Interpreting Plato’s Dialogues by J.

Angelo Corlett
…a description and critical evaluation of various
ways of approaching Plato’s dialogues, along with
the articulation and defense of a new paradigm for
interpreting the Platonic corpus
…a philosophical work

Chapter 1 – Introduction: Approaching Plato’s

Dialogues
On having a taxonomy of interpretive approaches
Different from Robert Brumbaugh’s “Four Types of Plato
Interpretation” in Plato’s Dialogues: New Studies and
Interpretation
Ideal approach: it makes sense of the contents of the entirety of
Plato’s works; takes into account the various features of Plato’s
works{without this, a fallacy of misattribution is committed}; does
not rely on an overly prejudiced understanding of what Plato is up
to in composing his writings

A disputed writing The Seventh Letter may provide some answer

on what characters spoke for Plato, but its authorship is disputed
We can never for sure that the following approaches do justice to
Plato. We have to assume that our writings of Plato at hand is all
there is to it, i.e. there are no non-extant writings

Final desideratum: a plausible approach must be able to explain

why competing approaches are less plausible to itself…..so we
analyze competing approaches

A TAXONOMY OF THE PLATONIC QUESTION

This is complex….according to secondary sources, Antisthenes
was probably the most important follower of Socrates; if we want to
know more about Socrates, we may have to study his writings more
than Plato’s but we know that we have more of Plato’s writings than
his….Antisthenes is regarded as the father of the Cynic philosophy

The Mouthpiece Interpretation

Authorial Intentionality and Unintentionality in the Mouthpiece

Interpretation: his dialogues are a product of every ideas held by
Plato
….one proponent of this is Kahn [Plato and the Socratic Dialogue]
Some believe that his dialogues contain Plato’s mind
unintentionally. They believe that Plato’s aim in creating these
dialogues was to create “philosophical and literary masterpieces”
The Theoretical, Doctrinal, and Doxatic Mouthpiece
Interpretations
Theoretical Interpretation: “the Platonic corpus intentionally or
unintentionally contains Plato’s philosophical theories about
knowledge, reality, justice, love, and so forth.” p.5
…most popular version of this attributes to Plato a Theory of
Forms
Doctrinal Interpretation: his doctrines are contained in the
Platonic corpus intentionally or not
….its distinction from the theoretical interpretation lies that it’s
about Plato’s deeply held convictions and not a full blown theory
Dogmatic Mouthpiece Interpretation: contents reflect
intentionally or not Plato’s own beliefs…..this is milder than the
first two….also known as Doxatic

These three types assume that Plato’s mind is in the Platonic

corpus; the question is up to what extent?
Local, Moderate, and Global Unity
The theoretical and dogmatic interpretations raise the question of
whether there’s a unity of Plato’s thoughts in his writings
Unity Thesis: there is a conceptual unity in Plato’s thought…see
footnote 15 in pp. 5-6
Local Unity Thesis: This unity is obtained within a particular
dialogue.
Moderate Unity Thesis: This unity is obtained within a selection
of particular dialogues.
Global Unity Thesis: This unity is obtained within the entire
Platonic corpus.
Local, Moderate, and Global Development
Developmental Thesis: Plato wrote dialogues that show the
ongoing changing of his theories, doctrines, and/or beliefs.
Local Developmentalism: There can be a development of the
concept of x from one part of a dialogue to another part of it.
Moderate Developmentalism: There can be a development of a
concept of x from one dialogue to another.
Global Developmentalism: There is a development of a concept
x throughout the Platonic corpus.
Developmentalist approaches depend on the classification of
Plato’s writings into “early,” “middle,” and/or “late” periods.
Developmentalists just assume this, and seem to provide no
justification for this classification.

Further Complexities
Mixing and considering the plausibility of these approaches show
how complex the task of approaching Plato is.
Dialogues should be read as dialogues, not treatises. The
mouthpiece interpreters make this hermeneutical mistake.
The Anti-Mouthpiece Interpretation
…holds the question of how to read the Platonic dialogues is
intimately bound up with the even more evasive question of why
Plato employed the dialogue format in his philosophical writings

…it denies that Plato’s theories or doctrines can be deduced from

his writings
…but it does not deny that we can understand Plato’s way of
doing philosophy
…it denies that anything we can gain from reading his works are
substantive

Plato surely had views and theories, but it is certain that he did
not compose his dialogues with the aim of communicating them

Until external evidence can be found in favor of a mouthpiece

interpretation, the mouthpiece interpretation does not hold.

The author will seek to elaborate and defend on the Socratic

Interpretation approach

The moderate mouthpiece interpretation combines mouthpiece

and anti-mouthpiece approaches
Chapter 2 – The Mouthpiece Interpretation
Platonic Question: How ought Plato’s writings to be
interpreted, and why?

Mouthpiece interpretation = Plato’s dialogues

communicate his ideas; to different degree based on the
extend that his dialogues are his mouthpiece

…unclear on what they meant that this theories or

doctrines are expresses in his dialogues

ASSESSING THE MOUTHPIECE

INTERPRETATION

JUSTIFICATIONS FOR IT
Whatever philosophical gaps or contradictions there are
in the dialogues, they are due to the lack of Plato’s
philosophical acumen

There is a development of Plato’s thought over time

There are also esoteric interpretators who hold that
Plato’s ideas are not found within his dialogues
…instead, they are communicated to his students in the
Academy such as Aristotle

Starting on p23 onwards, author will examine more recent

arguments for the Mouthpiece Interpretation. Unless his
objections can be met, the alternative interpretation, i.e.
anti-Mouthpiece, must be accepted

More specifically, the Socratic Interpretation: one ought

to interpret Plato’s works as dialogues and that Plato
was deeply committed to the Socratic method of
doing philosophy
…that his commitment to the philosophical dialectic is so
strong that it is near impossible to extract from his writings
his actual views or doctrines
Therefore, we ought not to ascribe directly to Plato
whatever views that any of the characters in his dialogues
utter……………….in the absence of sufficient reason to
do so
The basic reason to reject the Mouthpiece Interpretation:
It lacks sufficient rational support p24

Key hermeneutical points of mutual agreement

between mouthpiece and anti-mouthpiece
interpreters: p24
1. Plato writes several dialogues, but no treatises
2. There are certain views propounded by certain
dialogical characters in the Platonic corpus
3. Plato writes dialogues for a purpose, or a set of
purposes, one of which is to guide readers to
philosophical and objective truths
4. Plato indeed has philosophical views, however
tentatively held
5. There are better and worse ways to read Plato’s
dialogues
Notwithstanding these agreements, there are many
disagreements between the two camps.

Doctrines and theories attributed to Plato presuppose the

Mouthpiece Interpretation.
P25
SOME RECENT ARGUMENTS FOR THE MOUTHPIECE
INTERPRETATION

Richard Kraut argues that the anti-Mouthpiece

Interpretation holds the mistaken view that Plato is a
dramatist
…if he were so, such view is valid

He addresses #2 and #3. His distinction of Plato and the

dramatist is insightful but begs the question on whether
Plato’s goal is different from that of a dramatist

If Plato’s goal is the Truth, this does not necessitate that

he infuse his unique thoughts in his dialogues

Kraut also provides another argument that Plato’s

convictions are held to some extend in some of his
dialogues

…but his chain of thought cannot discount the validity of

the anti-Mouthpiece Interpretation
In other words, Kraut presumes the Mouthpiece
Interpretation as innocent of errors till proven guilty

Terence Irwin attributes Aristotle’s interpretations of

Plato’s Dialogues as “ancient evidence” that they were
really Plato’s mouthpiece
…Aristotle is external evidence, but this should be
corroborated by internal evidence within the Platonic
Corpus; unfortunately, it isn’t

Deeper reason why Irwin’s reasoning is problematic: One

ought to accept the Aristotle as external guide to Plato
view unless sufficient reason can be found in the
dialogues against it
….but the dialogue form being internal and primary
evidence is against this view by Irwin

Furthermore, we cannot always rely on Aristotle precisely

because he does not always agree with Plato; worse he
may actually misunderstood what Plato meant
We can concede that we cannot NOT consult Aristotle for
greater understanding of Plato. But the silence of
dialogues for Mouthpiece Interpretation as well as its
dialogue forms are sure internal evidence against it
…p29

Even if we suppose that Aristotle is a reliable guide to

Plato, it does not follow that he is the best external
witness

P31 Irwin cannot be clear to have uttered a strong

argument for support of the Mouthpiece Interpretation

Julia Annas argues that the anti-Mouthpiece Interpretation

makes Plato a sceptic

….this is merely an assumption

She appeals to AUTHORITY…SEXTUS
All that is need to support at first glance the anti-
Mouthpiece Interpretation is to neutralize or undermine
the Mouthpiece Interpretation
….this makes the anti-Mouthpiece Interpretation plausible

P34
Michael Frede thinks The Sophist is Plato’s most
dogmatic dialogue
Granted, are these sufficient grounds for the Mouthpiece
Interpretation?

Reasons the Mouthpiece Interpretation Fails to

Satisfy the Desiderata of Plausible Approach to Plato
1. It fails to account for the dramatic and Socratic features
of most of Plato’s writings
2. Failure to account for these features has led to many
fundamental attribution errors
3. It prohibited from answering the Platonic Question
 Chapter 3 – The Anti-Mouthpiece Interpretation
…to discuss in this chapter two leading alternatives to the
Mouthpiece Interpretation:
1. The Dramatic (Anti-Mouthpiece) Interpretation
2. The Socratic (Anti-Mouthpiece) Interpretation

THE DRAMATIC INTERPRETATION

Plato is the invisible author of his dialogues

…never appearing as a participant

He used the dialogue form in order to make Socratic

Inquiry lively

Philosophical Inspiration for the Dramatic Interpretation

came from John Dewey’s reflections on Plato

Taking the dramatic elements seriously in no way discount

the philosophical analysis embed in the Dialogues
Gerald A. Press sets forth three hermeneutical principles
for the dramatic study of Plato’s Dialogues:
1. Holism = the unit of study is the whole dialogue
2. Contextualism = sensitivity to…
a. …language
b. …culture
c. …politics
3. Organicism = “to see how, as in an organic body, all
parts work together to a common end”

Press’s principles rest on the following assumptions:

1. Plato wrote dialogues (not treatises) and they ought to
be interpreted as such
2. Plato employed the dialogue form deliberately and for
a specific end
3. “each dialogue is thoroughly unified and essentially
independent of all other dialogues…each of the
genuine dialogues can be read sensibly without
knowing anything about the content or action of any
other dialogue”
4. The Dialogues of Plato are works of literary art of the
highest caliber
From Principles of Dramatic and Non-Dogmatic Plato
Interpretation
The Socratic Interpretation agrees on Press’s principles on
some points

It differs however on the principle of holism in that it could

also be followed by a mouthpiece or dogmatic interpreter
as much as by a Socratic interpreter

The Socratic Interpretation adopts a stronger version of

holism: that each dialogue of Plato must be construed in
light of its dramatic contents and in light of the claim that,
as far as we know, Plato never speaks in his own name in
the dialogues

But Socratic Interpretation assumes no specific view in

which they are to be read, expect with the view that they
are philosophical discussions which engage the readers in
a dialectic among various subjects
The Socratic Interpretation allows for a broader reading of
each dialogue

You don’t need to consider the true or original intent

behind the dialogue when you begin to state your views or
interpretations regarding it.
Another proponent of the Dramatic Interpretation is Henry
G. Wolz, arguing that the dialogues offer “indirection” so
that readers may themselves seek the Truth

Mitchell Miller favors the Dramatic Interpretation by

claiming that there is a four-part structure to the Platonic
Dialogue:
1. Elicitation = wherein he who leads the philosophical
discussion draws out an interlocutor’s view
2. Refutation = wherein the view is shown to rest on
problematic foundations
3. Reorienting Insight = wherein the one leading the
discussion recommends how to resolve the problem
at hand
4. Return = wherein the insight is shed upon the original
issue
However, not all dialogues follow such dramatic form
READING PLATO SOCRATICALLY
One of the fundamental errors of the Mouthpiece
Interpretation is its neglect of the depth of the Socratic
influence on Plato in composing the dialogues
e.g. one must view them as Plato’s way of teaching how to
live the examined life
They act as if understanding Plato had nothing to do
beyond the text of the Platonic corpus
…no different from Christian Fundamentalism

The general purpose of the dialogues is to achieve

philosophical enlightenment.
…the reader must take the primary burden of doing
philosophy
THE SOCRATIC “METHOD”
It is generally agreed that Plato was heavily influenced my
Socrates’ method of doing philosophy.

It is crucial to delineate the Socratic “Method” in order to

explain the plausibility of the Socratic Interpretation
…by taking into account that philosophy is an incessant
search for truth and love of wisdom rather than a hard
and fast method of systematizing ideas

Plato seems able to teach us how Socrates conceived of

the nature and value of philosophical inquiry.

There is no formalized Socratic Method. Although trying to

apply it will rid us of pretense of wisdom.

Socrates rejects the notion that philosophers are wise men

endowed with special insight that must be followed by all
men. He shows ignorance in order to attain true
knowledge
The Socratic Method is nearly identical with philosophy,
i.e. follow where philosophy leads if you care for your soul

The best light of reason must be the true guide of the

philosopher.

It features open-mindedness
But one must value good opinions rather than bad ones

Socrates repeats the claim that there is a right way to do

philosophy.

Humility is an important aspect of his method.

See p53 excerpt of Nozick

Socratic dialogues involves other people

P54
Not only is the Socratic Method open-minded, sincere,
persistent, courageous, optimistic, and epistemically
humble, it is just.
Humor is recognized to lighten the seriousness of any
discussion….Socratic humor

OBJECTIONS TO THE SOCRATIC

INTERPRETATION AND REPLIES

They say that it is an unfalsifiable thesis.

But the truth is it could also be refuted.

….if there exists textual evidence in prose that Plato
intended to have his thoughts be reflected in his dialogues

They may argue that Socratic Interpretation would make

reading Plato’s dialogues a subjective matter, as if Plato
had no ideas of his own

But it does not deny that Plato had any ideas of his own
Socratic Interpretation is not and should not be taken as
subjective
Socratic Interpretation denies that the Platonic Corpus and
text outside it provide objective information on what Plato
privately believed

It’s like trying to extract Hume’s ideas from Dialogues

Concerning Natural Religion without his treatises backing
up whatever can be found there

They may also argue that the Socratic Interpretation is an

attempt to distinguish it from the Mouthpiece
Interpretation, but it fails in its attempt because it attributes
to Plato a commitment to use the Socratic Method.
…but this attribution of dogmatism in Socratic Method is
minimal; it does not assume much unlike the Mouthpiece
Interpretation

Rutherford characterizes Plato/Socrates as an eternal

skeptic-questioner, which ignores recurring themes etc.
This is going too far he claims

Difficulties with his objections:

1. Socrates not Plato is depicted
 2. By saying that Socrates goes too far is a “disturbingly
diminished” picture of Plato
3. Recurrence of certain themes in his dialogues in no
way makes Plato subscribe to them
4. Only by presuming the validity of the Mouthpiece
Interpretation could one say that the perpetual
questioning in the dialogues constitute a “disturbingly
diminished picture of Plato”
5. It is assuming that “perpetually questioning” issues at
hand is the only lesson that Plato wants to deliver

It might also be objected that the Socratic Interpretation

would reduce Plato in his Dialogues to a kind of
philosophical indifference

Why it’s in error:

1. It does not follow in the anti-Mouthpiece Interpretation
that Plato is indifferent to the conclusions that readers
may arrive at
2. Not true that the anti-Mouthpiece Interpretation must
hold that the Dialogues were not intended to move
readers into a certain direction
3. No one is entitled to ascribe to Plato the view that, if
he were not indifferent, then he did adhere to certain
claims
 4. Mouthpiece Interpretation holds on a Colossal
Mistake to take Aristotle as guide
5. If Plato intended to write dialogues instead of
treatises, the objection the Plato is hidden observer
merely states the position of the Anti-Mouthpiece
Interpretation
a. It does not follow that by Plato hiding in the
dialogues making him without views
b. This is the fallacy of bifurcation

It may be argued against the Socratic Interpretation the

gross inequality between the characters of Socrates, the
Eleatic visitor, and their respective interlocutors seem to
suggest that the Mouthpiece Interpretation is plausible

Good criticism but not quite:

1. Not obvious if Socrates only engaged intellectual
inferiors. In some dialogues, Socrates can be seen to
be engaging equal or superior foes
2. The Socratic exchanges may only be highlights of the
best encounters that Socrates had
3. Fails to debunk anti-Mouthpiece Interpretation; fails to
support Mouthpiece Interpretation
On p64, the author does not say that we have to accept
the Socratic Interpretation until refuted. Rather, he finds it
with little difficulty compared to the Mouthpiece
Interpretation. Thus, it should be shown more attention
than it currently had.

A search for what is “philosophically interesting” in Plato’s

dialogues depends on how a person interprets them

Keep in mind Paul Woodruff’s reminder: “[R]eading Plato

is hard work and inevitably frustrating: total
satisfaction in interpretation eludes us.”
From “Reply to Ronal Polansky’s ‘Reading Plato” in
Platonic Writings: Platonic Readings, edited by Griswold

P65 discusses why Socratic Interpretation satisfies the

desiderata for interpreting Plato’s Dialogues

Next chapter is about how a Socratic Interpreter can and

ought to perform textual exegesis concerning a major
concept found in Plato’s works
Chapter 4 – A Socratic Interpretation of the
Concept of Art as Mimesis
…example of how to use Socratic Interpretation in
understanding what Plato wrote about in his dialogues

…more specifically, about art as mimesis or imitation in

The Republic

Written word is only a copy of knowledge, not knowledge

itself

One must not take whatever he is writing in an OVERLY

serious way……he must be wary that the written word is
also susceptible to error as that of the spoken word

Socrates condemns the type of writing that poses as truth

but cannot defend itself; his condemnation is not anti-
research

There are uses of misesis outside the usual artistic

expression
The kind of imitation that is problematic philosophically
and ethically is that based on the imitator’s ignorance, not
knowledge

Mouthpiece Interpreters argue that Plato condemns

mimesis

But this ignores the fact that there are good forms of
imitation

The term mimesis in the context of The Republic is

complex

The author will argue that The Republic has not delivered
an aesthetic theory of art as Mouthpiece Interpreters
suppose

THE MOUTHPICE INTERPRETATION

The passages of THE REPUBLIC cited in pp70-73 and
related dialogues are “proof” that THE REPUBLIC had a
mimetic theory of art….so say mouthpiece interpreters
My notes in this chapter shall stop here; see the book; it’s
about the thinking processes that Socratic Interpreters
may use

Chapter 5 – Conclusion: Appreciating Plato’s

Dialogues

This chapter summarizes what the book is about

Conclusion: It is not only the Mouthpiece Interpretation
that could make substantive insights of Plato’s Dialogues,
but also the Socratic Interpretation which the author of this
book advances. It is both informative and interpretive.

Prepared by Elevic Pernis

http://elevicpernis.com