JILL GORDONmidst of our philosophical argumentation. It is not a foolproof method;
it will fail us at times, and it might lead us astray, but in the end it is all
that we embodied, limited beings have. And, for the sake of our souls,
now and ever after, the risk is worthwhile.
The Evidence of Other Dialogues
That human beings are inherently limited, that philosophy is the ap-
propriate medium for human inquiry due to our limitations, and that
philosophy needs therefore to be carried out to some extent through
images, are pervasive ideas in the Platonic corpus. I do not intend here
to give a full interpretation of any particular dialogue, or to provide an
exhaustive treatment of all discussions about philosophy, human limita-
tion, and the use of images; rather, I mean to present enough evidence
to establish that these ideas appear frequently and consistently in the
dialogues and are fundamental to Plato’s project.^8
The Apology provides testimony that human limitation is the bed-
rock of Plato’s project insofar as it sets out in the clearest, most poignant
fashion the meaning of Socratic ignorance. Socrates remains outstand-
ing among other humans because he recognizes his ignorance while
others do not recognize theirs. What makes Socratic ignorance “So-
cratic” therefore is nothing that mitigates the ignorance, but is instead
the open and explicit recognition of the ignorance itself—the laying
claim to that ignorance, which is a necessary propaedeutic for philos-
ophy.^9 The two terms, “Socratic” and “ignorance,” when put together,
present both a universal human condition and a particularized human
ideal: Socratic ignorance is emblematic of the universal human condition
since all humans are alike in their ignorance, but Socratic ignorance is
also representative of an ideal for humans who need to recognize and
admit their ignorance and yet aspire to philosophize.
The Symposium addresses the human aspiration to philosophize,
and it can be read as a dialogue that attempts to bridge the gulf be-
tween human ignorance and pure, enlightened wisdom. The language
of Diotima’s speech, for example, is fi lled with references to mediation,
to fi nding a middle path, to navigating between two realms, and of the
limited being who wants nonetheless to ascend to truth.^10 Our limitation
implies that we cannot achieve pure rationality, nor need we remain
fl ailing in the depths, but we can aspire to a middle path. Philosophy
guides us in that middle path, steering away from ignorance, navigating
toward wisdom, but forever remaining between the two. In one brief but
telling passage Diotima responds to one of Socrates’ questions: