In The Interest Of Conversation: Why Plato Chose To Write In Dialogue Form

In the Interest of Conversation: Why Plato Chose to Write in Dialogue Form

Scholarly discourse predisposed to wondering at the form of Plato’s Dialogues has long since asked Socrates’ own famous question ‘Why?’. At a glance it seems as though, in dialogues such as the Phaedrus, writing itself is portrayed as pointless and counter-intuitive by Socrates’ character. Yet, when we look at the form itself, when we remind ourselves that we are reading, it provokes the question of why Plato would counter his teacher directly and write his discourse down. The very nature of written discourse seems to counter the work of Plato’s teacher, rendering the works paradoxical in their dogma. However, in this essay I would like to argue that Plato wrote the dialogues in such a form as it was the most effective in agreeing with Socrates while simultaneously preserving the position of Socrates as a character and himself as a poet.

To begin, Plato writes the dialogues in the form of a conversation - a dialogue - as it is the form that best resembles Socrates’ own views on writing. The nature of a dialogue first must be outlined here through an analysis of dialectics. Speech, as noted by Socrates in one of Plato’s middle dialogues Phaedrus, is characterised as the immediacy of thought. It is the ‘living, breathing discourse’^[1] therefore it can be changed and is changeable. Writing on the other hand, is the death of this ‘living, breathing discourse’ in the eyes of Socrates and is compared to a child lacking its ‘fathers support’^[2]. The dialogue form, however, does not function as a child without its father, it functions more like a set of questions, posed at first to a character and then, by extension, to the reader. Moreover, Socrates in Phaedrus outlines also how writing would lead to the death of memory, suggesting it is not ‘knowledge’ as that can only be in the ‘soul of the listener’^[3] but rather is simply copying and reminding. This argument therefore shall outline how Plato attempts to fashion a written discourse in a form that would appease Socratic doctrine. The process by which dialogues, unlike other writings, retain their Socratic value is underlined in Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit. Instead of simply proposing a thought and allowing it to develop into poetry as much prose writing in the Hellenic canon would have done, dialogues take on another chronology altogether. Mueller outlines Hegel’s dialectic process as a ‘thesis-antithesis-synthesis pattern’^[4], with the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy delineating it as ‘a “thesis” or positive concept, which then develops into a second concept that negates or is opposed to the first or is its “antithesis”, which in turn leads to a third concept, the “synthesis”, that unifies the first two’. This process can be clearly seen in any example from Plato’s dialogues. Within the Protagoras for example, when Protagoras makes his speech about the Virtues, Socrates immediately launches into many repeating cycles of ‘thesis-antithesis-synthesis’ e.g. 332 c-d.^[5] This process, often displayed in Socratic dialogue, is effective in stepping away from the notion of the dead memory as it is continually questioning the previous ‘synthesis’. It retains the status of ‘living, breathing discourse’ in its aporic nature readers are never injected into false conclusions as the dialogue does not conclude. As Hyland remarks, it ‘reminds us to philosophise’^[6] a dialogue does not give simple answers, but rather a suggestion or reminder to think harder on the subject at hand, henceforth, it cannot simply be recited as rhetoric but instead becomes actual knowledge. In this way, the dialogue form, instead of resembling the mute child with no parent to rely on for an answer, acts more as the frustrating child that consistently asks ‘Why?’. Moreover, although writing is imitative to Socrates, the recording of a dialogue is one step closer to Truth than prose or poetry. Within The Republic, Socrates suggests that poetry is not ‘good’^[7] as it ‘consists only of imitation’. Socrates says that when the poet ‘makes a speech pretending to be someone else’^[8] he is conveying his narrative ‘by way of mimesis’^[9] this, necessarily, is two steps away from the good and the true. The poet imitates the craftsman who imitates god. Yet, the dialogue form does not follow this same sequence. In the recording of the dialogues, Plato presents the written discourse of Socrates who is only imitating God. Henceforth, the dialogue form is one step closer to the true, the real and the good, outlining how the dialogue form is the only written example of its nature to concede more readily to Socratic belief. Similarly, the nature of the writing itself as conversational and somewhat casual, as seen in much of the dialogue in the Phaedrus, suggests to readers the importance of the everyday nature of philosophical debate. The dialogue form represents to readers that the vital act of philosophical meditation can take place in the spheres of regular, colloquial life. Prior agrees, stating that ‘the early and middle dialogues’ especially ‘form an extended meditation on the nature of the philosophical life’^[10] and its propensity to take place in the diurnal patterns of everyday life. Therefore, Plato demonstrates an ability to utilise the dialogue form while still preserving socratic doctrine.

Although Plato fashions the Dialogues in a form that retains the majority of Socratic spirit, many critics have proposed Plato himself as a poet. Within the dialogues, readers may note how, by actually writing the dialogues down, ascribing them to a character, placing them in somewhat poetic spheres, Plato is able to bridge the gap between Socrates’ philosophical views and his own poetic inclination. Hartland-Swann in his 1951 articles states ‘Plato was in some sense a poet’ and this ‘is a fact which most of us are prepared to recognize without hesitation’^[11]. When Hatland-Swann says ‘most of us’ here, I would like to note that I believe he is referring to the literary community at large. When approaching Plato’s dialogues as a literary critic, the metaphors, similes and literary devices make themselves immediately apparent. For example, certain dialogues themselves are framed amongst carefully constructed poetic settings that are representative of certain aspects of the dialogues Phaedrus, for example, is contextualised ‘outside the city walls’^[12] in the ‘private beauty of a rural retreat’. Phaedrus itself is unique in the dramatic setting of the natural world but not unique in possessing a dramatic setting. Gonzalez suggests that the setting of Protagoras is similarly ‘dramatic’ in its descri ption of the relationship between Hippocrates and Socrates he remarks that Hippocrates ‘greatly agitates’^[13] Socrates upon awakening him. Similarly, the marketplace found in other dialogues or the harbour of the Piraeus function as dramatic settings. These contextualisations allow readers to infer and create meaning beyond that which is found in the dialogues themselves they do not represent anything necessarily philosophical and henceforth may suggest to readers Plato’s artistic flamboyance lurking underneath the dialogue of Socrates. To continue, this poetic spirit does not simply exist underneath and around the character of Socrates and his beliefs. Often, Plato includes, through the voice of Socrates, successful and effective poetic techniques. Hartland-Swann outlines how we do not have a certainty that the ‘characters portrayed in the Dialogues are historically accurate’ and how Plato may have ‘remodel[led]’ and ‘perhaps improv[ed] their views’^[14]. Plato may have ‘improved’ Socrates’ speech through the employment of metaphor and allegory. For example, within Phaedrus, the allegory of Theuth and Thamus^[15], when taken entirely metaphorically, functions perfectly as a metaphor for the birth of writing. As both a reference to classical Egyptian mythology and as a metaphor that stands alone, this poetic dialogue from Socrates does not convey itself as inherently Socratic in it’s deliverance but still conveys Socrates’ beliefs regarding writing, suggesting to readers that it is the supplementary work of Plato. Plato henceforth preserves his status as a poet within Phaedrus but does not necessarily stray from the genuine belief of Socrates that writing is inherently negative and ‘introduces forgetfulness’^[16]. Similarly, Plato utilises similes in the dialogues, to create an overall poetic reading experience as noted in the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, his ‘remarkable philosophical rhetoric incorporates elements of poetry’^[17]. Examples of this include the likening of Socrates to a ‘torpedo fish’^[18] in his rapidity by Meno, as well as the likening of life itself to a cave in which we are strapped to a wall, unable to see the truth of the real world without philosophy in The Republic. Through these metaphors, readers are encouraged to make these connections in a way that treatise-writing would not foster. The dialogue from itself is unique in its ability to continue Plato’s consistent poetic effort as dialectic itself is malleable and can be poeticised. Treatise-writing and the systematic nature of it would inhibit Plato’s ability to incorporate metaphors such as these, henceforth, dialogues are the only form in which he could express the ideas of Socrates and continue to function as a poetic writer.

Dialogue, although not perfect in its adherence to the beliefs of Socrates, functions as the most acceptable form of written work. Many critics who have come to study the form have agreed that it cannot be discounted in our own readings the very notion that we are reading suggests a dissonance between the speeches we see Socrates give and the beliefs of the overarching narrator himself. Plato necessarily, for us to be sitting, analysing his work, contradicts the futility of written discourse. In his attempt to paradoxically agree and disagree with Socrates, by presenting a form that would closely resemble his beliefs, Plato steps one foot out further in his own philosophical notions, presenting us with merit in poetry where Socrates offers us none. To view either individual as a singular set of beliefs is counter-intuitive the result is a blend of the two and hence, we are left with the innovative Platonic dialogue.

^[1]Phaedrus 276a, Plato , Complete Works, ed. by John M. Cooper ([n.p.]: Hackett Publishing Co, 1997). ALl subsequent references to the dialogues are from this edition unless otherwise specified.

^[2] Ibid.

^[3] Ibid.

^[4] Mueller, Gustav E. “The Hegel Legend of ‘Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis.’” Journal of the History of Ideas,19. 3, (1958).

^[5] Protagoras 332 c-d.

^[6] Drew A. Hyland “Why Plato Wrote Dialogues.” Philosophy Rhetoric, 1. 1, (1968).

^[7] Plato, ‘Republic 10.595’, D.A.Russell Michael Winterbottom, Classical Literary Criticism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989)

^[8]Republic 10 393

^[9] Ibid.

^[10] William J. Prior, `Why Did Plato Write Socratic Dialogues?`, Apeiron: A Journal for Ancient Philosophy and Science, 30.4, (1907).

^[11] John Hartland-Swann, `Plato as Poet: A Critical Interpretation`, Philosophy , 26.96, (1951).

^[12] John M. Cooper , ‘Introduction to Phaedrus’ in Complete Works, ‘Phaedrus’.

^[13] Francisco J. Gonzalez, `The Virtue of Dialogue, Dialogue as Virtue in Plato`s Protagoras`, Philosophical Papers, 43.1, (2014).

^[14] John Hartland-Swann, `Plato as Poet: A Critical Interpretation`.

^[15] Phaedrus 274c

^[16] Phaedrus 275a

^[17] Charles L. Griswold, "Plato on Rhetoric and Poetry", Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2020)

^[18] Meno 80a6.