xx
INTRODUCTION
Platonic dialogue and does not really purport to be philosophically so-
phisticated (despite the fact that it sometimes is). And although we can
learn much from Xenophon’s Socratic conversations, for we see a more
Cynic-like Socrates in these writings than most readers fi nd in Plato’s
dialogues, Xenophon’s dialogues have neither the literary and dra-
matic brilliance nor the philosophical genius of Plato’s dialogues. What
is more, Xenophon regularly offers his own judgments about Socrates
in his dialogues, something Plato never does in his own voice; and
Xenophon places himself within Socrates’ inner circle, which Plato does
only nominally in the “trial and death” dialogues, Apology of Socrates and
Phaedo. Plato does not tell his audience where his own views are to be
found, which characters articulate positions that he would agree with,
and what his audiences are supposed to take away from his philosophi-
cal dramas. Pierre Hadot puts the point this way:
Plato in his own individuality never appears in [the dialogues]. The
author doesn’t even intervene to say that it was he who composed the
dialogues, and he does not include himself in the discussions, which
take place between the interlocutors. On the other hand, neither does
he specify what, in the remarks that are recorded, belongs to Socrates
and what belongs to him.^22 Plato, unlike Xenophon, remains recondite
within these dialogues.The present anthology aims to reinvigorate scholarly examination
of the way Plato’s dialogues “work” and to prompt a reconsideration of
how the form of Plato’s philosophical writing bears on the Platonic con-
ception of philosophy. Is the dialogue form, in all its literary and dra-
matic richness, integral to Plato’s conception of philosophy, or is the
form in which he dramatizes philosophical discussions merely an ac-
cidental feature of his conception of philosophy?^23 The question, “Why
did Plato write dialogues rather than choosing some other kind of phil-
osophical approach?” raises fundamental questions for interpreters. For
interpretive schools that ignore the characteristic form of Plato’s writ-
ing, its form or style poses no problem, because the arguments are their
primary, if not exclusive, concern.
The essays gathered here each examine vital aspects of Plato’s
method. “Method” here has at least three senses: (1) the myriad de-
vices through which Plato presents his philosophy; (2) the tools and
practices employed by philosophical characters in Plato’s writings; and
(3) the interpretive methods Plato would have his audiences employ as
auditors or readers of his works or as practitioners of the fl edgling vo-
cation he called “philosophy.” Let us be clear from the outset that the