What Were Plato and Socrates Like as Writers?

            After a very long trek through Plato’s works Sorted Alphabetically on project Gutenberg.com, I can finally say that I’ve read the complete works of Plato. From The Republic to Critias, to Statesman, to Gorgias, I’ve read them all. As some of you may know, we don’t have anything written by Socrates himself, and instead have to rely on Plato, and a couple of contemporaries, for understanding what he thought. However, the problem with this is that Plato and the other contemporaries contradict on what Socrates thought and, in the case of Plato, use Socrates to espouse their own ideas.

So in order to best explain and review what Plato and Socrates were like I thought I would do a review in the dialogue style, that Plato is so famous for. When does it start? Well I’ve already started. In the beginning of almost every Plato work I’ve read there’s a long introduction by the translator or some other academic that basically summarizes the work, but only if a summary is something that is longer than the actual work it’s supposed to be summarizing. No matter how realistically inconsequential the subject matter, the translator will inevitably point to Plato’s significance in forming western thought and extend that significance to the particular work you’re about to read. The extent of the truth of that significance is debatable. Several times I was reading Platonic philosophy, I would think the introduction, due to its absurd length was the actual dialogue itself. However, I should have known because no proper dialogue can start without….

PERSONS OF THE DIALOGUE:

Generally Socrates, Some-Guy-Who-Says-a-Few-Words-In-The-Beginning (SGWSaFWINB), The-Main-Question-Answerer

THE SCENE: Some Garden or Forum in Greece

SGWSaFWINB: Well Generally Socrates here we are in some garden or forum in Greece.

Generally Socrates: Yes SGWSaFWINB we are.

SGWSaFWINB: We are here discussing some petty difference in defining some large concept like knowledge or love and we think we have it nailed down to one or two answers. Isn’t that right The-Main-Question-Answerer.

The-Main-Question-Answerer: Quite right SGWSaFWINB.

SGWSaFWINB: We were wondering Generally Socrates, if you might judge between the one or two and ultimately say that both are wrong.

Generally Socrates: Here I agree to your proposition SGWSaFWINB and will feign some sort of humbleness, before I begin my typical pompous questioning.

SGWSaFWINB: Excellent now if you The-Main-Question-Answerer will take over. My work introducing people, place and argument is done and I will say basically nothing else for the duration of the dialogue and everyone will forget I was here until I randomly pipe in later to beg you to continue the argument as it’s so fascinating.

The-Main-Question-Answerer: Thank you SGWSaFWINB. Now Generally Socrates I have come up with a perfectly serviceable definition of some broad over-arching definition concept of western society and am a bit pompous myself. Would you not agree?

Generally Socrates: Certainly. Here I take on the opposite role I will take for most of the dialogue, as question asker, and answer a couple of questions. Please continue The-Main-Question-Answerer.

The-Main-Question-Answerer: Of course with pleasure Generally Socrates. One of the main features of these dialogues, which makes them both refreshing from modern 21^st century discourse and unbelievably irritating is how darn polite we are.

Generally Socrates: Naturally.

The-Main-Question-Answerer: It gets to the point where the reader begins to question whether there is any point in reading this, because we just agree politely all of the time.

Generally Socrates: I am actually going to have to disagree with you there, The-Main-Question-Answerer, not because you said something false or inaccurate, but because you actually started to act the part of the main questioner, which is my part. Plus I am an agnostic in the clearest sense.

The-Main-Question-Answerer: What do you mean Generally Socrates?

Generally Socrates: I mean to say that I don’t think we, as mere mortals, can know anything. At first I will pretend that it’s possible you could know more than me, because you are “Oh so wise” but I will eventually come out and reveal that you know nothing and I know nothing and we must ultimately always continue searching and learning and trying to prove to everyone that we all know nothing. Does this sound right to you?

The-Main-Question-Answerer: Quite right.

Generally Socrates: Do you accept your now permanent role as The-Main-Question-Answerer?

The-Main-Question-Answerer: With barely restrained polite enthusiasm Generally Socrates.

Generally Socrates: Excellent. Then let us begin by repeating what little we have said. Now what were you arguing about?

The-Main-Question-Answerer: Some broad foundational principle of western civilization.

Generally Socrates: And you had put forth some perfectly serviceable definition that is likely to be found in an actual modern 21^st century dictionary?

The-Main-Question-Answerer: Quite so.

Generally Socrates: But I have already found some fault with that definition?

The-Main-Question-Answerer: As you must.

Generally Socrates: And here I take it back to asking you some obviously fundamental question like, “We must not want what is bad?”

The-Main-Question-Answerer: Correct.

Generally Socrates: and then by deduction, “We must want what is good?”

The-Main-Question-Answerer: Obviously.

Generally Socrates: My statements always end with a question mark?

The-Main-Question-Answerer: Yes.

Generally Socrates: Even though the only thing that makes them a question is the question mark?

The-Main-Question-Answerer: True.

Generally Socrates: Most of your answers are one-word answers that answer in the affirmative and, if we are lucky, occasionally stray into the negative when needed for the argument?

The-Main-Question-Answerer: Accurate.

Generally Socrates: The only time your words actually matter is when the argument takes a slight side-track into something else for so long that the reader actually starts to lose track of what the original argument was about. My words start to go on for so long, paragraph after paragraph in fact, that no one could keep track, unless they switch back and forth between my words and spark notes and Wikipedia summaries. Is this not true?

The-Main-Question-Answerer: I cannot tell what that question is supposed to ask, but it’s time for me to ask you to start over with the argument anyways.

Generally Socrates: Good point The-Main-Question-Answerer. We were arguing about some broad principle of western civilization.

The-Main-Question-Answerer: I need to correct you on some, ultimately minute point, so I say we were arguing about some broad foundational principle of western civilization. This shows we are still civil the mental combatants.

Generally Socrates: Naturally friend The-Main-Question-Answerer. Now we will continue with the main argument?

The-Main-Question-Answerer: Definitely.

Generally Socrates: We go back to some earlier questions?

The-Main-Question-Answerer: That is the path.

Generally Socrates: But we ask them a bit quicker and more succinctly than before?

The-Main-Question-Answerer: Yes.

Generally Socrates: Then without much flair I introduce some small contradiction to your original thought?

The-Main-Question-Answerer: Yes.

Generally Socrates: And I just pass over it like it’s nothing?

The-Main-Question-Answerer: Yes.

Generally Socrates: You don’t notice?

The-Main-Question-Answerer: Not at all.

Generally Socrates: But as we go along it starts to become increasingly obvious that the argument will dead-end in a contradiction.

The-Main-Question-Answerer: Increasingly obvious.

Generally Socrates: But like the dutiful Platonic thought-experiment mouthpieces we are we carry on towards our inevitable end.

The-Main-Question-Answerer: Yes, but here sometimes I cut in and make some stupid excuse about not wanting to continue the argument.

Generally Socrates: My response is always a respectful agreement with you and it almost looks as if we won’t continue the argument, even though there are still 30 some pages left.

SGWSaFWINB: The reader doesn’t remember me barely at all from the beginning, but I randomly show up again to plead with both The-Main-Question-Answerer and Generally Socrates to continue their fascinating intellectually arousing debate.

Generally Socrates: Well of course I will agree to continue, if the Main-Question-Answerer does, because I never really wanted to stop in the first place.

The-Main-Question-Answerer: I will also agree, as I also never wanted to stop in the first place and this was all some pretense.

Generally Socrates: Excellent. Now where were we?

The-Main-Question-Answerer: Discussing some broad foundational principle of western civilization.

Generally Socrates: Ah yes and you had put forth some perfectly serviceable definition that is likely to be found in an actual modern 21^st century dictionary?

The-Main-Question-Answerer: That I did.

Generally Socrates: And I had started off with some obviously fundamental question like, “We must not want what is bad?”

The-Main-Question-Answerer: The exact same.

Generally Socrates: Then the questions became quicker and more succinct and I had introduced some contradiction that you agreed with?

The-Main-Question-Answerer:  Yes.

Generally Socrates: And our argument, if we could even rightly call it that, was heading towards it’s inevitable dead-end?

The-Main-Question-Answerer: Yes, Generally Socrates.  

Generally Socrates: It appears we have arrived there and it’s as I knew in the beginning that we can ultimately know nothing about the nature of anything, except that we ourselves know nothing. Is this not what we have to conclude?

The-Main-Question-Answerer: Yes it is and I realize my ultimate folly in thinking I could know or much less teach anybody anything, despite the fact that I gave a perfectly serviceable definition in the beginning.

Generally Socrates: You certainly did.

SGWSaFWINB: Sometimes I say something here, though it doesn’t add anything to the conversation.

Generally Socrates:  Yes SGWSaFWINB, you do. Even if you don’t there is still some random reference to you though you’ve contributed nothing to the dialogue since the beginning.

SGWSaFWINB: And randomly in the middle.

The-Main-Question-Answerer: It still feels incompelete though for some reason. Generally Socrates should I ask you another question, though it barely pertains tangentially to our main conversation about some broad foundational principle of western society?

Generally Socrates: Yes and I shall take that opportunity to among several things: almost start another discussion about an entirely different subject, reiterate our ultimate ignorance and therefore agnostic stance, or go off on a tangent about some ancient Greek myth that has nothing to do with anything I said before. This point in the dialogue is often the most difficult to get through as the reader can tell by this point that there are only a couple pages left and the reader though that since the argument had ended that the dialogue would you know end, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. In fact I almost start to hook your drained attention span again, when all of the sudden I cut off almost in the middle of a thought.

What About You?

            Plato doesn’t have this section, but I do. What did you think? Does that describe your experience reading Plato? Have you ever read Plato? Was I too harsh or too forgiving to this philosophical giant? Let me know in the comments. I sure had fun writing this.

Notes:

*Defined as everything Plato ever wrote that there is a copy of on Gutenberg.com

Sources:

Image Credit: "plato, aristoteles, socrates" by mararie