Classics and the Western Canon discussion

Here we go. Or, here you go -- I will be off island tomorrow and so not in on the first day of the discussion. So I leave it up to the rest of you to get things started off swimmingly!

The first few paragraphs that start the dialogue are full of points that will be central to the dialogue. The opening word of the dialogue is κατέβην, which means to come or go down. Not just "I went," but "I went down." What connotation does it mean to go down?

Then Socrates is intercepted, and made to stay by a more powerful force exerting its will over his. Repercussions???

Then there is the comment that you cannot persuade one who will not listen. Dialogue is useless against deliberate disregard.

All this in less than a page.

Plato could have had Socrates say "I went" rather than "I went down." The direction seems to be important. The Piraeus is a wild and raucous place, quite distinct from the city of Athens. He descends from the city to a less perfect, less familiar arena, where new religious festivals are inaugurated and where new gods and foreign people are recognized and approved. (One of the things Socrates was accused of at his trial was "introducing new gods.") Twice in the first three lines Plato uses the word meaning "to pray" or to offer prayers.

Hope you don't mind us staying on the first paragraph (p. 66; 327a), "...as it was the first time they were holding it" . So, this is obviously a new formed community or one just gaining prominence. (or am I missing the point?) Why do you think Plato is so particular about place? What do you think he means us to read into this? Why is the time of the events so important? Why do you think that he points out the festival? Is it simply a narrative device to keep the characters together? or, is the time of year somehow important? Another slightly off topic question- do you think that the modern reader, not being immersed (not living) in the time when it was written, misses something?

Thomas wrote: "Plato could have had Socrates say "I went" rather than "I went down." The direction seems to be important. The Piraeus is a wild and raucous place, quite distinct from the city of Athens. He descen..."

I, too, find it meaningful that he went "down" from Athens. Athens was at the time engaged in the Peloponnesian War. I may be mistaken, but I am thinking that with Athens being a small city-state that pretty much the whole populace would be engaged with the war on some level. Very possibly more regimentation than usual would be required of the citizens. The existence of an independent Athens at stake. Politicians perhaps were advocating for more power for themselves ... If one disagrees, one patriotism might be questioned. Perhaps there is less and less questioning in Athens of the role of proper government. Roles becoming rigid.

But Piraeus, as Thomas pointed out it is a distance from Athens. It is a harbor city. Makes me think of the sea. We might enjoy a civilized meal of seafood in the city, but we depend on the teaming life of the sea. And it is the swirling currents that help sustain sea life near harbors....and yet...the harbor also offers relative safety...one isn't fighting an angry ocean in the harbor. So maybe it represents new thoughts (perhaps the new festival and the torch race on horseback represent new thinking) and an opportunity to consider those thoughts in safety.



Perhaps Plato is using the setting to show that we have to intellectually leave the rigidified thinking of establishment (Athens) in order to open ourselves to more lively thinking and fresh ideas that might have arrived from foreign shores (the harbor).

Edit. Added. Maybe going to the harbor suggests that sometimes we have to go back to square one, back to our origins, in order to re-think our positions.

I'm reading in English. I read in the back notes that the subtitle of The Republic is "about dikaiosune," "about doing right."

And this afternoon it struck me how important it is that the book begins, "I went down yesterday to the Piraeus...". The "I" there seems so necessary. For in doing right, one must know what one believes to be right. Knowing and doing have to originate in the individual. I went down...to the sea where life began (to examine primary life issues)... where I could safely consider new thoughts

Vikz wrote: "Hope you don't mind us staying on the first paragraph (p. 66; 327a), "...as it was the first time they were holding it" . So, this is obviously a new formed community or one just gaining prominenc..."

Vikz, how very, very much we must be missing! Personally, I don't even know much of the big history of Athens/Sparta/Greece, let alone small facts readers from Plato's time would have recognized as important.

Great question.

Since Vikz has asked us to pay heed to the first paragragh-- ;) and I am willing to listen and be persuaded...

I noticed that twice (327b and 328b) a request to stay has been directed towards Socrates, but both times assent to stay has been given by Glaucon.

So I wonder if Socrates is staying for Polymarchus or if he is staying because his companion Glaucon so obviously wants to stay. Edit...mmmm...do we often do things in our lives not because it is a choice we would make on our own but because we want to go along with our companions?

Edit. Added along the same subject. Perhaps Plato uses the setting to highlight that though we need to do our own thinking, that we are also social beings....and just as in society at large there are rules that must be established and followed to enhance life in that society, so also there are rules in a simple social setting.... Wait your turn to speak.... Etc. (sorry...the simple social setting example should have come before the society example...too hard to move them now).

Also...perhaps Plato is demonstrating that our thinking becomes clearer as we discuss ideas with others.

Vikz wrote: "Hope you don't mind us staying on the first paragraph (p. 66; 327a), "...as it was the first time they were holding it" . So, this is obviously a new formed community or one just gaining prominenc..."

There is a story about the philosopher Martin Heidegger: When he was a young professor teaching The Republic for the first time he felt hard pressed to cover the whole work in the course of the term. The next time he taught it, he couldn't get past the first book. The time after that, he couldn't get past the first line.

It doesn't seem at first that these preliminary lines are that important, but as we move forward and look back on them we'll see that they take on even more meaning. We're off to a good start already though!

Also, as Patrice pointed out, Socrates appears to have had a religious motive for going to Piraeus "I wanted to say a prayer to the goddess," and a fairly secular reason, "to see what they would make of the festival."

So wasn't Socrates/Plato here introducing the concept of meaning (religion) in one's life and also the concept of appearances ("the local contribution to the procession was splendid, though the Thracian contingent seemed to show up just as well")?

Which was the stronger draw? Meaning (religion) or appearances? Were most people there for the show?

Thomas wrote: "Vikz wrote: "Hope you don't mind us staying on the first paragraph (p. 66; 327a), "...as it was the first time they were holding it" . So, this is obviously a new formed community or one just gain..."

What a GREAT anecdote! (spelling??)

I agree with Adelle. I think perhaps Socrates descending to the Piraeus is figurative in that he wants to start his Philosophical journey in a place of relative darkness to the current state that Athens is in. Perhaps the Piraeus represents the place where people are open to new ideas. I notice it is night when we meet Socrates in the Piraeus. I can't help but think Socrates is trying to bring his new ideas up into the "light".

Robert, i like your observation on the light. It WAS night when the discussion took place. So they would have been using artificial lighting...pre-shadowing ??? The Allegory of the Cave???? Making the point, as you suggest, that ideas have to be viewed clearly?? Preferably in good light, true light?

Let's ask ourselves whether Plato contemplated that his works would continue to be read so long as humans are humans, or was he writing for a more limited audience? If so, who might we speculate were his intended readers?

Adelle wrote: "Also, as Patrice pointed out, Socrates appears to have had a religious motive for going to Piraeus "I wanted to say a prayer to the goddess," and a fairly secular reason, "to see what they would ma..."

The relation between prayer and justice becomes clearer when we see Cephalus for the first time. He is wearing a wreath and has just finished performing a sacrifice of some kind. The young men gather around him and Socrates starts asking some rather personal questions which eventually lead to the subject of wealth.

And what is the greatest thing about wealth? Cephalus says it is good for paying what one owes, either to other men or to the gods. A wealthy man need not willingly lie or cheat or steal to live well, and he is able to perform the sacrifices owed to the gods. Wealth enables one to live debt-free and go to “the other place” (Hades) without fear. And that becomes the kernel of the first definition of justice – to tell the truth and pay what one owes.

So to start with, justice is intimately related to the idea of debts and making payments, in both a business and a religious context.

Lily wrote: "Let's ask ourselves whether Plato contemplated that his works would continue to be read so long as humans are humans, or was he writing for a more limited audience? If so, who might we speculate w..."

And as a contrast, we can ask ourselves why Socrates did not write anything at all.

Adelle wrote: "I'm reading in English. I read in the back notes that the subtitle of The Republic is "about dikaiosune," "about doing right."

And this afternoon it struck me how important it is that the book be..."

Yes Adelle, The Republic is about educating and reforming the citizens to be better.

Adelle wrote: "Since Vikz has asked us to pay heed to the first paragragh-- ;) and I am willing to listen and be persuaded...

I noticed that twice (327b and 328b) a request to stay has been directed towards Socr..."

Yes. Socrates shows here he prefers the force of reason and persuasion. A compromise is reached and they go to the house of Polemarchus’ father.

Thomas wrote: "Vikz wrote: "Hope you don't mind us staying on the first paragraph (p. 66; 327a), "...as it was the first time they were holding it" . So, this is obviously a new formed community or one just gain..."

Interesting story Thomas. Love it. There is much to this very first scene. It foreshadows a theme, if you will, that will follow of ruling by force or persuasion.

Vikz wrote: "Hope you don't mind us staying on the first paragraph (p. 66; 327a), "...as it was the first time they were holding it" . So, this is obviously a new formed community or one just gaining prominenc..."

This has probably been answered by others, but I just got back and started reading the thread.

Most commentators think this was a new god, probably one brought by foreigners. The Greek gods couldn't die, but they could be born, so it wasn't unique to come across a new god. As you say, what's interesting is why Plato uses this detail. On a simplistic level, it gives Socrates an excuse go to the Piraeus which isn't visiting anybody, so he has a basis for leaving whenever he wants to, which makes his pseudo-kidnapping more significant. It may also illustrate the strangeness of the community at the Piraeus, which Thomas alluded to an in earlier post. It may also show that Socrates is both open to and interested in new ideas; he was up for a 12 mile walk (6 each way) to see this new god's ceremony. Those are just a few ideas; there are certainly lots of other possibilities, and I'm pretty sure there's not a single right answer, but it's multiple things.

Thomas wrote: "There is a story about the philosopher Martin Heidegger:"

Great story!

I also read somewhere, or somewheres, the view that you can't read the Republic for the first time; that it is so self-referring that you need to have read it to start to understand it. I think there's something to that, but I also think there's a whole lot we can get from a first reading together!

Keeping in mind that what we're doing is exactly what Socrates and his companions were doing -- dialogue about philosophy!

Adelle wrote: "I noticed that twice (327b and 328b) a request to stay has been directed towards Socrates, but both times assent to stay has been given by Glaucon."

Great point. It suggests to me that Glaucon is genuinely interested in hearing more from Socrates in dialogue with others -- after all, if they just left, he would have Socrates to himself, but no other minds to interact with. Let's keep an eye on Glaucon; he doesn't have much to say in this first book, but maybe more later?

Also, what is the significance of Glaucon being Plato's brother and the one who encourages Socrates to stay and talk.

Everyman wrote:

I also read somewhere, or somewheres, the view that you can't read the Republic for the first time...

Maybe this is the problem I'm having. I already finished Book I [started early and finished it a few hours later... maybe the speed with which I read it is the problem] but I didn't see half the stuff ya'll're pointing out.
For me it was just novel-esque until 331e, when it got really interesting. I may go back and re-read it, though.

Thomas wrote: "The relation between prayer and justice becomes clearer when we see Cephalus for the first time. He is wearing a wreath and has just finished performing a sacrifice of some kind. The young men gather around him and Socrates starts asking some rather personal questions which eventually lead to the subject of wealth."

One interesting thing about this conversation. Cephalus, when asked the benefit of money, doesn't talk specifically about justice, but says "Not to cheat any man even unintentionally or play him false, not remaining in debt to a god for some sacrifice or to a man for money, so to depart in fear to that other world—to this result the possession of property contributes not a little. It has also many other uses. But, setting one thing against another, I would lay it down, Socrates, that for a man of sense this is the chief service of wealth.” 331b

His concern is avoiding punishment in the after life, or smoothing the path for himself after death. 330d

It is Socrates who says "speaking of this very thing, justice..." 331c Huh? When were we speaking of justice? We were speaking of the benefit of wealth. It's Socrates who claims that this represents Cephalus's definition of justice. And, of course, it's a definition he is easily able to refute.

Why does Plato start the issue of justice with Cephalus this way, who will now drop out and leave the discussion up to others? Why not start with the others right away? I find it an interesting way for Plato to slide almost sideways into the issue he wants to talk about.

To maybe partly answer my question, why Cephalus, perhaps part of the answer is in his comment on the loss of sexual appetite. Is Plato making a distinction here between people who are controlled at least in part by the passions vs. people who have passed beyond the age of passion and have become more contemplative? Is he bringing up the issue here to (and here is one of those points when one can't read the Republic for the first time) to foreshadow the later more extended discussion he's going to have of poetry and influence on the passions?

Everyman wrote: "Why does Plato start the issue of justice with Cephalus this way, who will now drop out and leave the discussion up to others? Why not start with the others right away? I find it an interesting way for Plato to slide almost sideways into the issue he wants to talk about. ."

It certainly is a slide, but it is suggested by Cephalus' comments about the unjust deeds that the old fear they will have to pay for in the afterlife. Cephalus believes in an accounting system that allows a person to make up for unjust deeds, just like a monetary debt. But Socrates, who has no money, treats Cephalus' accounting system as a general quid pro quo kind of arrangement, twisting Cephalus' words. (Socrates does this constantly.) He changes the accounting from a benign monetary system to something totally different -- the lending and returning of weapons. Polemarchus, whose name means something like "warlord", likes this twist a lot. But Cephalus, who earlier told Socrates that he should come around more often, has had enough of him and goes back to his sacrifices.

It does seem like a set-up, but a very deliberate one. It makes me wonder if the way Socrates argues his points and alters the argument is "just." But that question will be lurking in the background for the duration of the work.

Patrice wrote: "Galicius wrote: "Thomas wrote: "Vikz wrote: "Hope you don't mind us staying on the first paragraph (p. 66; 327a), "...as it was the first time they were holding it" . So, this is obviously a new f..."

This is the big theme opening up right at the start, strength in numbers or respect for reason, or will a compromise be reached.

Susanna wrote: "In Jowett's introduction to the Republic, he explains that Cephalus is an old man. He is not familiar with the new forms of argumenation that Socrates is going to employ in the Republic. Thus, talking to him is an appropriate starting point. Actually, Cephalus is in a similar position to a first time reader of the Republic. "

I think Cephalus represents tradition, which is a good place to start. (Patrice mentioned that cephalus means head -- I'm not exactly sure why he has that name. Maybe because he is the head of the family?) But he is an old man who is content with his traditions and is not interested in revolutionary ideas. He carries out the threat that his son, Polemarchus, makes when he first detains Socrates -- he refuses to listen. In that way at least he seems different from a reader of the Republic, though I agree that a first-time reader is in a similar position to start with.

Patrice wrote: "Democracy requires persuasion. Tyrants use force. The Sophists were masters of persuasion and rhetoric, weren't they?
"

Thrasymachus is interesting in this regard -- he is a sophist who believes in the use of force.

Thomas wrote: "It makes me wonder if the way Socrates argues his points and alters the argument is "just." But that question will be lurking in the background for the duration of the work. "

That is a fantastic question. Along with its corollary, is the concept of justice even relevant to a philosophical discussion?

Patrice wrote: @29, "Anyone else think of Moby Dick?"

I was wondering what aspects had made you think of Moby Dick. I'm curious.

For myself, perhaps because I was reading them at the same time, when I got to the part of the Republic in which Thracymachus was in dialogue, I thought about Jason in Medea. You know, along the lines, What is just? Was Jason being just? Did Jason think his actions vis-a-vis Medea were just ... because he was stronger or because the position of the Greeks was stronger? Or was he thinking conventionally...as in this is how my people have always behaved, so it must be right (sometimes a synonym for just)?

It was an interesting justapositioning...kinda eery...with Medea being an action play which almost forced the reader to think about what was just, and The Republic (first 2 chapters at least, which is what I read) being a philosophical discussion on what is just.

@27Thomas wrote: "But Socrates, who has no money, treats Cephalus' accounting system as a general quid pro quo kind of arrangement, twisting Cephalus' words. (Socrates does this constantly.).."

I noticed this too. From the little I know of him, Aristotle seemed to try to hold to straight-forward, logical arguments. Socrates (as presented by Plato) doesn't.

I wondered about this.

When I was growing up and playing gin rummy with my younger brother, I would feed him cards that I knew he could use...because I wanted him to keep playing.

So I wondered if Socrates used non-logical arguments at times because he knew that if he demolished the arguments and positions of the others they would simply quit discussing the subject with him. Whereas if he didn't immediately crush their points, then they would stay in the game, they would become engaged, they MIGHT come to change their points of view ... and arrive in the end at the position that Socrates truly advocated....but that Socrates could only get them there if he took them there via the long, round about, scenic route.

Mmmm, on one level, if Socrates were a much more powerful thinker than Cephalus, and Thrasymachus, etc.,.... then in a way, it's like unto that early scene [sorry, no book with me]...the "We are many" scene. If he overpowers them directly with his intellectual strengths, then they will refuse to engage/refuse to listen/refuse to be persuaded.

Like my card playing with my brother, or like giving a fish a little line, perhaps Socrates used the mis-directed argument, or switched to definitions of words that had not been intended...so that he could "hook" his listeners and "land them" to his way of thinking.

@36Thomas wrote: "I think Cephalus represents tradition...But he is an old man who is content with his traditions and is not interested in revolutionary ideas. He carries out the threat that his son, Polemarchus, makes when he first detains Socrates -- he refuses to listen.

That's a nice observation. I like that. Especially that he, in effect, refuses to listen. I hadn't considered that passage from that point of view. Nice.

Ah!!! I HADN'T seen that! But now that you highlighted for me "harbor," ... lions, and tigers, and bears... oh my ... oh, that's cool! thank you.

(I hadn't thought of Moby Dick. But now you've enhanced my appreciation for Moby Dick.)

Adelle wrote: "When I was growing up and playing gin rummy with my younger brother, I would feed him cards that I knew he could use...because I wanted him to keep playing...."

Ha! That's perfect, Adelle. I think that's exactly what Socrates is doing. In some respects his method is very much like a game, the object of which is not to win, but to keep playing. But wouldn't some people object to this way of playing, knowing that you were not really playing in earnest? Isn't the object to win?

Patrice wrote: "My guess about his name, and it's only a guess, is that he is no longer of the body. He basically says that in old age the body kind of disappears as a motivator and what's left is the "head". But that's just off the top of my head! "

I am still captivated by Melville's reference to "Plato's honey head." I think this is a more modern interpretation of "head" though. Does Plato place the soul, or even the mind, in the head? I'm not sure.

Everyman wrote: "...Why does Plato start the issue of justice with Cephalus this way, who will now drop out and leave the discussion up to others? ..."

When I listened to TR this time, I sort of laughed when Cephalus walked out of the conversation. How like an old man to understand these discussions will go on forever with no real resolution, albeit with lots of insights, which he no longer had a lot of vested interest in exploring because he was in a position to go on living his life as he liked (thought "right"?). Sort of like the card playing analogy Adelle has been discussing -- why keep playing if there seems little reason?

(Perhaps Plato is inferring any "next life" is more important to Cephalus at this point than figuring out what is "justice" in this life. Would this be in line with Thomas's hypothesis that Plato is writing for the future leaders of Greece -- more than for the present ones?)

Lily at 47 wrote: "Everyman wrote: "... justice .... Cephalus...who will now drop out and leave the discussion up to others? ..."

l..."

I found interesting the behavior of Cephalus, who had been speaking of his concern, now that he was closer to death, ("he is filled with doubts and fesrs and bgins to reckon up and see if there is anyone he has wronged.")
330e

His position had been that his money would serve to "make right" any wrongdoings hr might have committed in life. It would allow his conscience to rest easy. And then by 331c Socrates has brought the discussion to a point where Cephalus will have to concede the uncomfortable question asked by Socrates,

"Are we really to say that doing right consists simply and solely in truthfulness and returning anything we have borrowed?.....that is not really the definition of doing right"

Polemarchus, jumps to his father's defence. "oh yes it is"....he then pulls back and qualifies his defence of his father's thinking...polemarchus is willing to consider new thinking....

But Cephalus, lol, as pointed out above by someone, refuses to listen...but, lol, he seems to have listend enough that he does doubt himself now, and he's off to see about the sacrifice.

I really liked the smile Cephalus bestowed on his son. I liked that he loved his son even as he was knowing that Polemarchus doesn't hold exactly the same beliefs as he himself does. And he's willing to give his son the space and independence to develop his own thinking....even as he, Cephalus, provides the safe setting---the home of Cephalus---and the financial safety net for his son.

Adelle wrote: "When I was growing up and playing gin rummy with my younger brother, I would feed him cards that I knew he could use...because I wanted him to keep playing.

So I wondered if Socrates used non-logical arguments at times because he knew that if he demolished the arguments and positions of the others they would simply quit discussing the subject with him. "

Interesting!

Another possibility is that he is helping them (us) learn the process of dialectic through seeing the wrong as well as the right. In the same sort of way that my father taught me chess by showing me in a given situation what would be a bad move and how it would lead me into trouble. I learned from that how to evaluate the quality of a move (e.g. Socratic argument) and how to avoid the bad and seek out the good.

I was contrasting in my mind the dialogue form as used by Boethius and the dialogue form as used by Plato.

There are, of course, obvious differences. In Boethius, the narrator is the one being taught and the other party is the one teaching. In Boethius, Philosophy has the answers and knows she does; in Plato, Socrates may have the answers but claims he doesn't.

But one question struck me. In Boethius, it is clear (at least to me) that he had a specific principle to put forward, that he knew in advance where he was going, and that the dialogue isn't a mutual search for truth, but more a college professor collecting the right answers from his students. The point isn't to persuade, but to inform.

We have only read the first book of the Republic, but in appearance, at least, the dialogue form is used quite differently. Socrates seems, at least on the surface, genuinely engaged in a search for truth, not a didactic telling the uninformed how it really is.

But is this really what's going on? I suspect that the differences between Plato and Boethius are more on the surface then in reality. Doesn't Plato have a very good idea where he is going to and what he things the "right" outcome is? Is he engaging in genuine dialogue, as we do here, or is he just a professor knowing the answers who prefers the dialogue form because it has the appearance of a mutual search for truth?

Yet I go back and forth on this. I don't think that Boethius cared whether his readers engaged in the dialectic or not. I do think Plato cares. I don't think that Boethius was trying to teach the way to reach wisdom, but was just saying that this is what wisdom is; I do think that Plato is trying to lead us into the process of doing philosophy for ourselves.

But I admit to going back and forth on this from time to time! How about others think on this?

A comment on the title of the dialogue. Several sources I have read have noted that the translation "Republic" for the Greek politeia is misleading. Politeia is derived from polis, the Greek for city, meaning in their case city-state since there was no country of Greece. Republic to us implies a certain form of government, whereas the term politeia doesn't. Ideally the title would have been translated more accurately, but that was the title it got early on and it would be too confusing to change it now.

But we should not, I think, assume that because the title is The Republic Plato is automatically going to talk about the form of government we call a republic. Rather, he is going to talk about how to structure the government of a city-state, but what form that will take can't be assumed from the title.

Adelle wrote: "I found interesting the behavior of Cephalus..."

Adelle -- thanks for your exploration of Cephalus's behavior! You took it deeper and in more directions than I did!

I do hope some of you can find time to spice your reading of Plato with the images and commentary here, especially the "selected images" and the commentary on them. Some of you may find them totally irrelevant and unrelated; I did not -- and the Plato and Atlantis collection was NOT where I experienced the most linkages.

http://blog.metmuseum.org/alexandermc...

Everyman wrote: "...Doesn't Plato have a very good idea where he is going to and what he thinks the "right" outcome is? ..."

Forty years ago I would have thought so and was probably part of the reason why I distrusted him so (along with the egos and the masculine exclusivity). Today I am willing to extend him the possibility that Plato (or at least Socrates) realized he was sending men (word selected consciously) on a quest, rather than to a destination.

Everyman wrote: "I don't think that Boethius was trying to teach the way to reach wisdom, but was just saying that this is what wisdom is; I do think that Plato is trying to lead us into the process of doing philosophy for ourselves. "

I think that Plato, as a master of language, knew its limits. Almost every dialogue ends in aporia, a dead end of sorts, caused by the inability of language and logic to express the perfection of the Idea at hand. But at the same time he knew that the only way to communicate the Idea was through dialectic. His brilliance was to use as his mouthpiece a man who claims to know nothing.

Thrasymachus steps into Socrates' trap when he agrees to lecture the group and let Socrates ask questions afterwards. Someone who knows nothing is free. He is free to ask questions and let someone else answer, and as we see, those answers are never totally adequate and just lead to more questions, which lead to more answers and more questions ad infinitum. But with each step, we feel we are getting closer to the truth. I'd like to think we really are, even if we never reach a definitive conclusion.

On the other hand, we're only on Book 1, so talking about a conclusion may be a wee bit premature.

Everyman wrote: " Doesn't Plato have a very good idea where he is going to and what he things the "right" outcome is? Is he engaging in genuine dialogue, as we do here, or is he just a professor knowing the answers who prefers the dialogue form because it has the appearance of a mutual search for truth?."

When teaching "Socratic Discussion" to my students, the point is to always answer with a question. But the key was in teaching the students what kind of questions to ask. There are basically 7 types of questions: Clarification Questions, Assumption Probes, Questions about the Initial Question or Issue, Viewpoint Questions. Reason and Evidence Probes, Implication and Consequence Probes, and Origin or Source questions. )I believe at least one question of each type can be found Book one.)

As a teacher, you generally know what the truth is, and where you are going--but you must always be willing to amend your "truth" if the student can reasonable refute your answer.
So there is a form of truly seeking truth while believing you already know the truth--It is Socratic discussion and not debate, because truth can be the only winner.
The point is to let the student take ownership of the truth, because he has come to that conclusion on his own. The questions allow him to see his own errors of reasoning and make his own adjustments. Instead of the teacher saying "See, I was right", The student says, "Oh, that doesn't work, I had better rethink it?"
This works especially well when discussing literature, because often there is no "right" answer, but we can identify wrong answers through the process.

I have a "cheat sheet" of about 80 generic questions that can be made specific to almost any argument. I anyone is interested, I would be glad to make it available.

Gayle: There are basically 7 types of questions: Clarification Questions, Assumption Probes, Questions about the Initial Question or Issue, Viewpoint Questions. Reason and Evidence Probes, Implication and Consequence Probes, and Origin or Source questions.

A fun game to play is to respond to a question with a (somehow relevant)question which, in turn, the other person answers with a question, until someone stumbles--usually in laughter.

Gayle, could you please send me the cheat sheet?

Thought-provoking posts. Like others, I have notations on Boethius jotted in my margins. (yes, i think B structured his piece to support his rationale/to comfort himself...and perhaps, by extension, to offer support and comfort to others who believed themselves to be good men who tried to do the right thing and who felt themselves unfairly wronged.)

I appreciated the comments of others above who postulated that Plato/Socrates was both putting forward the necessity of finding--truthfully---what was important in life, and, also, to show people a way to go about it...to ask questions, to look for clarity, to be able to "learn"...ie, to be open to incorporating true knowledge into one's thinking...being willing to/able to...and to not be hobbled by one's ego-dependent opinions (which, i think, correspond with the examples Socrates used early on 330.

I'm thinking that Socrates was pointing out that just as a man is unduly protective of his money if he had earned it himself...because it was hs own creation, and poets being fond of their own poems--even if the poems aren't particularly good.......because it was his own creation, so too we cling too strongly ... not always impartially to our own opinions...simply because they are our own creations....lol...like me in Medea....in which other arguments had their own strengths...but...lol...i enjoyed holding to my own.

Zeke wrote: "Gayle: There are basically 7 types of questions: Clarification Questions, Assumption Probes, Questions about the Initial Question or Issue, Viewpoint Questions. Reason and Evidence Probes, Implicat..."

Oh, yes, if you could send it to me too???? If yes, thank you, if not, that's ok as well.t

But also, I begin to think that Socrates used some tricksy arguments/arguments that aren't totally solid in a logical/ open sense, because people really do need to watch for such...in real life, most arguments aren't clear, straight-forward, non-ambiguous.

I'm reading the section at 353.

Socrates has used the example of eyes--to see, and ears, to hear; and pruning shears, to prune, and rulers to rule.

But once past eyes and ears the examples given become progressively more complicated.

One cannot always afford the best/most excellent pruning shears. Cost may very well be an important consideration in determining how one is going to do one's pruning.

And even more complicated is governing. There ARE multiple considerations. Various subjects with multiple, competing needs.

(why....look at the debt discussion....government programs...represent the pruning shears...and, oh yes, money can buy shears that cut well...but oh, various peoples have different trees and shrubs/different needs.....government can't afford all the shears...no matter how excellent the shears might be...but we certainly need some.........but a much more complicated position than Socrates tries to imply.)

(ah...even if the doctor's medical function is towards his patients....what happens whn there are more patient needs than doctor time and resources??? I know, yes, Socrates is going to bring in the payment function. Which brings up another set a questions. Ah, this Socrates discussion is not as easy as I had first thought!)

Adelle wrote: "I'm reading the section at 353.

Socrates has used the example of eyes--to see, and ears, to hear; and pruning shears, to prune, and rulers to rule.

But once past eyes and ears the examples given become progressively more complicated.

"

The way I read that analogy is that certain tools are appropriate for certain jobs. You can use a pocket knife to prune a tree, but it doesn't work as well as a pruning shears. With respect to pruning, a pruning shears is more "virtuous" than a pocket knife. Eyes with 20/20 vision are more "virtuous" than mine, which require correction.

(A sidenote: the Greek word for virtue is arete, which means excellence, more or less. It has the sense of power or ability rather than the modern sense of purity. "Excellence" is a better translation, imo, but most translators choose "virtue" instead.)

Socrates is intimating that the soul is the equipment, analogous to the shears, or the eyes, or the ears. The function of the soul is to manage, rule and deliberate, as the shears is to cut and eyes to see. And the virtue/excellence of the soul, how we measure how well the soul does its job, is justice. A just soul is like a sharp and well oiled pair of pruning shears, or 20/20 eyesight. It's an unusual use of the term "justice" but that's what I get from his analogies.

Patrice wrote: "And the way to the better society has to be through education in the "good"...."

I like your optimism. Now, is it "true" that the way to a better society is through education in the "good"? (Yes, I know that isn't a Socratic question. It probably doesn't even qualify as an adaptation of one of Gayle's 80 generic questions. But do consider the insights of Machiavelli. And who defines the "good" to be educated into?)