Many of Plato's exchanges in Gorgias are full of anger, misunderstanding, and cutting rhetoric. The intent of these exchanges are to distinguish rhetoric from philosophy. According to Socrates, the difference between the two is that rhetoric is a verbal performance meant to create praise or blame, value judgments, and flattery. On the other hand, philosophy is concerned with the understanding and wisdom as opposed to reputation. While Gorgias advocates that rhetoric simply involves language Socrates qualifies the statement by adding that persuasion is always the goal of that language.
             This qualification of persuasion allows Socrates to attack Gorgias by stating that in rhetoric the speaker is not a truth speaker and does not convey knowledge to his audience. Like poetry, rhetoric's intent is to flatter and gratify the audience, as opposed to bestowing true knowledge on them. Because rhetoric is simply a form of public speaking and meant to gratify, as opposed to educate, its dangers lie in potential ways in which rhetoric is deployed. While Gorgias praises rhetoric for its ability to twist language so as to surpass the expert in the field, Socrates criticizes rhetoric for faking knowledge. He states it is only opinion, which is slippery and insecure. To hold an opinion is not to hold knowledge, rather it is a dangerous enterprise of misguided beliefs. To demonstrate the inadequacies of rhetoric in bringing truth Socrates engages in a lengthy dialectic with Gorgias. Socrates' questions demonstrate the lack of precision in language accompanying Gorgias' rhetorical performance. However, while Socrates intent is to contrast rhetoric with philosophy he too begins speaking at length, sounding dangerously rhetorical, which starts to reveal how the practices of rhetoric or philosophy can begin to blur.
             In the Phaedrus Socrates argues that someone who is going to speak well must know the truth of the subject he is going to discuss. This i...