Enter the dialectic. Whom do you side with, Plato or Gorgias?

It is certainly no easy task to side with one or the other of the two without hesitating about the merits of the position and arguments of the other. I think essentially the discussion boils down to the question of subjectivity vs. objectivity, and the inherent question of whether “truth” is revealed to, delivered to, and discovered by us, or, it is invented, created, and shaped by us and our interests? Certainly, there are plenty of instances which one can give as example for both sides. Let me start by giving some examples that seem to support Socrates’ position.I am aware that it is often argued that science is “relative” and just another form of discourse, on par with other forms of discourse when it comes to truth claims. However, even the most ardent defender of scientific relativism, I maintain, will prefer to go to a physician when he is sick with a life threatening illness rather than to seek advice from other nonscientific disciplines of discourse. This shows the fact that ultimately, regardless of theoretical concerns, intuitively and practically everybody knows that not all forms of discourse are “equal,” or may be it is better to say, “equally arbitrary.” I personally prefer to ride on a plane that is designed based on principles of engineering and aerodynamics compared to one whose design is based on black magic, even if I am not able to refute Gorgias’ arguments to the contrary. And in fact I am sure Gorgias himself would also have the same preference, in spite of his own arguments. On the other hand, one can easily give examples (and mighty examples at that) of cases where the perceived truth is and has been a result of a social consensus, and relative to the accepted norms of the society in which that “truth” has taken shape. Even in the scientific worldview, for two thousand years the “truth” was that the earth was the center of the universe. So it is only reasonable to maintain the same epistemological uncertainty with respect to the current accepted forms of truth.This debate, which starts from Socrates and Gorgias, certainly does not end with them and continues to be a most difficult dilemma, unlikely to be completely resolved anytime soon. But I think it is possible to at least draw some outlines about what properties a reasonable response should have. I think most crucially, a reasonable solution must acknowledge the merits of both sides, and then integrate them in a coherent way, coming up with a synthesis of each side’s strength. I think that the core point to acknowledge is that subjectivity and objectivity are not two completely distinct properties. In other words, they form a continuum. Thus, although it is impossible to describe something (narrative, discourse, position, idea, rhetoric, etc.) as either subjective or objective (completely), it is still possible to speak of one as being more (or less) objective (or subjective) as the other. And what maps out this continuum and gives us the ability to perform this gradual sorting is indeed reason. Therefore, in this view, the role of reason is not to reach at the “truth”, but to sort out between two positions and categorize one as more (or less) objective as the other.