Socrates and the Political Community: An Ancient Debate (Polit Theories Contem Iss

by Mary P. Nichols

Mary P. Nichols is Visiting Scholar for Honors Education at the University of Delaware.

248 pages, Paperback

Published July 1, 1987

About the author

Mary P. Nichols is professor of political science and department chair at Baylor University. She is the author of numerous books and articles in the history of political thought and politics, literature, and film. Her main areas of research are classical political theory, Shakespeare, and film directors such as Woody Allen, John Ford, and Alfred Hitchcock. She is a senior Fellow at The Alexander Hamilton Institute for the Study of Western Civilization in Clinton, New York.

Reviews

[Will Spohn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very, very good. Nichols weaves together an interpretation of Aristophanes' Clouds, Plato's Republic, and Aristotle's Politics that illustrates persuasively classical philosophy's response to the problems of political life and Aristophanes' critique of philosophy. Nichols' interpretation seems to me somewhat unique, but also in a way that is very convincing. Her point that the education of the philosopher-kings in the Republic is not Socratic stands out as something that seems eye-opening (to me at least).

There were two things, I think, that confused me the most. One is the status of Glaucon and whether or not Socrates convinces him of the superiority of the philosophic life, because, if Nichols is correct, Socrates has not shown Glaucon anything of the (Socratic) philosophic life at all. In other words, what exactly is Socrates doing, then? The other is that, in the portion on the Republic, Nichols is at pains (correctly, I think) to connect the dramatic context of the dialogue to the content that unfolds in it, i.e., the Republic is not a treatise but a dialogue. And yet, in the portion on Aristotle, she seems to make no mention of the fact that Aristotle himself seems to divorce the dramatic context of the dialogue from the content. Her reading of Aristotle, and his supposed criticism of Plato, then, which Nichols makes much of, seems to rest upon Aristotle *not* understanding Plato correctly. Now, with regard to both of these points, I probably have missed things, misunderstood Nichols, and read too quickly, so I am likely wrong; still, though, these things confused me. This is especially the case for the second point, as I am not well read in Aristotle at all. All the same, the book was a wonderful read. I will keep my eyes out for Nichols in the future.