top of page
Search

Plato and the Dialogue Form

Plato is one of the most important philosophers in the history of the world. It’s almost impossible to study Western philosophy, history or religion without considering his ideas or influence. The fact that he wrote in dialogues is both fascinating and troublesome – particularly as it makes it difficult to ascertain what the philosopher himself really thought. Dr. Orton’s PhD researched Plato’s philosophy. Here, she introduces us to the dialogues and how we can use them to understand Plato’s thought.

 

For university-level scholars or independent researchers, we’ve included clickable links to useful literature and canonical scholarship you need to be acquainted with to get started. For other interested learners, this overview will make understanding the topic easy.


The great philosopher, Plato
The great philosopher, Plato

Plato stands out from other philosophers in his use of the dialogue form. Rather than write in treatises – systematic written explorations of a subject – Plato chose to record his ideas as conversations. These dialogues, written in the late fifth to early fourth century B.C., portray the characters discussing ideas or narrating events in which philosophical discussions take place. Interlocutors include Plato’s friend and mentor Socrates as well as other historical figures.

 

Traditionally, Plato’s dialogues have been split into the following categories: early, (transitional), middle and late. There are arguments about the exact order that these were composed, but Gregory Vlastos makes a good argument for the following order:

 

Early dialogues (not in chronological order): Apology, Charmides, Crito, Euthyphro, Gorgias, Hippias Minor, Ion, Laches, Protagoras

Transitional dialogues (not in chronological order): Euthydemus, Hippias Major, Lysis, Menexenus, Meno

Middle dialogues: Cratylus, Phaedo, Symposium, Republic, Phaedrus, Parmenides, Theaetetus

Late dialogues: Timaeus, Critias, Sophist, Politicus, Philebus, Laws

 

Vlastos argues that Republic I is not taken to be an earlier work from the rest of the dialogue, cobbled on to the rest of the work later. This is not my view. Charles Kahn provides an excellent discussion on this.

 

The Development of Plato’s Doctrine

 

Plato’s style gives us some clue as to the chronology of the dialogues, but there are arguments about whether or not Plato deliberately ‘holds back’ some of his most controversial ideas at the beginning of his work (the “developmentalist debate”).


The early dialogues are characterised by Socratic eudaimonism (the idea that virtue is sufficient for happiness), as described in Apology 28bd and 38a and the Socratic paradox that no-one errs voluntarily, as described in Protagoras 329c-333b. Akrasia, or weakness of will is impossible. Crafts and skills are characterised as branches of knowledge, as described in Charmides 165e, Euthydemus 281a and Protagoras 356d.

 

In the middle dialogues, the idea of innate knowledge is made explicit in the theory of recollection we see in Meno 81-86c and Phaedo  73c-75c. Forms are introduced, as is the tripartite soul in Republic IV and Phaedrus allows for the possibility of akrasia.

 

In later dialogues, it is argued by some that Plato abandons his theory of Forms, having identified several problems with it in the Parmenides 131a-133a. My own opinion is that Plato does not abandon the theory of Forms here, but rather subjects it to a high level of scrutiny that requires immense intellectual honesty.

 

We can’t be certain that Plato was writing up his ideas as he came up with them. Christopher Rowe points out that Plato is aware of how strange his ideas are, and that he is reluctant to reveal the most radical points of his philosophy in the early dialogues. Charles Kahn argues that there is a continuity in Plato’s thought throughout his corpus.

 

Plato's friend and mentor, Socrates
Plato's friend and mentor, Socrates

This is important to bear in mind when it comes to thinking about the development of doctrines like the theory of Forms or the nature of the soul. It is understandable that Plato would want to introduce his reader to his ideas gradually, rather than being explicit from the beginning. We cannot even rule out the idea that Plato went back to rewrite some of his early work.

 

The Development of Plato’s Method

 

However, when it comes to Plato’s method, there is evidence that events in Plato’s life did influence his philosophy, and caused a radical departure from the thought of his teacher Socrates. We can also see that new techniques are introduced at different stages in the corpus, and some of these find parallels in the intellectual climate to which Plato was exposed.


This is especially evident in Plato’s first visit to Sicily. Cicero tells us that, here, Plato became intimate with Archytas the mathematician-statesman, and learned about mathematics and the transmigration of the soul from the Pythagoreans.

 

Cicero wrote in De Republica I.X.16 that, because he loved Socrates, Plato interwove Socratic and Pythagorean ideals in the dialogues. The historical Socrates discouraged the study of mathematics beyond what is useful, whereas Plato sees it as essential part of the training for his philosopher-rulers.

 

R. S. Bluck appoints out that Plato’s Meno uses Pythagorean beliefs and adapts these ideas and Vlastos argues convincingly for the importance of Plato’s mathematical studies in his departure from Socratic thought. He notes that, in Gorgias, Plato makes Socrates confident that the elenctic method is the final arbiter of truth, whereas after this, he seems to lose faith in it. Vlastos argues that Plato’s studies of mathematics caused the change.

 

In the early dialogues, we see the deployment of the Socratic elenchus, which the historical Socrates is believed to have used. This is a method of testing for falsehood by refutation. Usually, a question is put forward about the definition of an ethical term – in Euthyphro, for example, the question is, what is holiness?

 

The interlocutor is instructed to say only what he believes. He gives his primary answer and Socrates, feigning ignorance, asks a series of questions, to which the natural answer is ‘yes’. This leads to the identification of a flaw in the initial definition.

 

Once the false opinion is removed, the interlocutor is in a better position than when he started, now that he knows that he does not know. The early ‘Socratic’ dialogues tend to end in aporia – a state of puzzlement where the initial problem remains unsolved.

 


Archytas of Tarentum
Archytas of Tarentum

Vlastos argues convincingly that Plato’s trip to Sicily prompted him to introduce the hypothetical method into the dialogues. We see this in the Meno, Phaedo and Republic.

 

The hypothetical method involves the setting down of a hypothesis and using it in two ways. Firstly, there is the ‘downwards’ path, from the premiss to the conclusion and secondly, there is an ‘upwards’ path towards the premiss or prior questions. The method is substantially different from the elenchus in that it requires debating an unasserted premiss, whereas the elenchus requires that the interlocutor says only what he believes.

 

Later, the hypothetical method is replaced by the method of ‘collection and division’, or ‘synthesis and analysis,’ a method that involves the ‘collection’ of things that share some particular similarity and then division of these things in their subcategories according to their differences. For example, at Phaedrus 265-270, Socrates ‘collects’ a range of behaviours characterised as ‘madness’ then distinguishes between the different kinds of madness, according to their variations. We also see applications of this method in Sophist 232b-264b, Statesman, and Philebus 16-17.

 

Note that these changes in methodology do not exactly correspond to the division between early, middle and late – Phaedrus, for example, is usually classed as a middle dialogue.

 

Why write in dialogues?

 

Michael Frede argues that the dialogue form allows Plato to present views for scrutiny without necessarily having to endorse them, and allows the reader to examine his own beliefs. Both of these points are important for Plato’s dynamic conception of philosophy.

 

At Phaedrus 274-276, he points out that the problem with written words is that “if you ask them what they mean by anything they simply return the same answer again and again…And if [writing] is ill-treated or unfairly abused it always needs its parent to come to its rescue. It is quite incapable of defending itself.”

 

Also, in his Seventh Letter, Plato is cautious about the written form, noting that it lacks the ability of speech to respond to ideas as they are proposed. (Note that some people doubt the authenticity of this and other letters).

 

Alex Long suggests that, although there was no one single reason for Plato’s use of the dialogue form, Plato’s critique of the written form is that it “cannot preserve one’s native memory, cannot defend their content from assault or misrepresentation and cannot ‘teach the truth adequately.’” When live dialectic is impossible, Plato chooses to use the dialogue form in his writing to mitigate these risks.


Pythagoras of Samos
Pythagoras of Samos

There is also a significant shift in style in later works, with Socrates taking less of a prominent role, which has led some scholars to suggest that Plato became disillusioned with the dialogue form, although this view is not universally accepted.

 

One of the reasons it is so difficult to be sure about the development of Plato’s ideas is that the use of the dialogue form allows him to present views for scrutiny without necessarily having to endorse them. It also allows us, the readers, to see these ideas unfolding and being scrutinised -  even to criticise Plato himself when he does not scrutinise these ideas enough.

 

Find Out More

 

If you’re interested in tutorials with Dr. Orton, she offers online, one-on-one tutorials that are based around your learning or research needs. This ranges from ad hoc tutorials to gain an understanding of the academic literature, research proposal feedback and development, or regular, ongoing support. If you’re interested in  a deeper look at Plato’s philosophy, take a look at our Classics course on Platonic Dialogue Studies, in which we read dialogues such as Plato’s Meno in English translation, or our Philosophy course on Plato, in which we discuss Plato’s philosophical method and epistemology, his theory of Forms and his thoughts on beauty, piety, courage, lying and pleasure.

 

These courses are templates of possible routes of study and can be combined, adapted, or designed from scratch to suit your interests and goals. Dr. Orton will work with you to design a course of private tutorials tailored to your needs, ability and schedule – whether you are undertaking your own research for an independent project, writing a book or simply have a personal interest. Click the link to find out what it’s like to work with Dr. Orton.

 

We offer one-on-one online A Level tuition in Classics and Ancient History. Click the link to read testimonials from our previous students.

 

Contact us to find out more!

 

Undertake Your Own Research Project in Classics or Ancient History

 

Whether you are writing a book, making a documentary, aiming for academic publication or simply pursuing a personal interest, working on your own independent research project needn’t be a lonely task. Contact us for a chat to find out how we can help with ad hoc or ongoing support.

 

If you’re not ready to reach out yet, follow our Classics, or Philosophy series on this blog for more ideas!

11 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Comments


bottom of page