The Neoplatonic Socrates

Chapter 5. The Character of Socrates and the Good of Dialogue Form: Neoplatonic Hermeneutics

chapter 5 The Character of Socrates and the Good of Dialogue Form: Neoplatonic Hermeneutics Danielle A. Layne Introduction The answer to the question “Who is Socrates for the Neoplatonists?” must begin with a detailed understanding of how the Neoplatonists interpreted the dialogues of Plato and the characters presented in them. Primarily, it requires us to revisit a question that haunts almost all secondary literature on Plato: Why dialogue form? Why the use of characters, for example Socrates and Timaeus, and not one’s own authoritative voice? Further, why the need for extensive preludes to the main subject of the dialogue, the elaborate references to settings like the public market and the gymnasium, or the seemingly subtle plots either within a dialogue or sometimes even running the gamut of several dialogues (e.g., Socrates’ relationship with Alcibiades)? In short, why did Plato use a literary medium to convey his philosophy? Was the choice of dialogue form and the use of characters like Socrates arbitrary and superfluous, mere window dressing to the arguments and intents of the author, a charming addition that can be passed over or ignored? If we concede that the dialogue form is superfluous for the Neoplatonists, then it may be easier to understand the alleged loss of the Socratic element in their understanding of Plato. A dismissal of the importance of such literary devices as character might help explain their supposed lack of concern for one specific personage like Socrates. Yet, as many realize, this is a far cry from the Neoplatonic response to Plato’s Dialogue Form 81 use of dialogue form. Rather, the later Platonic tradition often heralded the choice of dialogue form and, correspondingly, the Neoplatonists approached the preludes, characters, settings and plots allegorically, analyzing and unpacking these various elements for their philosophical meaning and intent. To be sure, in light of their hermeneutical strategies, which preserve, through an intricate and methodical form of allegorical interpretation, the integrity of the dramatic devices like character , the Neoplatonists often avoided conflating the personality of Socrates with Plato. Rather they always regarded Socrates as a distinct personality and thinker whose play with other characters, such as Timaeus and Alcibiades, contributes to the meaning of the text(s) as a whole.1 For commentators like Syrianus, Hermias, Proclus, Olympiodorus, and Damascius as well as the anonymous author of the Prolegomena to Platonic Philosophy, Plato’s voice was not solely identifiable with Socrates (or Timaeus for that matter) but could only be gleaned by looking to the dialogue as a whole, as opposed to dissecting or extracting the arguments of any one character in the text. Of course, this approach is in tune with recent secondary literature that has moved away from analytical (and often developmental ) trends in Platonic studies,2 as the late Platonic commentators, like many contemporary commentators, regarded the literary form as part and parcel of observing what cannot simply be argued or put into a rational discourse. Furthermore, unlike contemporary trends that assume that Plato’s thought develops and, in so doing, turns away from the Socratic,3 the proponents of the late commentary tradition believed that Plato’s work should be read as a unit, which while teaming with different voices is not punctuated with different ends or goals. Ultimately the socalled early works as well as the late, regardless of their apparent differences, all fit together in a seamless tapestry of ideas, and thus at no time does Plato “mature” and, as such, disregard the value of Socrates and his way of life. Instead, Plato uses a variety of characters and an assortment of styles to ensure that all are challenged , from the novice to the veteran, to embrace the level of philosophical discourse appropriate to them. In what follows I shall refer constantly to the hermeneutics of the late Neoplatonist Proclus while additionally utilizing the writings of other Platonic commentators when clarification on a point is needed. This will highlight how the use of character in Plato’s dialogues complement and, in many ways, support the aim and overall meaning of the dialogue as a whole. Throughout this project the reader will be invited to consider the late antique rendering of Socrates, and how this tradition of Platonism heralded the vitality and importance of the character of Socrates.4 What becomes remarkable in this analysis is how, for thinkers like Proclus, the dialogue form, and the corresponding use of characters, is necessary for achieving [3.16.212.99] Project MUSE (2024-04-25...