Sophists were philosophers of ancient Greece who argued simply to argue. Not to further any particular beliefs they may have had or wanted to examine. Their goal was not to find truth but to show anything as truth regardless of whether it actually is. Gorgias was one of the major sophists who wrote on many things using logic sometimes to prove the absurd. Succeeding even to prove nothing exists. The argument of his I am to consider is the one concerning Helen of Troy and whether she was responsible for the Trojan War. The argument breaks down into the following logical form.
W) Helen of Troy acted as she did because it was the will of the gods
A) Helen of Troy acted as she did because she was abducted by force
S) Helen of Troy acted as she did because she was seduced by persuasion
B) We cannot blame her for her actions
W v A v S 1) W v A v S A W->B 2) W->B A A->B 3) A->B A S->B 4) S->B A B 1,2,3,4 5) B 1-4 vO
Assuming the first premise is true it must be the case that W, A, or S must be true. Assuming the remaining three premises are true and at least one of the three statements is true it must be the case that B is true by definition. Therefore, this is a perfectly valid argument form.
The dictionary definition of a false dilemma is that two options are given when there’s a third. We’ve been given three options but it’s hardly a stretch to imagine a fourth; Perhaps she wanted to go. Although we can see by the form of the argument it’s technically valid it’s a fallacious argument.
This whole dilemma was started when Helen was set to be married. She had the face that launched not just a canoe or two (as her sister is alleged to have done), but a thousand ships. At least that is the common myth. Countless suitors came to her to win her hand which would worry any over protective parent. As a result, the father made all the suitors swear an oath that they would defend her and the husband she chose in an ironic attempt to stop a war over her.
Enter Paris. A few goddesses decided that Paris knew a thing or two about beauty and decided ask him which of them was the most beautiful. Aphrodite promised Paris the most beautiful woman in the world if he chose her. The other two goddesses packed up their bags and went home. It just so happened that Helen was the most beautiful woman in the world and so Aphrodite brought Paris to her chambers to claim his prize.
This is where the argument picks up. In order to effectively blame or not blame Helen for the war it is necessary to know why she went with him. Assuming that Gorgias hit all the possible reasons, the most believable reason would be that she was forced to go. If she launched a thousand ships it’s very difficult to imagine that when Paris showed up she took one look at him and said “Imagine that, the one guy I didn’t see ends up being the hottest guy in the whole world. Take me.” Ditching her husband for some random guy that drops in after she’s married is highly farfetched.
The second premise stating that it was the will of the gods is also quite convincing. Any god worth his salt is paying attention to what’s going on and knows of the oath. As the father is telling the legions of suitors to swear to defend his daughter and her husband, the gods are hearing “to start a war with legions of suitors, harm my daughter and/or her husband.” Everyone knows all the goddesses are incredibly beautiful. No guy is going to have to think twice about telling them so unless three of them ask at once but only offer one cookie. They just needed to find the world’s biggest sap to choose the wrong cookie. It’s not so much that the will of the gods can’t be thwarted. It’s just that they’re so good about giving a false dilemma with only three choices. Three choices out of which one is undeniably the best choice for the sucker who gets to choose. This scenario is now known as “The Judgment of Paris.”
The last premise suggesting Helen was seduced had to be introduced because it is a possibility no matter how unlikely, and therefore had to be considered. We could claim Paris is a hopeless romantic or any array of unflattering things and cast it aside as quickly but it still had to be considered. “She was seduced” is a very common accusation from a slighted husband. Not including it therefore would have made the argument all the more a false dilemma and far less believable because such an obvious explanation wasn’t even considered. It’s entirely possible that Gorgias studied the reasons given by various Greeks that painted Helen as the one who caused the war and picked the top three to examine. We may laugh at Gorgias’ argument claiming that being seduced takes the blame for your actions away from you. But then we have to remember that the Greeks did make a habit of blaming the gods for everything. If Gorgias allowed the seduced to take the blame for their actions it would require a major shift in Greek mythology. The gods were constantly mucking around with humans and there was no way those humans were going to take the blame for what they did as a god’s puppet.
If we take this story back to the beginning we find Zeus having a wedding banquet for Peleus and Thetis. Eris, the goddess of strife was left off the list. Angry, she stormed into the temple and slammed an apple on the table and asked the most beautiful goddess to pick it up. Maybe it just happened to work out so well for Eris. None of the gods knew which of the three that went for the apple truly was the most beautiful. Surely if the gods don’t know a mortal must.
This whole scenario demonstrates how easy it is to manipulate people when you know their desires. I can’t imagine too many of the suitors were too happy when Helen turned them down. It’s far easier to blame the woman who slighted you than to jump through the mental gymnastics required to blame the gods whether they’re really to blame or not.
In the end it’s formally a good argument. However when you read it, it’s a fallacy of a false dilemma and over simplification. The options given are not all the options available to us. We don’t have enough information to know what Helen’s mind set was at the time. In order to know if she was to blame we have to know why she ended up in Troy. We can’t just speculate with a few well selected options. According to some accounts she left willingly as suggested at the beginning of this examination which Gorgias doesn’t account for. It’s an excellent example of leaving out information in order to persuade an audience.
11-15-2002