• tinman917
    35
    In Plato’s dialogues Plato does not appear. The central character is nearly always someone called Socrates. So this means that Plato’s dialogues are just an account of the philosophy of Socrates and that Plato didn’t have any ideas of his own. Such a conclusion would be seem to be obviously true if you were reading the dialogues without knowing any of the background which everyone gets told when they start reading Plato’s dialogues.

    This background information being that the Socrates in the dialogues, probably best referred to as the ‘Platonic Socrates’ (to distinguish him from the historical Socrates), is being used by Plato to espouse the philosophy of himself, Plato. So then the conclusion would seem to be the opposite of what I said above. In other words Plato’s dialogues are an account of the philosophy of Plato and Socrates didn’t have any ideas of his own.

    But this is not true either. Because we do talk about “the philosophy of Socrates”. Where this is something separate from the philosophy of Plato. This philosophy of the historical Socrates is also often expounded by the Platonic Socrates. (In fact, Plato’s dialogues are pretty much the only source we have for the philosophy of the historical Socrates.) But the Platonic Socrates does not always espouse the philosophy of Plato. Just most of the time. This is confusing because then how do we know when the Platonic Socrates is saying what Plato thinks and when he is saying what the historical Socrates thinks?

    I think the generally accepted view is that when the Platonic Socrates says things like that he “knows nothing” and that he just wants others to explain things to him. That this is the historical Socrates. And then when the Platonic Socrates expounds some substantive doctrine then he is saying what Plato thinks. But this means that we get situations where the Platonic Socrates is one minute saying he “knows nothing” and then a bit later he is giving a detailed explanation of his sophisticated (but, frankly, not very convincing) metaphysical theories about the universe. Like the theory of Forms or the Tripartite Soul.

    Given all of this my question is: why? Why would Plato put all his philosophical views into the mouth of some other (recently deceased) actually existing person who already had his own views. Why didn’t he just have someone called ‘Plato’ in the dialogues explaining things to people? Or just create some fictional character?

    It would be as if I was to write a book in which Stephen Hawking was explaining to people his theories of physics. But these theories weren’t what Stephen Hawking believed at all. They were just what I believed! If I did this people would say: this is an affront to the memory of Stephen Hawking. And they would be right!
  • Ciceronianus
    2.9k
    Read Xenophon, if you haven't already, for a somewhat different account of Socrates.

    I dislike Plato's use of Socrates as his mouthpiece ("sock puppet" may be too harsh). Then again, I also dislike the use of the "dialogue" style of writing (if that's the appropriate term), where characters are made to yak at each other so artificially, expressing different views and debating. But it certainly was employed by many, even after ancient times, and may have been thought the best means of expression. If you're going to use that vehicle, inserting yourself as one of the participants in the manufactured debate seems both awkward and self-promoting. Maybe that's why Plato used Socrates. Maybe he wanted people to think Socrates shared his views. Maybe he thought the use of the Socrates character would cause people to pay attention. I can't say. But it's not unlikely that this practice may have seemed less disturbing back then.
  • Streetlight
    9.1k
    Purely speculating, I wonder if it was just a question of cloaking his theories in the prestige of Socrates. Employing his name, as Cic said, to simply draw more attention to himself. Plato was a wanker anyway.
  • Kramar
    8
    It's only recently, relatively speaking, that society has placed so much importance on crediting the original creator and avoiding plagiarism. It's possible Plato believed he was complementing Socrates in combining/ including his name.
  • BrianW
    999


    I think the few indirect mentions Plato gives of himself are supposed to hint at the relationship between Socrates and himself amidst the others who are also portrayed as Socrates' students or that learned from him to some degree.

    Anyway, there isn't enough concrete evidence to prove that Socrates existed beyond the literature. And, if we're honest, neither do we have concrete proof of Plato's existence beyond the associations of literature.
  • DingoJones
    2.8k

    I dont know about that, there is more evidence Plato actually existed than there is for Socrates. Of course, Im fairly skeptical about the accounts of anyone in ancient history. Even a mere 200 year old account is dubious in my books, as far as an accurate account of the person in question.
  • BrianW
    999


    If we can prove beyond doubt that Alexander the Great existed, given that he's a phenomenal political figure and there's a much higher chance of finding evidence of him, then by direct association we can follow back to Socrates through Plato and Aristotle.
    My biggest concern is that, it is said Plato's literary works are believed to have survived intact through the intervening years. I find that really hard to believe.
  • DingoJones
    2.8k

    Im not sure what you mean...
    There is substantial, overwhelming even, evidence that Alexander the Great existed. It is corroborated by a mountain of historicity.
    There is quite a bit less for the existence of Plato, but still a very comfortable amount for acceptable historical acceptance. (For historians at least )
    Socrates is still another large degree more lacking in corroborating evidence, which has led to some doubt as to whether he existed at all by historians.
    I share your concerns about Platos works surviving intact, but could you elaborate on “by direct association”? You may be referencing historical corroboration im not familiar with.
  • BrianW
    999


    I mean 'direct association' in the sense of a direct relationship e.g., face-to-face communication and such. If, as you say, there is substantial evidence of Alexander the Great's existence, then it validates Aristotle, Plato and Socrates because each had a direct relationship with the succeeding.
    Personally, I don't think it matters that much because the more significant aspect is the teachings, and since there is no contention over 'copyrights' or ownership stuff, any identity would be as good as another. Even a good book whose author we don't know is still sufficient for study.
  • DingoJones
    2.8k

    I see. Well, im not sure that logic is sound. I can make a claim that someone existed, for contrast lets say someone we know is fictional like Harry Potter, based on face to face interaction and you can claim to have had face to face interaction with me and a third party can have claimed to have had face to face interaction with you. If I then corroborate the third party historically, and you and then me but fall flat corroborating the historic existence of Harry Potter, then we have good reason to be rather skeptical of Harry Potters historical existence. The chain of direct association is maintained precisely as in your example but we wouldn't see that as making the claim of Harry Potters historical existence. I dont think direct association makes a significant difference, though I suppose it would depend on the nature of the references.
    I agree completely that it doesnt matter when considering the works themselves. The wisdom doesnt go away. As you say, we need not know the author at all to learn from the book.
  • Number2018
    550
    It is difficult to find out why Plato chose this literary form of his works, where the author is entirely hidden, overshadowed by his hero. Yet, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche showed effectiveness and actuality of this philosophical discourse: it is dialogic not just by its form, but it also applies an essential inner dialogic relation with the other. This new way of thought has been a true philosophical metamorphosis, opening a space for a new sphere of being.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.