CHRISTOPHER P. LONGonly to one who is capable of laughing. At the beginning of book 5, it is
Glaucon more than Adeimantus, Polemarchus, or Thrasymachus—men
who show themselves to be incapable of philosophical laughter—who
lends Socrates the courage to proceed although he is concerned that
his speech will be misunderstood, that is, taken seriously as established
dogma when Socrates himself says that he is presenting arguments at
a time when he is “in doubt and seeking” (450e1). Glaucon laughs and
reassures Socrates that they will release him if they are affected in a
discordant way by his argument (451b).
By inscribing the most radical suggestions set forth in the Republic
in an atmosphere of coercion and laughter, Plato distances both himself
and Socrates from the determinate content of the suggestions them-
selves. The distancing strategy here is similar to that deployed in the
Symposium when it was Diotima, rather than Socrates in his own voice,
who spoke of the vision of beauty itself.^33 Here, as there, however, the
point is not to reject the truth of what is presented under the conditions
of coercion, laughter, or divine revelation, but to instill an erotic desire
for the beautiful and the good in those who hear, while at the same time
reinforcing the recognition that the defi nitive possession of either is not
within the purview of mere mortals. This is accomplished by the very
mode in which these ideas are expressed.
In the Republic as in the Symposium, Plato reinforces this sense of
the contingency of things human by not only grounding the action
of the dialogue in a specifi c context, but also by making Socrates en-
gage specifi c individuals, each with a peculiar personality of his own.
Socrates speaks differently to different people. Thus, for example, with
the wealthy old Cephalus, Socrates gently stirs him up by asking about
eros in old age and pushing him to consider the role of money in a
good, just, and pious life (328b– 331d); with Thrasymachus, he is more
forceful, compelling him to blush with embarrassment for his inability
to counter an argument that itself lacks logical rigor (350d).^34 However,
this aspect of the grounding strategy comes most clearly into focus when
the personalities of the two brothers, Glaucon and Adeimantus, are
juxtaposed. Adeimantus is earnest, his personality sober, serious, and
calculating. He seeks rational order and demands from Socrates an ac-
count through which a powerful person will be “made willing to honor
justice and not laugh when he hears it praised” (366c). This Socrates
provides by founding with him in speech a city of absolute rational or-
der, cleansed of the anarchic turmoil of eros. Thus, the most radical
purges of the city in speech are accomplished by Socrates in conjunc-
tion with Adeimantus.^35 The exception is the discussion of music, which
Socrates takes up with Glaucon, who is characterized as both erotic and