Abstract
This essay is based on two premises. The first concerns the vision of writing proposed by Plato in Phaedrus and especially the conception of philosophical writing as a maieutic game. The structurally polyvalent way in which Plato approaches philosophical issues also emerges in the dialogues. The second concerns the birth and the development of historical analysis in parallel with the birth of philosophy.
 On this basis the text investigates a series of data about the relationship between Plato and "the facts".
 1) If we compare the Apology of Socrates with other sources, we discover a series of important “games” that Plato performs to achieve the results he proposes.
 2) The famous passage of Phaedo 96A-102A, which concludes with the Ideas and with a reference to the Principles, expresses definite judgments on the Presocratics.
 3) In his works Plato attributes to the sophists some merits, even if the outcome of their contri-bution is overall negative.
 4) However, in the fourth complicated diairesis of the Sophist, there is a "sophist of noble stock", an educator who can only be Socrates.
 5) Plato in the Sophist shows the weakness of the Gigantomachy, and proposes an adequate definition of the beings: the power of undergoing or acting. This reveals, before the Philebus and the Timaeus, the dynamic and dialectical nature of his philosophy
 In summary, a multifocal vision emerges, adapted to an intrinsically complex reality.
Highlights
It is worth recalling how in the Phaedrus Plato, that is a good teacher, clarifies the problem of communication
The second concerns the birth and the development of historical analysis in parallel with the birth of philosophy. On this basis the text investigates a series of data about the relationship between Plato and “the facts”. 1) If we compare the Apology of Socrates with other sources, we discover a series of important “games” that Plato performs to achieve the results he proposes
Plato explains what characteristics that are necessary for a good speech: 1) to know the truth about the topic; 2) not to despise the “formal” elements elaborated by rhetoricians[5]; c) to know the nature of the soul one is addressing, so as to make a simple speech to a simple soul and a complex one to a complex soul (277B-C)
Summary
It is worth recalling how in the Phaedrus Plato, that is a good teacher, clarifies the problem of communication. Philosophy must not write the “things of greater value”, but must rather provoke the reader with allusions, omissions, problems and other inventions, in order to force him to “practice” – and not merely to learn – philosophy In his written words, Plato tries to preserve the Socrates’ educational approach, i.e. maieutics. Plato tries to preserve the Socrates’ educational approach, i.e. maieutics This choice leads him to define this activity as a “game”: The one, who has knowledge of the just, the beautiful and the good, will be wise: He does not write seriously (σπουδῇ) [his thoughts] with black water, sowing this knowledge using a straw, with speeches that cannot defend themselves discursively and which cannot properly teach the truth (τἀληθῆ διδάξαι). Phaedrus, seems excessive and proper only for a deity, but a lover of wisdom [philo-sopher] or something similar, would be more appropriate for him and more moderate (278C4-D6)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
