conversation.^43 This is suggested by the fact that Socrates repeatedly has to keep Laches in
the conversation (186e, 191d, 194a, and196c) and his limited value of discussion (185e, 188c–189a).
Only after Nicias and Laches vouch for Socrates do the interlocutors arrive at a point where they
can consider the question of whether fighting in armor is a worthwhile area of study for their sons?
Usually, this would mark the moment where Socrates would direct the conversation, but this does
not happen here. Instead, Socrates defers to the age and experience of the two generals and indicates
that he will only speak up if he feels that he has something to add to the conversation and will
use this as an opportunity to teach and persuade (181d). An answer to the question of why Socrates
does this becomes apparent only after Nicias and Laches are unable to reach an agreement about
fighting in armor (182a–184c). The lack of agreement provides Socrates with the opportunity to
introduce the proper understanding of philosophy into the conversation as an alternative to the
comic understanding of philosophy provided by Lysimachus and Melesias.
In response to the failure of Nicias and Laches to reach an agreement, Lysimachus asks
Socrates to settle the matter by“casting the deciding vote”(184d). Socrates, in turn, asks
Lysimachus whether he really intends to settle the matter by majority vote (184d). Lysimachus
is unable to identify another option, so Socrates turns his attention to Melesias and asks him
whether the greater number can persuade orwhether one is persuaded by an expert–one with
actual knowledge (184e). Melesias answers that it is an expert who can persuade which allows
Socrates to conclude that“it is by knowledge that one ought to make decisions, if one is to make
them well, and not by majority rule”(184e). From here Socrates can call into question the
expertise of politics while simultaneously making the case for philosophic expertise by providing
his interlocutors and the reader with an understanding of Socratic inquiry and knowledge.
Socrates starts down this path by first refining the question of expertise. While the interlocutors
must determine“whether any one of us is an expert in the subject we are debating,”they must first
establish the criteria by which they will make this determination (185a). This is not simply a matter
of agreeing on what constitutes an expert. They must also settle the question of this person’s area of
expertise. While the interlocutors can agree that an expert is one“who has studied and practiced the
art and who had good teachers in that particular subject,”they are unable to establish“what in the
world they are consulting about and investigating:::”(185b). Failure to reach agreement on this
topic allows Socrates to suggest an answer by shifting the conversation from educational means to
education ends and from bodily training to care for the soul (185e). Without saying it, Socrates
identifies virtue as the subject matter of their common inquiry and once the subject matter is agreed
on, he can lay out, albeit provisionally, what constitutes his philosophic mode of inquiry.
Socrates does this by drawing a distinction between Socratic inquiry and the methods of the
sophists. According to Socrates, it is the sophists who“professed to be able to make a cultivated
man of me”(186c). The problem with the sophists is that they cannot deliver on the promises they
make, suggesting that the best alternative to their model of education is the Socratic model. This
reasoning has political implications as Socrates connects politics with sophistry, as he“would be
surprised”if Laches and Nicias did not possess this knowledge as they are not only older than him,
but, more importantly, they had the means to study with the sophists (186c). Like the politicians
encountered in theApology, Laches and Nicias give their opinions“fearlessly on the subject of
pursuits which are beneficial and harmful for the young”(186d; see alsoApology, 21c–d). The
problem, which will be exposed more completely in the second half of the dialog, is that both lack
knowledge of what benefits and harms the young. Socrates drives this point home with his response
to the concern that Laches and Nicias will abandon the conversation and return to the affairs of the
city, persuading men“either by means of gifts or favors or both”(187a).
In making this argument, Socrates does not just establish the centrality of philosophy for the
acquisition of knowledge. He also demonstrates the proper means by which one should go about
acquiring knowledge when he employselenticquestioning. Socrates leads his interlocutors to
consider the right question rather than simply tell them what they should know as would a sophist.
100 Jordon B. Barkalow