The Sophistical Socrates: Paradox and Obfuscation in Republic I

WHEN ALFRED NORTH WHITEHEAD characterized the history of Western philosophy as little more than a series of footnotes to Plato, he was speaking less to the special merit of Plato's philosophy and more to its seminal nature. Indeed, despite his status as the father of Western thought, Plato has always had his share of critics. On the whole, however, the Athenian philosopher has met with considerable respect, and has never lacked his share of capable defenders. The same may be said of Plato's beloved friend and mentor, Socrates. There are, no doubt, compelling reasons for admiring both men--as much for how they lived as for what they thought. Yet an unprejudiced look at the teaching of Socrates-cum-Plato, its methods and doctrines, suggests that such admiration requires qualification. In fact, when one considers the logical and metaphysical errors, as well as the more dubious moral and political doctrines contained in the Dialogues, one is tempted to conclude that despite Socrates's personal nobility and Plato's impressive literary gifts, both men belong to the infancy of philosophic thought. Plato's belief in logical, natural, and moral opposites; his dualistic metaphysical distinction between the real and apparent world; his doctrine of metempsychosis; his formula: knowledge = virtue = happiness; his unbounded faith in theoretical reason and the dialectical method; and his notion that objective moral and political truths can be divined by reason alone, all belong to the early stages of philosophy and are today met with a skeptical smile. There is no lack of irony in the fact that all of these notions came together under a single roof in Plato's greatest dialogue. Yet if one merely considers the Republic Plato's greatest literary masterpiece, irony gives way to expectation; for despite his attacks on the poetic muse he could not entirely escape her charms. Indeed, while Plato insisted on expelling poets from his ideal state for their tendency to tell lies, he found it necessary to erect this very state on a noble lie of his own. Yet as Nietzsche observed, lies are less damaging to truth than convictions. In fact, the philosophical errors found in the Republic can be quite fruitful, especially for the thinker who seeks to travel beyond Plato, beyond moral naivete, religious dogma, and metaphysical web-spinning. In this sense, Plato, and especially the Republic are invaluable. As a philosophical child it is necessary to cut one's teeth on the Dialogues; adolescence brings greater understanding, and maturity a qualified rejection. The latter, however, should never be confused with the off-handed dismissal of Plato by many contemporary thinkers, who act as if his concerns represent anything less than the essence of philosophy. If, as Aristotle observed, the bad man is not even allowed to praise Plato, then the philosophical cynic would be wise to keep his peace. Plato may have been mistaken about a number of philosophic issues, but he was undeniably a deep thinker and a profound human being; he may have provided many inadequate answers, but he asked the most important questions; he may have intentionally dealt in deception for higher ends, yet his vision was bold and his aims noble. In short, Plato was one of those choice and rare human beings who rightfully bear the mantle of genius. No amount of philosophical error can refute the man, Hence, a judicious rejection of many of Plato's beloved doctrines abides well with a sincere respect for the thinker and his achievement. Rethinking the Republic: The Naive-Critical Approach As noted above, a investigation of the Republic can be a highly rewarding experience. By critical I mean, first, a focus on the arguments themselves, particularly the reasoning upon which they are based. This entails both analysis and judgment, and addresses the following queries: (1) are the arguments logically consistent? …