Aporetic Discourse and Protreptic in Plato’s Lysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14195/1984-249X_32_37Keywords:
aporia, protreptic, Plato, friendship, dialogueAbstract
In the Lysis, Socrates claims to be looking for an account of what kind of quality in another person or object stimulates friendship or love (philia). He goes through a series of proposals, refuting each in turn. In the end, he throws us back to the point from where the arguments started, declaring an aporetic outcome. What is the purpose of this apparently futile and circular inquiry? Most interpreters try to reconstruct a theory of friendship or love from the arguments of this dialogue. Against such a doctrinal reading, this essay defends an “aporetic reading” of the dialogue and connects it to its protreptic function. Starting with a preliminary discussion of what defines an aporetic dialogue and what distinguishes indirect protreptic from explicit protreptic discourse, the essay then analyzes the aporetic method of the Lysis, distinguishing it from aporetic discourse in some of his earlier dialogues. Finally, it analyzes how, and for what kind of audience, the Lysisfunctions as an indirect protreptic. This includes a comparison with the protreptic use of aporetic argumentation in the Euthydemus.
Downloads
References
ADAMS, D. (1992). The Lysis Puzzles. History of Philosophy Quarterly 9, p. 3-17.
ANNAS, J. (1994). Plato the Sceptic. In: VANDER WAERDT, P. A. (ed.), The Socratic Movement Ithaca, Cornell University Press, p. 309-340.
BENSON, H. (2000). Socratic Wisdom Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
BORDT, M. (1998). Platon: Lysis. Übersetzung und Kommentar Göttingen, Vandenhoek & Ruprecht.
BRICKHOUSE, Th.; SMITH, N. D. (1994). Plato’s Socrates Oxford, Oxford University Press.
BONAZZI, M. (2004). Tra scetticismo e dogmatismo: Il «Liside» nell’ antichità. In: TRABATTONI, F. (ed.), Platone: Liside, vol. II. Milano, LED, p. 233-245.
CHANCE, T. H. (1992). Plato. Plato’s Euthydemus. Berkeley, University of California Press.
COMSTOCK, R.; ANDERSON, T. (2022). “Cutting them down to size: Humbling and protreptic in Plato’s Lysis In: JENNINGS, D.; SZAIF, J. (eds.), Studies on Plato’s Lysis, special issue of Archai 32, suppl. 1.
COLLINS II, J. H. (2015). Exhortations to Philosophy: The Protreptics of Plato, Aristotle, and Isocrates Oxford, Oxford University Press .
CRÖNERT, W. (1965). Kolotes und Menedemos. Amsterdam, Hakkert (reprint of the 1906 edition).
DOVER, K. (1989). Greek Homosexuality. London, Duckworth.
FERRARI, F. (2022). A Middle-Platonist Plato: Introductory Schemata and the Construction of a System in Diogenes Laertius. In: MOTTA, A.; PETRUCCI, F. M. (eds.), Isagogical Crossroads from the Early Imperial Age to the End of Antiquity Leiden, Brill, p. 33-48.
FREDE, M. (1992). Plato’s Arguments and the Dialogue Form. In: KLAGGE, J. C.; SMITH, N. D. (eds.). Methods of Interpreting Plato and his Dialogues Oxford, Oxford University Press , p. 201-219.
GAISER, K. (1959). Protreptik und Paränese bei Platon Stuttgart, Kohlhammer.
GAISER, K. (2004). Platon als philosophischer Schriftsteller (1984). In: GAISER, K. Gesammelte Schriften St. Augustin, Academia Verlag, p. 1-72.
GÖRGEMANNS, H. (2006). Protreptik/Protreptics In: CANIK, H.; SCHNEIDER, H. (eds.). Der Neue Pauly/The New Pauly (online version). Leiden, Brill .
GONZALEZ, F. J. (2003). How to Read a Platonic Prologue: Lysis 203A-207D. In: MICHELINI, A. Plato as Author. The Rhetoric of Philosophy Leiden, Brill , p. 15-44.
KAHN, C. H. (1996). Plato and the Socratic Dialogue Cambridge, Cambridge University Press .
KECHAGIA, E. (2010). Rethinking a Professional Rivalry. Early Epicureans Against the Stoa. Classical Quarterly 60, p. 132-155.
LONG, A. A. (1988). Socrates in Hellenistic Philosophy. Classical Quarterly 38, p. 150-171.
MANSFELD, J. (1994). Prolegomena. Questions to be Settled Before the Study of an Author, or a Text Leiden, Bill.
MCPHERRAN, M. (1996). The Religion of Socrates University Park, Pennsylvania State University Press.
NAILS, D. (2002). The People of Plato Indianapolis, Hackett.
PENNER, T.; ROWE, C. (2005). Plato’s Lysis. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press .
POLITIS, V. (2006). Aporia and Searching in the Early Plato. In: JUDSON, L.; KARASMANIS, V. (eds.). Remembering Socrates. Philosophical Essays Oxford, Oxford University Press , p. 88-109.
POLITIS, V. (2012). What do the Arguments in the Protagoras Amount to? Phronesis 57, p. 209-239.
PRICE, A. W. (1989). Love and Friendship in Plato and Aristotle Oxford, Oxford University Press .
REIS, B. (1999). Der Platoniker Albinos und sein sogenannter Prologos Wiesbaden, Ludwig Reichert.
RENAUD, F. (2002). Humbling as Upbringing: The Ethical Dimension of the Elenchus in the Lysis In: SCOTT, G. A. (ed.), Does Socrates Have a Method? University Park, Pennsylvania State University Press , 2002, p. 183-198.
ROBINSON, D. B. (1986). Plato’s Lysis: The Structural Problem. Illinois Classical Studies 11, p. 63-83.
SLINGS, S. R. (1999). Plato: Clitophon, ed. with introd., transl., and comm Cambridge, Cambridge University Press .
STUMP, J. D. 2017. Socratic Method and Moral Motivation Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.
SZAIF, J. (1998). Strebensnatur und Interpersonalität in Platons Konzeption von philia (Lysis 213D-222D),” in DREYER, M.; FLEISCHHAUER, K. (eds.). Natur und Person im ethischen Disput Freiburg/München, Alber, p. 25-60.
SZAIF, J. (2018). Socrates and the Benefits of Puzzlement. In: KARAMANOLIS, G.; POLITIS, V. (eds.). The Aporetic Tradition in Ancient Philosophy (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 29-47.
TARRANT, H. (2000). Where Plato Speaks: Reflections on an Ancient Debate. In: PRESS, G. A. (ed.). Who Speaks for Plato? Studies in Platonic Anonymity Lanham, Rowman & Littlefield, p. 67-80.
TARRANT, H. (2000a). Plato’s First Interpreters Ithaca, Cornell University Press .
TAYLOR, C. C. W. (1982). The End of the Euthyphro Phronesis 27, p. 109-118.
TRIVIGNO, F. V. (2011). Philosophy and the Ordinary: On the Setting of Plato’s Lysis. Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 51, p. 61-85.
VERHASSELT, G. (2017). Philodemus’ Excerpt from Dicaearchus on Plato in the Historia Academicorum (PHerc. 1021, coll. 1*-1-2). Edition, Transl., and Comm. Cronache ercolanesi 47, p. 55-72.
VLASTOS, G. (1981). The Individual as an Object of Love in Plato. In: VLASTOS, G. Platonic Studies, 2nd edition. Princeton, Princeton University Press, p. 3-42.
VLASTOS, G. (1994). Socratic Studies Cambridge, Cambridge University Press .
VOGT, K. (2012). Belief and Truth. A Sceptic Reading of Plato Oxford, Oxford University Press .
WHITE, S. (2001). Principes Sapientiae: Dicaearchus’ Biography of Philosophy. In: FORTENBAUGH, W. W.; SCHÜTRUMPF, E. (eds.). Dicaearchus of Messana New Brunswick NJ, Transaction, p. 195-236.
WOLFSDORF, D. (2008). Trials of Reason: Plato and the Crafting of Philosophy Oxford, Oxford University Press .
WOLFSDORF, D., (2013). Socratic Philosophizing. In: BUSSANICH, J.; SMITH, N. D. (eds.). The Bloomsbury Companion to Socrates London, Continuum, p. 34-67.
WOODRUFF, P. (1986). The Sceptical Side of Plato’s Method. Revue Internationale de Philosophie 40, p. 22-37.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Jan Szaif
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Given the public access policy of the journal, the use of the published texts is free, with the obligation of recognizing the original authorship and the first publication in this journal. The authors of the published contributions are entirely and exclusively responsible for their contents.
1. The authors authorize the publication of the article in this journal.
2. The authors guarantee that the contribution is original, and take full responsibility for its content in case of impugnation by third parties.
3. The authors guarantee that the contribution is not under evaluation in another journal.
4. The authors keep the copyright and convey to the journal the right of first publication, the work being licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License-BY.
5. The authors are allowed and stimulated to publicize and distribute their work on-line after the publication in the journal.
6. The authors of the approved works authorize the journal to distribute their content, after publication, for reproduction in content indexes, virtual libraries and similars.
7. The editors reserve the right to make adjustments to the text and to adequate the article to the editorial rules of the journal.
