context around Plato's dialogues

[Anonymous No.20710414]

I've read a handful of Plato's dialogues (republic, symposium, parmenides, euthyphro, crito, apology), but I've never studied them that deeply or tried to look into the context around which they were written. with the context, I specifically mean the intentions of Plato and the extent to which the dialogues really happened.

For instance, on the back of the Oxford World's Classics translation of Gorgias, the translator writes "The struggle which Plato has Socrates recommend..." and at one point in the introduction writes "At 463a ff. he has Socrates describe rhetoric as a..." - these would suggest that Plato is merely using Socrates as a character to promote (presumably) his own beliefs. I have seen more extreme versions of this view, saying that Socrates never even existed. I have also seen the reverse, though, where people assume the dialogues to be fairly faithful to real conversations.

I get these dialogues were written hundreds of years ago and that there's probably not much evidence (or if there is, it's dubious) as to the context around the dialogues, but how much can we confidently say about it?

[Anonymous No.20710444]

>>20710414
>and the extent to which the dialogues really happened.
They didn't happen at all. Just think practically about it for a second, firstly look at how long the dialogues are and how eloquent the thinking is. These are not off-the-cuff casual conversations as they are presented. They talk for awfully long times, and while even modern greeks are quite loquacious and can pontificate at length these lengths, the later Platonic dialogues would have to take place in installments not in the unity of time and place presented. Secondly even if they were, it would be a equally mesmerizing feat of memory to record them. Thirdly, why are the characters always at such pains to explain the provenance of how they came to hear this conversation, that they heard the conversation from this interlocutor as a boy and had it confirmed by another unless even to a Greek audience at the time such feats of extemporaneous eloquence and memory inspired incredulity.
>I have also seen the reverse, though, where people assume the dialogues to be fairly faithful to real conversations.
Who are these people? How do they justify assumptions?

[Anonymous No.20710479]

>>20710414
Firstly Socrates 100% existed, people who say otherwise just aren't familiar with Greek culture at the time. We can safely say the dialogues are fictional. The early 'Socratic' dialogues are almost certainly very close to Socrates philosophy, but we can't be sure how unique Plato's application of it is. Throughout all his life Plato saw himself as being essentially in the spirit of and building upon Socrates, even when he departs from him.

In the Parmenides for instance Plato makes it quite clear, even if we weren't familiar with Parmenides' philosophy, when he stops talking about the actual philosophy of Parmenides and starts adding his own ideas using Parmenides' mouth. In the same dialogue he also positions Socrates as the student, signifying Plato going beyond his early philosophy wherein Socrates is the mouth piece. You must look for these subtleties in Plato if you want to understand him, since he is using both art and philosophy to express himself.

[Anonymous No.20710497]

>>20710444
The dialogues are obviously fictional, but it's a fact that the ancient Greeks had way better memories than us because most of their 'literature' was created orally and they didn't fully rely on written words, yet even that was read aloud.

[Anonymous No.20710526]

>>20710414
>firstly look at how long the dialogues are and how eloquent the thinking is
>secondly even if they were, it would be a equally mesmerizing feat of memory to record them
I'm not saying you're ultimately wrong and that they didn't happen at all - I'm undecided on the matter - but what would you say to the rebuttal that 1. the characters are mostly learned in (among other things) philosophy and rhetoric, so it's not so absurd to think that they are more quick-witted and better speakers than the average person; 2. what >>20710497 said about memory; and 3. that perhaps the dialogues aren't written with 100% accuracy, but the gist of them are faithful

[Anonymous No.20710530]

>>20710526
meant for >>20710444

[Anonymous No.20710565]

>>20710497
>The dialogues are obviously fictional
How are they fictional?

[Anonymous No.20710572]

>>20710414
I am going mostly with this poster >>20710526
Futhermore, if Plato was to put words into other people's mouths arbitrarily, I can't believe anyone one at the time would be pleased at all with him. Therefore, I believe in the accuracy of his dialogues and that the people involved in them consented with what he wrote.

[Anonymous No.20710652]

>>20710497
No argument they would generally have had better memory, but I don't think they had 3-hour-mental-stenography memory.
>>20710526
> so it's not so absurd to think that they are more quick-witted and better speakers than the average person
That doesn't make a strong argument that they are transcriptions though. The average person is an extremely low bar, and if you're making the comparison to the average person then the feats of eloquence suggested by Platonic Dialogues would be impossible even for someone who was many many times more eloquent than your man on the street.
Furthermore, why would there be a need or motivation to transcribe and record them at all if these feats of philosophical insight and eloquence constantly happened off the cuff?
>but the gist of them are faithful
You need to be specific about that, how much would you consider the "gist" how faithful are we talking? And most importantly: how could you ascertain that?
What we have is extremely lengthy, well structured intelligible arguments that take literally hours to read between a mix of historical and invented characters, that were written or recorded years after the events, where the narrators of the events are at pains to explain the provenance of how they came to hear the events, and conveniently follow a organized meta-structure where certain themes and ideas are repeated and elucidated. We are lead to believe that these hour long conversations were recalled more-or-less stenographically, without bias, and not edited for concision. The writing out of which was a massive and expensive labor, suggesting that even if these conversations did happen they were exceptional and unique which seems at odds to them being extemporaneous and off-the-cuff otherwise it'd be "another Socratic conversation, they're a dime a dozen"

[Anonymous No.20710805]

sleep tight Plato

[Anonymous No.20710825]

>>20710414
This is the first time that one of these pics convinced me to comment.

sleep tight Plato

[Anonymous No.20710833]

>>20710414
"sleep tight Plato"

[Anonymous No.20710850]

"sleep tight Plato"
Uz is tight mf, fr bussin wit that inquiry into justice n' shit.

[Anonymous No.20710875]

>>20710414
sleep tight Plato

[Anonymous No.20710924]

Sleep tight Plato

[Anonymous No.20710952]

>>20710414
You have to think, Plato admired Socrates so he wouldn't put anything in his mouth that Socrates would never say.

On the other hand, Plato definitely came up with some of his own ideas in the dialogues. He probably thought of himself as an extension of Socrates.

[Anonymous No.20710975]

>>20710479
Good comment. I didn't know Socrates was the student in the Parmenides.

[Anonymous No.20710987]

I think it's reasonable to believe that Apology was very close to what Socrates actually said. When you consider how hard Plato looked up to him and how unforgettable of a moment the trial was, it would be hard not to think back on every little thing that was said, especially after the verdict.

[Anonymous No.20710991]

sleep tight Plato

[Anonymous No.20711037]

>>20710987
Pretty sure Plato wasn't there.

But considering the apology was a real event, and the similarities to Xenophon's version, I think we can assume the general content and progression of the apology was authentic.

[Anonymous No.20711044]

>>20710414
sleep tight plato

[Anonymous No.20711056]

>>20711037
Plato was there. It is the only dialogue in which Plato himself is mentioned, specifically pointed out by Socrates among his fellow students to establish his presence without him saying anything.

[Anonymous No.20711235]

>>20710414
>>20710444
Socrates is clearly nothing more than Plato's mouthpiece, and the dialogs are nothing but Plato attacking a bunch of strawmen. It's all the ancient Greek equivalent of a modern political comic, where the intellectual, rational, verbally astute stand-in for the artist decimates his dumb, irrational, fumbling counterpart, and in the end everybody claps.

Almost every time Socrates bothers making a positive argument for any of his ideals, or posits an argument against someone else's position, his rhetoric could easily be deconstructed and his own logic turned back against him in various ways, but this never happens. For example when he suggests that a just man has no enemies and should treat even those against him as good as his friends, this is obviously, patently untrue, and a single question about the basis of these beliefs should dispel them immediately.

I've heard it argued that the main opposition to Socrates, Thrasymachus, who represents thinking in basic terms without conceptions of higher virtue of meaning, is in essence some sort of proto-nihilist or Machiavellian, who only frames rationality in terms of power and cause and effect. But in reality I think Socrates' (Plato's) own Socratic approach is much closer to this, because his deconstructionist argumentation can essentially be used to disregard any form of ideology or thought so long as you ask "why" enough times or in the correct way. At the bottom of Plato's arguments, like practically any idealistic worldview, there's nothing but a leap of faith.

[Anonymous No.20711325]

>>20711235
>dilettante pseud opinions about Plato 101

[Anonymous No.20711574]

>>20711235
I think Plato is a far smarter writer than you give him credit for. If Socrates is just Plato's mouthpiece then why include the character of Socrates in the dialogues at all? I think the key to approaching a platonic dialogue lies in how Socrates dismisses writing in the dialogue Phaedrus. Plato tries to capture the oral way of philosophizing, that Socrates defends, in his writing, meaning you shouldn't read a platonic dialogue like a treatise, but you engage in philosophizing with the characters in the dialogue. Criticizing Socrates' argumentation is not criticizing Plato, like criticizing some character's argumentation in a play is not criticizing the playwright. Furthermore Socrates is famous for his irony so the reader's part in the dialogue includes trying to spot when Socrates is being facetious. This makes interpreting a platonic dialogue hard, it is far easier to just dismiss Plato as some primitive philosopher. What Plato's own views are doesn't really matter. Plato puts forward a conversation and when the reader follows the argumentation carefully and comes to their own conclusions on who is wrong and why the reader becomes better at philosophizing just like Plato, I believe, intended.

[Anonymous No.20711951]

>>20710526
>>20710572
One sign that they're not to be treated as simple historical records is the fact that every dialogue is woven around a narrow theme that they only venture from within certain confines ("Law" never appears in the dialogue about Virtue, Meno; "soul" never appears in the dialogue on Piety, Euthyphro) and, further, that historical references themselves tend to be used more as part of the them than they are to place a situation in history; e.g., Menexenus takes place after Socrates' death, Gorgias lists historical events in order from Gorgias' visit around 430 b.c. to the rule of a certain tyrant 25 years later, the Republic has references to events that happened after Cephalus died, etc. etc. Usually the themes and historical depictions are unified to shed light on each other, so Phaedrus is chosen for the dialogue in his name at least in part because he was implicated later on in desecrating the herms and blaspheming the Mysteries.

As for depicting people still living, we're in the first place totally in the dark for when Plato started, and we kinda just assume he must've written Apology right after it happened. In any case, the dialogues look at figures from a the previous generation, including family members. Our modern canons of coherence are different than the ancients, who were willing to depict contemporaries in comedy and in rhetorical practice speeches. I'm sure in most cases Plato made sure people who appear in a poor light were dead first, and in other cases, they wouldn't be offended by the depiction even if it didn't happen (Phaedo, Euclides, Adeimantus, etc.).

[Anonymous No.20712661]

>>20710414
Sleep Tight Plato

[Anonymous No.20712684]

>>20711574
>If Socrates is just Plato's mouthpiece then why include the character of Socrates in the dialogues at all?
If I was to be cynical, I'd say for the purposes of using the figure of an eminently wise man to deflect criticism away from himself. The dialog is too narratively perfect to believe that these events and conversations actually happened, characters appear as roles in a play and speak or exit at metaphorically appropriate times. If these things ever actually happened, they've been dramatized to such a degree that reality has been substituted for an idealized version of a philosophical discourse.

>the reader follows the argumentation carefully and comes to their own conclusions on who is wrong and why the reader becomes better at philosophizing just like Plato, I believe, intended.
Of course the reader is free to think about it themselves and reach their own conclusions, but the fact is that within the dialogs themselves Socrates is always presented as the better thinker and orator, with arguments that - if often shaky under scrutiny - almost nobody can ever respond to.

[Anonymous No.20713758]

sleep tight Plato