dialectica platonica eros

7/30/2019 Dialectica Platonica Eros

1/16

Socratic Eros and Platonic Dialectic

Author(s): Jerry StannardSource: Phronesis, Vol. 4, No. 2 (1959), pp. 120-134Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4181655 .

Accessed: 19/04/2013 21:21

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Phronesis.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 200.26.133.57 on Fri, 19 Apr 2013 21:21:24 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=baphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4181655?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4181655?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap


2/16

SocraticErosand PlatonicDialectic'JERRY STANNARD

IntroductionHE MOST VEXING PROBLEM for the student of Platonism is that of

establishing the relation between Socrates and Plato. To thisproblem I can claim no comprehensive answer. But within the

confines of the present topic some further details may be added to analready extensive literature. I propose to investigate two aspects ofdialectic - certainly one of the links between Socrates and Plato - andto argue (i) that the Socratic eros serves a philosophic function laterparalleled by Plato's dialectical method and (ii) that Plato's formulationof the dialectical method was the outcome of his reflection on the roleplayed by the Socratic eros in philosophic inquiry.Section i

That Socrates employed a mode of argumentation, that of question andanswer, and that this method is described frequently in terms of theverb 'to converse with' (aL0?1youocL), is so well known that there is noneed to rehearse the evidence.z One of the most evident of charac-teristics used to describe Socrates, and one found in Xenophon as wellas in Plato, is his love of conversation.3 As Robinson and others havepointed out, the 'What is X?' question is typical of the Socratic method.4In order to get at the answer to questions such as 'What is friendship,piety; and the like?,' Socrates engaged a representative of nearly everyclass or type of Athenian. His especial interest was, however, with theyouth. For it was when Socrates engaged them in such questions andI Except for the additionof references and a few minor alterations,this is substantiallythe paper readbefore the FacultyResearchLuncheonGroupin May, 1958.2 Apol. 33A, 37A; Phaedo 6iD, 63D; Charm. jg4E, IsSC; Symp. 213D, 217B;Xen. Mem. I i, x6; vi, i; IIx, i; IV v, 12. Cf. Crito 49A, B ceLpCj &noxpEvea8oL r61pco,rEV.ov ... Ipaullo post] MvSpeq7tpo &CXouq a7rou8t gLoc2Xy6FLevotnd Lysis21IC (cf. n. 3).3 Charm. IS3A (Socrates' aut)OeL4 &Oarp43&4); Xen. Mem. I i, I0. Cf. Lysis 21 I Cwhere to the request tWL&m'X&yoU au r Socrates replies &LoOx?kovandSymp. 2 17B:&WoE7tp?WCL8tOXX?lC. Thefact hatSocrateswascriticized everal imes for speakingon such homely subjects as cobblers and cooks (Symp. 22I E; Gorg. 4goE; cf. Xen.Mem. I ii, 32-37) must refer to a typicalfeatureof his conversations.4 Cf. R. Robinson,Plato's EarlierDialectic 2 pp. 49 sq. and K. W. Mills, Phronesis2(19g7) i4g-46. This characteristic was already recognized by Xenophon Mem. I i, 16.120

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/16

forced them to re-examine the traditional mores, that we find thepurposeback of his persistentquestioning.This purpose, moralbetter-ment, constitutes a second characteristicof the Socraticmethod.'When we turn from the early dialoguesto the later ones, the secondcharacteristic s no less evident despite the fact that Socratesceases tobe the centralspeaker.It shouldbe noted, however, thatregardlesswhothe actual speakeror questionermight be, moral betterment is alwaysassumedto be the outcome of the discussion.2This is to be explainedby the fact that Socrates' dialectical method has been modified byPlatoin such a wayas to preservewhat he believed to be the nucleusofthe method yet, at the sametime, placingthe entire method on a philo-sophic footing quite absentin the earlydialogues.One reasonwhy Socrateswas so successful n the method of questionandanswerwas the extra-philosophiccontext within which his conver-sations were placed: Socrates, especially when conversing with theyouth, enjoyed a close, intimate friendshipbeyond what can properlybe termed a teacher-pupilrelation. In the dialoguesof the laterperiod,when Socratesis no longer the main speaker, what is the mechanismthat assuresthe success, morallyand intellectually, of the joint inquirytypifiedby dialectic?If we consider the middle-perioddialogueswe shall find the answer.It is only in these dialoguesthat the friendshipwhich existed betweenSocrates and the youth receives a philosophical justification. TheSymposiumnd the Phaedrus ith their theory of eros groundfriendshipon a philosophic basis and supplyas well the purpose of eros. Eros isgroundedphilosophically n these two dialoguesin that it enables thelover to transcend he world of sense particulars nd to reachthe worldof metaphysicalreality. This is, of course, an oversimplificationof twoof Plato's richest dialogues. But for all its oversimplification he abovecharacterization erves to bring out two importantpoints, (i) an exa-minationof eros is inadequateunless it revealsthe hierarchical tructureI Euthyphro2D; Laches i9oB; Charm. i66D; Symp. 218E; Xen. Mem. I i, iS.2 That this is one of the functions served by dialectic cf. Soph. 246D; Phaedr. 276E-277A andSkemp, Plato's Statesmanp. 67.3 Socrates s made to say on several occasions, "let us investigatetogether"(cf. Protag.332 D; Meno 87-88; Hipp. I, 29gB. The belief that philosophy s a joint enterpriseorxoLVI cx4Lq (Crito 48 B; Charm. I g8 D; [Alcib. I], 124 B) is as much a Platonic dogmaas Socraticand persistseven in the later dialectic, witness Pol. 2S8C. The Meno maybe viewed, as Buchmann oted (Die Stellungder Menon n der platonischenPhilosophie,Philol. Suppl.-bd. 29 (1936)) as a turning point in the emergence of a distinctivelyPlatonic dialectic from the earlier Socraticdialectic of n. 2 p. 120. Cf. especiallyMeno75D, 78C, 8oD.4 l 2I



4/16

of eros and (ii) this hierarchical tructure is, in the end, to be explainedin metaphysical erms. To these two points I shall return in the follow-ing pages.I suggestedabove thatthere must be some strong yet intimatebondbe-tween the questionerandthe person questioned. A bond such as this isa necessary condition for the sort of discussionwhiclhSocratesbelievedalways ended in moral betterment. As Plato continued with the com-position of the dialogues t became more and more apparent hatsuch arelation between questionerand person questioned must, if philosophyis to end in moral betterment, be such that the mutual inquiry will,however difficult, be sufficiently rewarding to maintain the necessarydegree of concentrationand participationof both parties. For Plato thiswas literally an academic matter as well as a practical matter. In fact,the two cannot be separatedwhen emulationof Socrates s in question.The bond of which I havespokenthat existed between Socratesandhisrespondents, particularly he youth, was eros. When Plato came to'idealize' Socratesin the middle and late dialogues t was necessary hateros be explained.' With Socrates departed,a substitutefor eros mustbe found. Its explanationwas imperative f the Socraticprogramwas tobe carried on asa living tradition n the now-functioningAcademy.Thus, when we turn to the Platonism of the later dialogues, we mustremember what his problem was. The first point I should like to esta-blish is the hierarchical tructure of eros. This will be followed by somefurtherdefiningcharacteristics f the Socratic eros. Each of the definingcharacteristics,I shall then argue, is paralleled n what Plato believed tobe the philosophic method par excellence - dialectic. In conclusion Ishall suggest that the parallels adduced between eros and dialecticwere responsible for Plato's examinationof his own method thus per-mitting him to make the distinction between method and the theory ofmethod, i.e. methodology.Section

One of the obvious points of contact between the Symposiumndthe Phaedruss the explanation of eros in hierarchical terms. Thegeneral structure of the hierarchical treatment of eros is that, pro-ceeding from sensual or even carnal eros, a more worthy type can beI Plato was frankly admitting this power of Socrates' in [Alcib. I1], ioSD when he hasSocrates ay of himselftoac&rov ey6 Uvociuvol1au gXevLt5 ra' a 7tpay.LFas xxl Etqak.Alcibiades also admires Socrates' ability, cf. Symp. 2iD, 2i6C (rV KuvoLv dgOcaxVlxsaEvXeL) and 2 I 8 E.1 22



5/16

engendered provided that certain conditions are fulfilled. The theoryof eros in the Symposium, n its hierarchical structure, is that of trans-cending successive stages of a purified or re-directed desire (.iu[LOvd)while the Phaedrus,thought not ignoring the motive force of desire ismore concerned with the establishment of a special sort of mechanism,madness (p.xvlx) by which sensual eros is transcended (24MB sq.;249D sq.). In both dialogues the outcome is the same: starting with anundifferentiated psychic force or motive power it is first necessary tore-direct or re-educate it when it is misdirected and by continuingthe re-educative process the lover is led on to more exacting stages ofnloral andcognitive development until at such time the goal is reached.'This goal is of the kind that, once attained it is declared to be impossibleto revert to a lower stage.2 The detailed exposition of the re-educativeprocess, plus the statement of the goal at which the lover aims, occupiesbut a small portion of either of the two dialogues. Partly this is due to theother purposes served by the dialogues 3 and partly to the nature of thesubject matter. In both dialogues there is, besides the portrait of So-crates the lover,4 an examination of the nature and function of eros.These two strata are not always distinguished but it seems clear thatPlato intended more than a portrait, however idealized, of Socrates.What more he intended was, I believe, an examination of how erosactually functioned in, and in some cases was identical with, philosophicI As Platocame to recognize the significanceof his dialecticalmethod the notion of thegoal of philosophywas modified accordingly. In the early dialogues moral bettermentwas almost exclusively the goal (cf. n. I p. 12 X). In two of the middledialoguesa singleFormwasmade explicitly the goal- The Good in Rep. VIand Beauty n Symp. 2 Io0-I I.In the laterperiod the goal, though not excluding moralbetterment as is clear from thePhaedrus cf. n. 2 p. 12 1), tended to become the knowledgeof a pluralityof Formsandtheir interrelations, e.g. the yLywrock'nr of Soph. 254 sq. (cf. n. I p. 130).2 See now, Bluck, The Phaedrusand Reincarnation,AJP 79 (1958) I56 sq. esp.p. i 6o, "...since the object of trying to attain to philosophicvirtue is in fact eternalbliss, it is clear that only when such virtue has been attainedcan one hope for completeimmunityrom any further fall."3 Thus some scholars, unconvincingly o my mind, have stated or suggestedthat the aimof the Phaedrus s a "reformedrhetoric," e.g. Taylor Plato 5 p. 3oo and suggested byHackforth, Plato's Phaedrusp. 9. I believe a "reformed hetoric" to be a contradictioin adiecto (cf. Phaedr.26oE); failure to recognize this leads to some peculiarstatements,e g. "Les deux discours [sc. in the Phaedrus]de Socrate illustrent magnifiquement eprogrammede la rhetorique dialectique" (V. Goldschmidt, Les Dialogues de Platonp. 324). As for the Symposium,I. Edman, Arts and the Man p. i i6, believes it to be a"defenseof the arts."4 In addition to the portraits in the Symposiumand the Phaedruscf. Meno 76C; Xen.Symp.VIII2; Mem. [I vi, 28.

1 23



6/16

inquiry. There would be little point in discussing he mechanismof eroswere Plato intending only to reproduce Socrates'conversationon thetwo occasions which serve as the dramaticbackdropof the dialogues.Some further expansionof the hierarchicalnatureof eros is required norder to assess its philosophic significance. Startingwith the fact thateros is common to all, it follows that since not all personsact in thesame manner, eros alone is insufficient to determine and regulate acourse of action. Plato makes this point in other terms but the factremains that in the Symposiumnd the Phaedrushe hierarchicalnatureof eros subserves he finalattainmentof the Forms.The majordifferencebetween the 'Lesser Mysteries' and the 'Greater Mysteries' of theSymposiums thatthe latter makeexplicit what it is that guidesor directsthe successive stages of the erotic ascent. The explication is the finalvision of the Forms in Symposium ioE-2I iA and Phaedrus 247 CD. Inregard to the Mysteries of the Symposium, ome scholars have asserted thatthe 'Lesser Mysteries' are substantially Socratic while Plato's ownbeliefs are embodied in the 'Greater Mysteries.'" Now the former areno less ennobling than the latter but there is no guarantee, philosophicor otherwise, that once started on such a path the end result will be, orwill be reached in, precisely the manner Diotima claims. Given a Socra-tes it certainly follows that oLyx6tovEq xoCrXTcvcWc[Mwill press on-wards and become o'L?yxUp.ovs4 x&tra tv iu 'v (206 C). But what ofothers? There is nothing to ensure that such a program will be adoptednor that, in the end, a Ypoanv- re xaL &xOOaUoV- (209 A) will beengendered. It happened, to be sure, in Socrates' case and Plato isexamining whether, with nothing further, the process can be duplicatedby all and sundry. His answer is the 'Greater Mysteries' and takes theform of specifying the object of eros at each stage of the erotic ascent.The enumeration of the stages of eros corresponds to the objects peculiarto each stage of the hierarchy.2 The hierarchical structure of eros isI Jaeger,PaideiaII, 192; Cornford,UnwrittenPhilosophyp. 7i; Stenzel-Allan,Plato'sMethod of Dialectic p. X.2 This might be schematizedas follows. The left-handcolumnntates the type of eros,while the object of that specific type is foundin the right-handcolumn.(i) sensual eros a beautifulbody (Symp. 2io A cf. Charm. Is4B)(ii) humanitarianros all beautifulbodies (Symp. 2 I OB)(iii) spititualeros 4uxf or spiritus Symp.2 I OB; cf. [Alcib. I], 131 C; Xen. Mem.IV , 2)(iv) socialeros institutionsnd aws Symp. 2 1 0 C; cf. Crito Si AB)(v) epistemic eros intellectualstudies (Symp. 210 C)(vi) formal or philo- The Forms (Symp. 2 I OE sq.; cf. Phaedr. 247 CD).sophic eros1 24



7/16

determinedby a correlativehierarchyof TC&vt. We shall see belowthat the principlewhich establishes he hierarchyof eros, viz. the Theoryof Forms, is exactly analogous to the principle by which dialecticaldivisionsarejustified(cf. infrap. 13I). The uppermostpoint of the eroshierarchy s the vision of the Forms; and this vision, clearly adumbratedin Rep.VII s only dramatically,not historically,ascribable o Socrates.The Phaedrus,ikewise, contains a hierarchicalaccount of eros. Thefact thatthis accountis embellishedby andinterwovenwith the myth ofthe chariotand that of the lover's soulgrowingwingsshouldnot obscurethe central fact that the lover must pass throughvariousstages beforehe is permitted to attain his goal. The argumentfor the hierarchicalascentwould seem to be thatsince erotic madness s divine andthat thedivine is beautiful,intelligible andgood (246 E), it follows thatonly theinspired lover can know the beautiful, intelligible and good (249 E).Plato even uses the imageryof the mysteries, reminiscent of the Sym-posium, o describe the finalgoal resulting from a transcendenceof thelower forms of eros.

He who is not newly initiated, or has been corrupted, does notquickly rise from this world to that other world and to absolutebeautywhen he sees its namesakehere, and so he does not revereit when he looks upon it, but gives himself up to pleasureandlikea beast proceeds to lust and begetting; he makes licence his com-panion and is not afraidor ashamed o pursuepleasure in violationof nature (2goE-25pA, trans. Loeb).

Once the hierarchicalstructure of eros has been established, the re-mainingpointscanbe dealt with more briefly. A second characteristicoferos, one thatis, so to speak,deduciblefromits hierarchicalcharacter swhat I shall term the mediatingfunction or intermediate role of eros.For eros, in spite of its hierarchicalstructure, is itself a process whichrenderscontinuousanydevelopment- be it psychic or epistemic. Thatis, the assertionthat eros is hierarchicalstill leaves open the questionwhether the successivestagesof eros can, in fact, be attained and eachbut the ultimate stage transcended.Further, even if this is so, is thepassageupwardsone of discretejumpswith nothingmore than an ad hocjustification, or is the ascent orderly, continuousand of such a naturethatit follows a patternwhose conditionscanbe specifiedandfor whichrules are available? f eros is the sort of process which is orderly andcontinuousand one which can be plotted with reference to the objectcorrelated with each stage of the hierarchy, then eros is, by its very125



8/16

nature, the sort of self-motivated force which, once put into effect,needs no additional vis a tergo. It may, of course, need to be channeledeven after the process is underway but such cases would seem to berare.' And even if a case as this should arise there will not be requiredas stimuli anything beyond recognition that each stage, defined by itsobject, is superseded, save for the last, by a further stage whose objectis the more real and hence more valuable. This second defining charac-teristic of eros can thus be stated in terms of the mechanism or motivepower which, proceeding by its own intrinsic nature, carries the loveronwards until the process is complete. A process such as this is exactlythat depicted in the 'Greater Mysteries' of the Symposium nd in thePhaedrusby eros as the fourth type of mania. In both cases, should thepremises by which the lower stages are established be accepted, the endresult can be calculated.

Further textual evidence for the second characteristic consists in Dio-tima's description of eros as analogous to the role assigned to Op0' 86ECt(Symp. 202A) or to a &oXEus[v202E). The latter two occupy an inter-mediate position, one in an epistemological, the other in a theologicalhierarchy, of such a sort that in virtue of their intermediate position acontinuum is established. The importance of the mediating function oferos is that in its absence there would be no cognitive means of speci-fying how the ascent is to be made. That is, instead of restricting therole of intuition to the final vision of the Forms, a form of non-discursivereasoning would preempt the place where discursive reasoning is indis-pensable and alone suitable. As we shall see below, the mediating func-tion of dialectic, itself very much a form of discursive reasoning, is thefeature to which Plato attaches so much importance as regards dialecticas a method of inquiry.2

The intermediate position of eros is the mechanism by which the gapbetween sensual eros and 'heavenly' eros is bridged; eros thus isresponsible for establishing a continuum between the world of senseI The outstanding example is, of course, Alcibiades. Probably Socrates, as much asany of Alcibiades' contemporaries, was impressed by his capabilities and attempted toguide him along more socially-useful paths by introducing him to philosophy. The im-portant point here is that Socrates took advantage of Alcibiades' advances and, on thisbasis, sought to make him a better man (cf. Symp. 2 i 8 E: xot rtL4 eat' &v ,xoLlKVO4LwL,8t r; CDv a{ VOLO O'ELevcv). It was this attempt which Plato probably had in mind inPhaedr. 2s4E when he speaks of the vicious horse who, when humbled sufficiently,(cf. Symp. 21 8 A, 2 I 9 C) will eventually ollow the wisdom of the charioteer- in thiscase Socrates.2 Non-discursive thought plays an important role in dialectic, however. The recognition1 26



9/16

particulars and the world of Fornmsn the same fashion as OpOp6iocand,later, dialectic serve to establish an epistemological continuum. Theanalogy with Op0' 8o6, is instructive because, it is Plato's frequentaccusation, all too often individuals stop at the stage of doxa and aspireto nothing further.' The analogy should not be pressed, however.Although it is true that one may stop and rest content with sensual eros,none the less eros is itself, in a way in which doxa is not but reason anddialectic are, the means by which any temporary halting place may betranscended. This is so because eros and, as I shall show, dialectic,unlike doxa, are hierarchical in the sense that each stage is rigorouslydefined by its object. But this is precisely what is impossible with re-ference to doxa and its objects since the latter, sense particulars, arecharacterized by transiency, mutability, and indeterminateness and sonever capable of specification.z Now it may be countered by saying thatthe objects of the lower stages of the eros-hierarclhyare sense particularstoo. This cannot be denied but, on the other hand, since the ascent, atleast in its lower stages, is one in which discursive reason plays a majorrole, the admission does not detract from the value and reality of theobjects, known only in a non-discursive fashion, which define, at least,the ultimate stage. In virtue of their superior ontological and hencevalue status, the objects defining the ultimate stage, the Forms, serve asthe goal for the completion of the ascent.

In order to introduce the third characteristic of eros - what I shall callits discriminating function - let it be noted that Plato's purpose in theSymposiumnd the Phaedruss an examination of the term 'eros' quite asmuch as an examination of those actions denoted by the term 'erosr'Here again the Socratic basis is evident for the 'What is X?' question isdirected to an examination of a particular term as well as its referent.3It is of slight consequence to praise or comdemn something until thenature of whatever is to be praised or condemned is clearly known anddistinguished from what may superficially resemble it. All too often,of what genus is to be chosen for the successive divisions is, as Cornford remarks, the"intuitive moment" in dialectic (PTK p. 83, i86). Campbell is referring to the samepsychic mechanism when he states that 'divination seems always to be assumed as thefirst step in the dialectical inquiry" (The Sophistes and Politicus of Plato p. 1o8). Cf.the penetrating discussion of Kucharski, Les Chemins du Savoir dans les Derniers Dia-logues de Platon pp. 169 sq.I Cf. Meno 8sC; Gorg. 4s4D sq., 4s8A; Pol. 278D.2 The locus classicus is the Divided Line of Rep. VI. Cf. also Meno 96E-98A- Phireb.52D.3 Cf. Meno 7I B and Gorg. 448E.

1 27



10/16

both semanticandbehavioristicanalysis re necessarypartsof philosophicinquiry because of the confusion produced by misleadingsimilaritiesorhidden dissimilaritiesbetween the term or act in question and a relatedor supposedlyrelated term or act. The Symposiumnd the Phaedrusrelessons in analysisin the sense that it is necessary, prior to speakingabout eros (either in praise or condemnation) to define its nature.ISocrates husremarks hat he will be unable to follow the other speakersin their fulsome praise of eros since he is guided solely by the truth(Symp.I98DE).2 It turns out that this meansthat it is firstnecessary ostate the natureof eros before proceeding to enumerateits effects (ib.i99C). Similarly n the Phaedrus237C) Socrates statesthat lest the dis-cussion about eros become a mere logomachy, the definition of erosmust first be decided on. Following that, its natureand effects can bemost profitablydiscussed.So farI havespoken only aboutthe semantic discriminationof typesoferos. But it is my contention that eros itself is discriminating.We haveobserved that each stageof the eros-hierarchy s definedby its object.When this is transferred o the purpose or object of the varioustypesoferotic activityit will be seen thateach type of crotic activity canalso bedefinedby its particularobject or end-in-viewv.The locusclassicuss thejuxtaposition of the first six speeches in the Symposium. here eachspeakerpraisesa particular ort of erotic activity on the grounds hat thespecific nature of the activity is evidence for a specific type of eros.Whatis noteworthyhere is that each type of erotic activitydiscriminatesbetween a variety of possible objects or ends and chooses one alter-native to the exclusion of others. The lover discriminatesamong coursesof action because eros itself is directed to one type of object to the ex-clusion of others. It is the natureof eros to be discriminating, or wereit not the possibility of transcending he lower stagesof the hierarchywouldbe closed to all save thosewho possessedan educatedor philosoph-io eros. And the assumptionback of the Symposiumnd the Phaedrussthat man can be educated, that a perverse eros can be re-directed.3 Inthe Phaedrus ocrates contrasts 'left-handed' eros with 'right-handed'I Paralleled by Gorg. 463 C.2 Socrates frequently claims that his sole motivation is to seek the truth (Charm. X6 i C;Meno 7sC; cf. Euthyd. 273 E; Gorg. 473 B). Plato, likewise, stresses truth in his des-cription of the results to be obtained by dialectic, cf. Soph. 246D; Phileb. I4B;Pol. 266D; Phaedr. 259E, 2o6D.3 The educative function of eros comes out clearest in Phaedr. 2 5 3 B and in the Sympo-sium (cf. n. I p. I26). But it is implied also in the early dialogues (e.g. Lysis 221) andin the late dialogues (e.g. Soph. 2 23 A).128



11/16

eros on the groundsthat the former aims at sensual gratificationwhilethe latter discriminates rom among a set of alternativesand chooses thephilosophic life (26sE-266B). 1The fourthcharacteristicof eros is actually two-fold - eros as synopticand eros as systematic. I have suggested above that the purpose ofSocratic inquiry is moral betterment. When this is coupled with themetaphysical ustificationof ethics supplied by the Platonic theory ofForms the promise is held out that the goal can be achieved by theadoptionof the specified procedure. The dual characteristicof eros assynopticand systematicarises from the fact that the completion of theerotic ascent is such that each but the last stage has been experiencedandfound to be wantingin ultimate, i.e. metaphysical anctionand hasthus prompted the ascent to the next higher stage. The completion ofthe ascent is, by definition, complete only if each stagebut the last hasbeen transcendedand that the means for the ascent have been the adop-tion of the proceduresspecified. Of these, the most importantare thebelief in the Forms, that knowledge of the Forms is virtue, and finallythat such beliefs are capableof being communicatedand taught. In thePhilebusPlato states that the marks of the good are perfection, suffi-ciency and choiceworthiness (2oD). These are the properties whichmost fittingly describe the final stage of the eros-hierarchy.The loverknows, upon realizationof the goal, that his ascent is rewardingand itis so because synoptic vision and systematic completeness, both ofwhich accrueto the beholder of the Forms (Rep.VII, s37C), are guaran-teed by the eros which places everything n its correct perspective. Thesame characteristic, t will be shown below, applies to dialectic classi-fication and the ordering of genera in their correct relations to oneanother.Section 3

I should now like to turn to the second part of my argument and tojustify the contention thatPlato's dialectical method is characterizedbythe identical featureswhich I have asserted above characterizeeros. Ishall suggest, finally, pendinga fuller treatment elsewhere, that Plato'sexaminationof dialectic as method, that is, his methodology, is whatI The alternatives to a philosophic way of life are none other than the eight types ofincarnations depicted in Phaedr. 248 C-E. This seems clear by comparing them with theEr myth whose moral consists in the fact that those who are without philosophic trainingwill inevitably choose unwisely (cf. esp. Rep. X, 618 A-C).

129



12/16

could be expected of one who observed the significanceof the Socraticeros and its place in philosophicinquiry.Adoptingthe samesequenceas above, the first characteristicof dialec-tic is its hierarchicalstructure. By 'dialectic' I shall mean that bi-polarprocess of collection anddivisionwhich, from its firstappearancen thePhaedrus, ccupies a major portion in the dialogues immediately fol-lowing - the Sophistes,Politicusand Philebus.Limiting my remarkstodialectic in this sense, I thus rule out thatmethod, actuallycalledby thesame name, found in the Phaedo nd Republic n the groundsthat theearlier method aims, not at the classificationof a pluralityof Forms,anda determination of their inter-relations, but at the discernment of asingle, unique, supreme Form typified by the Form of the Good.'The hierarchical structure revealed by dialectic is nowhere moreevident than in the process which Plato terms 'division'. Beginningwitha term, commonly accepted as one which denotes a class or genus andby repeatedly dividing in a dichotomous mannerthe class-term, oper-ating only with the right-handmember of the previous division andignoring the left-hand member, there is reached eventually the termwhich denotes the infimaspecies. This term is the nameor definitionofthe smallestclass any further division of which would result in a state-ment about one or several of the particularscomprisingthe class.7 Theterm denoting the initial class plus the term denoting the final right-hand dividendconstitute a definitionby genus and specificdifference ofthe class-term n question. Thismay be illustratedby Plato's example ofthe definition of the class-term angler.' An angler is definedas one whoengages n the art of acquiring omething (the initial class,tIxvn XX1J,is the widest class) by strikingupwardsfrom below (the last right-handdividend and so the classnarrowest in extension, Soph.22i B).

Platoemphasizes hat in the process of division the lines are drawn, nothaphazardly,but only at the natural oints.3 That is, the division intogenera andsub-g,eneras regulatedby a naturalcleavagebetween classesCf. Stenzel-Allan, op. cit. PP. 79-83: Ross, Plato's Theory of Ideas p. 8i; Cornford,PTK p. I 8E. The aim of the later dialectic, on the other hand, is as Cornford PTK p. 18 3puts it, "the mapping out of the realnmof Forms in all its articulations." Cf. Ross ibid.

P. 113; Skemp, op. cit. p. 69.2 Cf. Phileb. s6 D-x7 A and Stenzel-Allan op. cit. pp. xxxii-xxxiii.3 This methodological requirement was introduced in Phaedr. 26sE and repeated often,e.g. Pol. 2sg D, 261 A, 287 C; Soph. 265C-266B. Aristotle's criticism (partt. an.624b s sq.) is premised not so much on this as on the fact that Plato sometimes says,what he may lave thought to be logically equivalent, that each class is divided in themiddle (Pol. 262B, 26sA). These are not logically or even pragmatically equivalent for1 30



13/16

or their class-names he ensemble of which, when representedschema-tically, depicts a descendingorder from that class havingthe widest ex-tension to that with the narrowestextension.,As in the preceding portion of this paper, the hierarchical tructure isthe most importantdefining characteristic.Once it is establishedtheother characteristics an be stated with a minimumof difficulty. BeforeI turn to these, however, a further remark s calledfor.We have observed that the apex of the eros-hierarchy s the world ofForms.In a more complex fashion,dialectic too is based on the Theoryof Forms. The Forms are operative in dialectic in a two-fold sense.First, dialectic is concerned, not with sensibleparticulars,but with theclass-definingproperties in terms of which the Forms, present in theparticulars,are the reasonwhy the particularsare what they are. Andbecause the Forms are present in rebus anguageis made possible bywhich particularsare assignableto their respective classes. Plato fre-quentlyasserts that he is concerned with the referent of the class-termnot its name.2 The reason for this is that dialecticaldivisionmayrevealclasses and their inter-relations no trace of which exists in currentlinguistic usage.3 Secondly, the Forms are involved in dialectic in thesense that the divisionsby which one classis distinguished rom anotherare not random or arbitrary,as is the assignmentof names to a deter-minateclass, but ratherreflect the real divisions or articulationsamongthe Formsthemselves (cf. n. Xp. I 30). It is the latter, viz. the relationsbetween the Forms,that determinethe linguistically-sanctioned ivisionsand not vice-versa. Whether we turn to language,then, or to the realdistinctions reflected byr language, the relation between the classeswhich is established by division is one that is essentiallyhierarchical.Termsvary in their extension becausethe classes of which they are thenamesandto which they areisomorphicare themselveswider or narrow-er. At one point in the Sophistest is established hat 'Being' is predicableof everyForm. 'Sameness'and'Difference' are also but only in the moreanyone who, like Aristotle, rejects the Theory of Forms. But as Chernisshas noted(ACPA1, SS-S6) here are examplesof acapeaLqn Plato which are not dichotomous.Aristotle's criticism, then, is best directed at the employment of classes denotedbyprivative erms the possibility of which is neverprecludedby Plato's description of hismethodwhether or not he actuallydid makeuse of such language.I Cf. CornfordPTK pp. I71, 172, I78, 324 for schemataof the 8XaykaetL in the So-phistes.2 Soph. 2i8C; Phileb. 57B; Meno 87B.3 Pol. 26oE; Soph. 229D.

' 3'



14/16

restricted sense that while the proposition 'each Form is the Sameasitself and Differentfrom every other Form' is true, it is trueonly on theassumptionthe proposition 'there are Forms' is true (cf. Soph. 2g4 Dsq.). The relation between these two propositionsis an instanceof thehierarchicalstructure revealed by dialectic.The second characteristicof dialectic is its mediating role. This andthe succeeding characteristic follow from the hierarchical structureembodied by the dialectical method. The importance of the presentcharacteristic s that any sort of inquiry, if it is to be at all precise -something for which Plato more than once praises dialectic I - isseriously handicapped f there is reason to believe that something hasbeen overlooked. Thus the Stranger n the Politicus riticizes the zealof Young Socrates for proceeding in such a way that he makes a falsedivision, thereby leaving out of account an important datumthe inclu-sion of which alone guarantees the completeness of the dialecticaldefinitionof the statesman Pol. 262 B).Stenzel, the eminent GermanPlatoniker, has done good service bycalling attention to the function of dialectic as mediatingthe worlds ofdoxa and logos. His argument is too complex to be stated here but,summarized n the words of his British editor, it amounts-tothis:The method of ataCLpeCLgppears to indicate a rapprochemente-tween the two worlds, not only in the sense that it shows thegradualapproachof the intelligible to the fringe of the perceptible,but also in the sense that both alike are analyzedand found to reveal

the same structure. The imposition of Form upon Matter, 7rsposupon the 0&CTCLpoV,s a featurecommon to both worlds.2After havingshown that there exists a close relation between the first

two characteristicsof dialectic, the third follows from the first twotaken together. The third characteristic, that of discrimination, hasbeen alluded to above and is perhaps the most obvious feature of thedialectical method. It consists, essentially, in making a justifiabledis-tinction between easily confused resemblances or similarities. Thisaspect of dialectic appearedalreadyin Socrates' attempt to distinguishbetween carnal or sensual eros and a philosophic eros.3 The contrastI Phaedr. 265 D; Phileb. 20C, 3iE, g8C.2 Stenzel-Allan, op. cit. p. xxxii.3 Philosophic eros is the proper name for such activity because the Socratic method ispredicated on the fact that successful emulation of a philosopher or a lover will amountto the same thing in practice. Compare Symp. 209 BC with Phaedr. 2 53 B. Robin writes,1 32



15/16

between the art of dialectic and that of argumentation (&vrnXoyLx4) isstated by Plato to the effect that an art, to be worthy of its name, mustbe such that

a man will be able to produce a resemblance between all thingsbetween which it can be produced, and to bring to light the resem-blances produced and distinguished by anyone else (Phaedr. 26I E.trans. Loeb).

There is a second sense in which the discriminating function of dia-lectic had its origin in the Socratic method. We have seen that Socrates'attempt to discriminate base eros from a noble eros was dictated byethical considerations. In the same way, Plato's demand for precisediscrimination is determined by his ethical convictions. He is concernedwith distinguishing between what is real and what is apparent, betweenthe true and the false, the model and the copy. I It was for this reasonthat the method of dialectic was employed in his attempt to settle, onceand for all, the question of the relation between the sophist and thephilosopher. The Sophistes s devoted to the thesis that so long as oneis restricted to outward appearances alone there is no possibility ofdetecting the real and significant differences between the two competingLebensanschauungen.n order to re-enforce the point, Plato offers notone but six definitions of the sophist, arrived at by collection and divisionand each of which emphasizes one side of the sophist's may-sided charla-tanism and the totality of which leave no doubt that he differs toto generefrom the philosopher.

The fourth and final characteristic of dialectic - its synoptic and system-atic role - parallels that of eros. The completion of a formally correctdialectical division enables the philosopher to speak of tle- essentialnature of the class so defined and of its relation to all other classes con-tained in the same dialectical hierarchy. This he is entitled to do sinceone of the claims made for dialectic is its exhaustiveness. 2 On severaloccasions Plato makes the Stranger say that as a result of carefullyapplying the method, the entire class has been examined. 3 Dialectic issynoptic and systematic in this sense as well as in the sense that thelocation of any class, with respect to the other classes in the hierarchy,"Lebut methodologiquede 1'educationscientifiquene differe pas en effet de celuiquenous assignions out i I'heurea l'interrogationou a I'amour" Platon p. 84).x Pol. 292D, 3ooDE; Phaedr. 262A; Soph. 253D.2 Cf. ChernissACPA 1, 33 n. 26 to which maybe addedSoph. 235BC.3 E.g. PoI. 267C sq.; cf. Cherniss oc. cit.

133



16/16

is another way of saying that all the relations between the class inquestion and its neighbors is possible should dialectic be carried onindefinitely, i.e. each term appearing n the explication be itself sub-jected to a dialecticalexploration.In the Phaedrus,Plato ruthlessly exposes the defects of rhetoric anderistic.1 Because such procedures - they cannot be called arts - arehaphazardhere is no assurance hat the results obtainedby either willbe correct.2 In order to compensate for this initial disadvantage, he-toric and eristic rely on an irrationalmechanism,persuasion,by whichthey hope to accomplish their rather dubious goal, probability.3Dialectic, on the other hand, since it aims at the truth, has no need forany suchmechanismaseloquence or persuasion.Its motive force or thatpsychic mechanism by which conviction replaces doubt and truthreplacesdoxa is the ratioessendi f dialectic itself - reason.4With the mention of the psychic mechanismby which dialectic ismade so potent a tool of philosophic inquiry, I have come full circle inmy argument,to wit that eros, as a psychicmechanismor motive forcewas the model for Plato's dialecticalmethod andthat the role of eros inphilosophic inquiry served as the impetus for Plato's examination ofwhether the art of philosophic inquiry can itself be subjected to philo-sophic inquiry.I Rhetoric is criticized most severely in the Gorgias and the Phaedrus. In the formerrhetoric is criticized more on moralistic grounds (cf. esp. 480 B sq.) whereas the latterundercuts on methodological lines the very possibility of a rhetoric (cf. esp. 2 59 E sq.).Actually the basis of Plato's censure is pretty much the same for the two dialogues in thatrhetoric - whether it be Gorgian or Isocratean - is lacking in philosophic foundations.It is the latter which Plato is attempting to state in those dialogues where the centralfocus is on the method of dialectica,l division.2 Dialectic as '&Xv* s favorably compared with rhetoric on the grounds that the latterpossesses no rules and is consequently haphazard, a mere &trxvoq 'pLp0 (Phaedr. 26oE;cf. Gorg. 463 B; Legg. XI, 938 A). The type of speech resulting therefrom - eminentlyillustrated by Lysias' speech (Phaedr. 262 C) - iS lacking in structure and organization(Phaedr. 264C, cf. Hipp. I, 286A).3 Persuasion is the essence of rhetoric according to Gorg. 4g4E. That it is historicallyattributed to Gorgias himself, cf. Gorg. A28 Vors. 5 (P1. Gorg. 4ssA) and Calogero inRoss Festschrift (J.H.S. LXXVII Part i) p. I 3. On probability as the aim of rhetoric cf.Gorg. 48 6 A (etx6 xal rL6mv6v) and Phaedr. 2 7 2 E sq.4 Dialectic is essentially rational, primary emphasis being placed on conviction (cf.Symp. 2 X2 B, 2 I SD), certainty and truth of such a sort that &7Top(cLs removed (Phileb.34D). The importance of dialectic is summed up thus: r& y&p&Caw'[rTa,c&)XLarc 6vrnoxOaljL a, ?6y9 06vov, &w 8i ou8evrlaacp6 8exvuroct Pol. 286 A, cf. Symp. 2 I9 A.

ThePennsylvaniaState University' 34

dialectica platonica eros

Documents