But Socrates, what is it that you do? Education and the Discourse of Plato’s Socrates by Emily Jaklic A Thesis presented to The University of Guelph In partial fulfilment of requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy Guelph, Ontario, Canada © Emily Jaklic, September, 2013 ABSTRACT BUT SOCRATES, WHAT IS IT THAT YOU DO? EDUCATION AND THE DISCOURSE OF PLATO’S SOCRATES Emily Jaklic Advisor: University of Guelph, 2013 John Russon In this this dissertation, I attempt to determine whether or not the discourse of Plato’s Socrates is educational in its nature. I conclude that Socrates’ discourse of cross- examination is essential to the educational enterprise specifically because it creates opportunities for individuals to give consideration to their opinions about human excellence, deliberate upon them carefully, and consider whether or not they are persuaded by the reasons that they use to justify their beliefs about human excellence. In this way, Socrates’ discourse creates opportunities for individuals to educate themselves about human excellence, thereby becoming not just independent learners, but human beings whose beliefs about human excellence are truly their own, and are not just received opinions. In other words, through his discourse, Socrates creates opportunities for individuals to free themselves from being subject to the tyranny of tradition and popular opinion with respect to their beliefs about human excellence. This is an important step in the development of true citizens capable of genuine, responsible deliberation concerning what is best for their community or state as a whole. However, despite its potential educational benefits, Socrates’ cross-examination does not, and cannot, constitute a complete educational “method” or “programme” by itself. There is no single form of discourse that qualifies as “educational”; instead, education is an activity that must make use of many different forms of discourse if it is to achieve its aim of improving human beings by directing their attention (and activity) towards the good. Moreover, although Socrates’ discourse can make an important contribution to the education of human beings when utilized the right way, in the right hands, it also has the potential to exert a corrupting influence on people. Hence, Socrates’ discourse shares the same potential for both educational benefit and corruption that other forms of discourse – including ones that are employed by individuals who actively oppose Socrates – do. iv Acknowledgements I would like to acknowledge the patience of my advisor John Russon, who read through, and provided comments on, multiple drafts of chapters in the preparation of this thesis. I would also like to thank my advisory committee members, David Hitchcock and Jeff Mitscherling, for the comments and advice they provided in the preparation of the final draft copy of this thesis. In addition, Ken Dorter provided advisory support in the early stages of my work. v Table of Contents Introduction . 1 Section 1: Subject . 1 Section 2: Structure . 3 Chapter 1: Introducing Socrates as Educator . 7 Section 1: What is it that you do, Socrates? . 7 Section 2: The charges of the old and new accusers . 10 Section 3: The Delphic Oracle’s prophecy . 18 Chapter 2: The Eristic of Dionysodorus and Euthydemus . 32 Chapter introduction . 32 Section 1: The “rules” of Dionysodorus and Euthydemus’ eristic . 33 Section 2: The outcome of the eristic game . 39 Section 3: The educational benefits of Dionysodorus and Euthydemus’ eristic . 44 Section 4: Eristic and the promotion of civil discourse . 48 Chapter conclusion . 51 Chapter 3: The Rhetoric of Socrates’ Prosecutors . 57 Chapter introduction . 57 Section 1: Introducing Anytus . 61 Section 2: Anytus’ personal reasons for prosecuting Socrates . 63 Section 3: Anytus’ political reasons for bringing Socrates to trial . 69 Section 4: Anytus, bad learner and mad educator . 72 Section 5: Respectable gentlemen as educators . 75 Section 6: The educational benefits of rhetoric . 77 Section 7: Anytus tries to appear wise . 80 Section 8: Summing up Anytus . 83 Section 9: Introducing Meletus . 84 Section 10: Meletus, careless learner and incompetent educator . 86 Section 11: Summing up Meletus . 92 Section 12: Meletus and rhetoric . 95 Chapter conclusion . 98 vi Chapter 4: Socratic Cross-examination . 101 Chapter introduction . 101 Section 1: Eristic and Socrates’ usual discourse . 102 Section 2: Socrates’ style of discourse: cross-examination . 105 Section 3: Cross-examination and entertainment . 108 Section 4: Socrates’ cross-examination, punishment, and education . 113 Section 5: The corruption of Anytus . 117 Section 6: Evaluating Socrates’ discourse of cross-examination . 122 Chapter 5: Socrates’ Discourse and the Practice of Education . 127 Chapter introduction . 127 Section 1: Socrates’ discourse is necessary to paideia . 129 Section 2: Education and the citizen . 137 Section 3: Socrates’ discourse and responsible persuasion . 140 Section 4: Socrates’ discourse and responsible deliberation . 144 Section 5: Socrates’ discourse cultivates euboulia only in part . 147 Section 6: Socrates’ discourse is not sufficient for education . 149 Chapter conclusion . 155 Conclusion . 159 Section 1: Establishing conditions to draw attention to the good . 159 Section 2: Socrates’ discourse does not necessarily result in improvement . 163 Section 3: Socrates’ discourse is essential for education . 165 Section 4: Different kinds of discourse needed for education . 167 Section 5: Socrates as an educational paradigm . 171 Works Cited . 173 Greek Texts . 173 Reference Translations . 174 Secondary Literature . 176 1 Introduction 1. Subject In this dissertation, I attempt to determine whether or not the discourse of Plato’s Socrates is educational in its nature. I conclude that Socrates’ discourse of cross-examination is essential to the educational enterprise specifically because it creates opportunities for individuals to give consideration to their opinions about human excellence, deliberate upon them carefully, and consider whether or not they are persuaded by the reasons that they use to justify their beliefs about human excellence. In this way, Socrates’ discourse creates opportunities for individuals to educate themselves about human excellence, thereby becoming not just independent learners, but human beings whose beliefs about human excellence are truly their own, and are not just received opinions. In other words, through his discourse, Socrates creates opportunities for individuals to free themselves from being subject to the tyranny of tradition and popular opinion with respect to their beliefs about human excellence. This is an important step in the development of true citizens capable of genuine, responsible deliberation concerning what is best for their community or state as a whole. However, despite its potential educational benefits, Socrates’ cross-examination does not, and cannot, constitute a complete educational “method” or “programme” by itself. There is 2 no single form of discourse that qualifies as “educational”; instead, education is an activity that must make use of many different forms of discourse if it is to achieve its aim of improving human beings by directing their attention (and activity) towards the good.1 Moreover, although Socrates’ discourse can make an important contribution to the education of human beings when utilized the right way, in the right hands, it also has the potential to exert a corrupting influence on people. Hence, Socrates’ discourse shares the same potential for both educational benefit and corruption that other forms of discourse – including ones that are employed by individuals who actively oppose Socrates – do. I have already mentioned that the Socrates with which I am concerned in this dissertation is Plato’s Socrates (although in Chapter 3, I do make some references to Xenophon’s portrayals of Socrates’ associates and his accuser Anytus). My treatment of Plato’s Socrates is not a historical one; that is, I do not attempt to determine to what degree Plato’s character corresponds with the real, historical figure, and so any claims that I make about Socrates should be taken as referring exclusively to Plato’s portrayal of him. Moreover, in discussing the claims made by Plato’s Socrates, I take them simply to be the claims made by Plato’s character, and I do not assume either that Plato’s Socrates acts as Plato’s mouthpiece, or that Plato’s Socrates gives an accurate representation of the philosophical views of the historical Socrates. I do believe that Plato’s Socrates, as a character of Plato’s, espouses a “philosophy” that is at least somewhat consistent and unified, and I believe that Plato’s dialogues serve to reveal the philosophical views of his character. However, I shall refrain from making any comment upon whether the philosophical views of Plato’s Socrates are the same as Plato’s, the same as the 1 The nature of education, or paideia, is explained at R. 7.518b6-d7: it is the business of directing the soul’s attention toward the good. 3 historical Socrates’, all his own, a pastiche of other Greek philosophers’, or any combination of the aforementioned. 2. Structure In terms of its structure, this dissertation consists of five chapters, and an introduction and a conclusion. I begin this dissertation in Chapter 1 by attempting to clarify Socrates’ notion of wisdom. At his trial, Socrates is, in various different ways, described as an educator. These descriptions of Socrates