reached the front door.)
I know what I am and what I am not. Like Barnes, I am inclined to excuse Gorgias on the grounds that his main interest in writing Helen was to stimulate philosophical questions. In touting the piece as a serious argument in defence of Helen of Troy, his tongue is firmly planted in his cheek. However, it is also true that Gorgias had to make a living, and writing impressive demonstration pieces is the best way to advertise your skills as a sophist.
You could say that the Pathways web site is one big 'demonstration piece'. I am proud, not ashamed, to say so.
If someone wants to hire you for your skill in "making the weaker argument appear the stronger" you simply refuse. If you don't want to be pestered by such people, then don't write sophistical demonstration pieces. Show your skill, but always in pursuit of the truth. That is the foolproof recipe for philosophers who want to market their expertise ethically.
If only one could generalise.
One can't generalise, for the very simple reason that the pursuit of truth is arguably the one marketable product that cannot be abused. It can never be wrong to pursue the truth, can it? Well...
I could easily tie myself up in knots here.
What initially attracted me to philosophy was the life of Socrates. In the same way that few, if any Christians could live the way Christ lived, so few if any philosophers are capable of emulating the life of Socrates (I think Nietzsche says that somewhere in Twilight of the Idols or Antichrist). I was sold the dream of philosophy. I am glad for that. I don't feel I was cheated. Plato, the greatest of all salesmen for philosophy, seduced me along with countless thousands of students before and since with his brilliant dialogues depicting the life of his mentor.
The Oxford philosopher Gilbert Ryle in his book Plato's Progress argues that the dialogues were performed live. You can see audiences sobbing, or swooning as Socrates calmly drinks the hemlock, with words of reassurance for his gathered friends, facing death with courage and dignity.
The dream is not extraneous to the product. It is part of the package. The treasure that is the collected works of Plato has added to the value of philosophy, not just through novel arguments or its addition to the storehouse of human knowledge but through the sheer seductive power of Plato's storytelling. Living and breathing the atmosphere of the dialogues we become more, we become better, we are enhanced.
But is that also true out there in the commercial marketplace, where humans barter their love of material goods, succumb to the dreams that advertisers sell? It is very tempting to say no. It is so easy to take the moralistic high ground. Yet I want to argue that it would be a grave error.
Anyone who is serious about deconstructing the dream world of advertising should start by considering the meaning of fashion and style, not as illusions that human beings fall helplessly victim to, but as part of the scaffolding of human culture. A world without fashion or style would be obnoxious, alien, brutal in the true sense of being fit only for brutes.
That's just one element of the package.
Philosophers, so quick to analyse, look at an object as a bearer of physical properties, or as a tool with a function, or, possibly, one of those objects that attains the status of a 'work of art', a bearer of sheer disinterested aesthetic value. None of these ways of analysing an object explain why we love things. All parents know how children lust for toys. We grow up. We put away childish things. We do not lose that lust, we merely look for different things to attach ourselves to, to project our emotions onto. This is normal, not pathological behaviour.
These are observations (as Wittgenstein would say) concerning the "natural history of mankind". It ought to be seen as surprising, worthy of note, in the same way as we ought to be surprised at the capacity of the human imagination to be captured by storytelling, by fiction.
Maybe Martians are not so lucky. Pity them.
But I'm ducking the question. When does dream-selling become pernicious?
I want to propose a distinction, using the Pathways web site as an example. Pathways continues in the tradition, initiated by Plato, of selling the dream of philosophy. The ones who are selling that dream are sold on it too. So that's OK.
In the commercial world, there are plenty of examples of manufacturers who believe passionately in their product. Apple Macintosh is the best example I can think of. Macs are good, not only because they function well, but because they are beautiful, stylish, designed with loving attention to detail (most of the time, anyway there have been occasional, humorous exceptions to the Apple design philosophy when in the face of competition cost-cutting was allowed to take precedence over quality).
I am happy to buy into a dream I can believe in. But not one that has been cynically created just in order to make me spend my money. I strongly object to being manipulated. That's the distinction I wanted to make. Advertising that sets out cynically to manipulate is unscrupulous and unethical.
...An obvious point to make. But that's a start, anyway.
Send me an Email
Ask a Philosopher!