cers Peet torent eee ee ee eae ee eer eet ee et eens ee eee res Breer rete sear meat Se ed Reese erent eet spay ye ieee ee es ee eet ee ee er pect arnt om he ilo hep Oe paperanian i ace eee ec ee eee ee ote eee er rere eee een ree ear ert eeemnr y Gordon cons the elensip of Pir ext x dine tan analogue of Seca Se en ere reer ee ees Sts eee eres ere Re eee eee eee ren Eee er eae ieraenet ear samen tory COR Urea ieee ye cee eee er etre a See ee ert pectin emt earner manaen postagr sie en peices eer meer eee Pern eet aes 7) DP ereete eames Plato's Dialogues Jill GordonTurning Toward Literature and Philosophy Ee f PnnOSOmiN indi es ofthe scl snd hr testa rate ee eo Ble Drawing on thetic af he aghrAmaton sd Cones teen he seis nope 0 pilosphalyinomed olay cong teeters of ‘omeperary coal ough Ava pb Literary Device 16M, Boman, The Fite of Art AestcAlemton from Katto Del end and ec Bl, The Dec of Meson Dramatic Structure Say Paty Wig ere Kea Ree on Hopi fi ‘ed Way Dane Licey Tico Afr Deon in Dig on ir ni ao atin eel ay Reanandge Novs Torn Th Teal abet x Po Plato’s Dialogues See Spee oe eee ee Tea ikon led ee lac eee eee Tie tee tae rae Sete Coe han nbd nd Cale sent : caf ir Ma tat Cie Jill Gordon Torta aor ar ee eee sin cl nthe en era Neee Ret mgt Da aa eee atid eae to Sc receLisa of Congres Cataloging Puleion Dats Goon, fil, 1962 “Trig tard piloopy leary device and ama nse lalate Dale il Godon, los ileal ference and ince: ISIN 0271-01825 chk paper ISHND271. 419363 be 1, Plae— Diogu Tele wsscass 19 Conyrighe ©1999 The esa Sete Unie Alger Pred inthe Und Stes of Ans Pld by The ernana Sete Unity Pres Davey Fak Teh021003 cite pole of The Resp Sane Unriy Pes owe ce pape for ‘he prt ofall etme bok: Pc wcoted ok th Innimum equtonentof Anarcan Nato! Samar fr Infrton Ser Pemanenef Fape fo Ped Libary Mat ANSI 23948192, For AdaTele ng ‘The hal shee jc ori ‘een a ote cana {th wl bey og onal 0 tha the pore pcay he tenth ss tr eta ‘Senet claws a tet {Welter a on the den fe (Sipe npn mo npr “ke Contents Acknowledgments and Note on ‘Translations Ineroduction 1 Analysis and Argument Focused Methods 2. Am Alemative Approach 3. The Projet (Chapter One: DIALECTIC. 1. Beyond Loge: Dialectic Tools and Practices 2 Diletcin the Meno 4. Dialectic and Bele The Socratic Disposition 4 Platonic Dislestic A Look Abad Chapter Twor READER 1. Response Theory 2. Dialogue and Dialectic: A Phenomenology ‘of Reading 3. Transformation ofthe Sel 4 Only Readers?vi contents (Chapeer Thece: DRAMA 1. Plato as Poet and Deamatist, 2, Mao's Works Reconsidered Critcaing Poetry 3, Paros Works and Ariss Posies 4 Plato’ Works: Making and Doing 5. Making Characters (Chapter Four: CHARACTER 1. Ineodacing Meno’ Character 2. Incerinde 3, Transformation 4. Character Transformation and Plato's Project 5. Beyond Character Development CChapees Five: IRONY 1. The Definition of Socratic irony 2. The Funcion of Soca any 3. Literary Devices and Pato’ Metaphysics (Chapter Sic: IMAGE 1. The Evidence ofthe Phacdo 2, The Evidence of Othe Dialogues 3, The Philosophical Effect of lnages and Timage-Making 4. Epicogos Works Cited Index Acknowledgments and Note on Translations The journal Classical Quarter, pubis by Oxford Univesity Pres and Plmopy and Rhetoric, publ by The Pensyvania Site Unseity ‘rs, nly gave permiion to reprinpar of previously publabed work The mnie ofthe Sosy for Ancient Geck Posophy (SACP) eave onutrctve feedback on several ofthe chapters of hit book, wick I pee fel at SAGP snoval mecngs, Gerald Pret and Christopher Pescone foiled sme of ho oppomtnis by organizing ands Mark MePheran, Dil Miley and ising Tj spoke wth me and corresponded about Swope atthe SAGP esting and Charles Young gave init tu enuracivesonmentry on paper hae appears here ae Chapter 3 Thanks ao tothe Inernatonal Asociaton for Philosophy and Literature, Uh Ontario Say forthe Study of Argumentation, Tein College, and Test Presentation: Comparative Drama Conference, where 1 also pee sen work om this book Tu Mackey aid Drew Hyland ead exlyvesons ofthe mapascript fuer extremely consrative and grace nei commen. am mort fatal co onic and Drew, more generally, fr ein mestving. Chrisie Tih te than perpen ee, commit ae to reading, eed ng an epg me eo prove the manuserp Wahout Che's ends,x ACKNOWLEDGMENTS enconragement, and iets in ny wok the peoject would have Ben signi ‘candy diminished. The reviewer from Penn Sete Pret Charles Griswold ‘and the series editor, Anthony Casa mgt significant impeone mens othe work, and Sandy Thatcher at Penn Set ress helped pide me ‘through the lug proces publication. “Katie Quackenbush, my sprite, consiewious, and inteligen research sistant, helped in innumerable ways and prepared the index forthe book, “Thanks also to Bll Denaen fom Colby College’ Information Technology Services Grace Vo Tobe, who prorided manapiptanintance, and Maggie Libby and the ene brary waf athe Cale, received financial support fom the Mares Eyer Wilbur Foundation and Coby College ding sabbascal in 199495, Thisallowed met wie single-minded rom teaching davies. The aching was el, fer a source of energy and inlet stimulation. Tha espeilly to Stadens my Seminar on Pato, pring 1996, alo stent in History of Ancient Greek Phioophy eey fll. My department provide a suppive ‘environments especial though my esl yest tere “Marin Berge helped me o maintain momentum and god cher daring 2 purely lfc phase ofthe revisions. My peas have consitnly Sppore my academic cree and how ret infers in my work and scees, My ends at Coby make sanity in academic ie posible through thei warmth, endsip and laoghter My hushend, Glee a continuous source of emotional support, good ese, and good hamoe. Thank ou al have used the translations from che Leb Classical Library colestons for most passage in Plato, Aristotle, and Diogenes Laetu. All excep Sons are noted. Wheee appropriate, Ihave made changes from the Fes tothe American spelling of some words. Transitions of Mono snd Protaras ae my own unless noted otherwise, Introduction Ings in ian en ‘owes hind tm: Ao bela et SEIS cealeereee alow ‘ris tai he "an ons i ene oi nn tie ‘Surat se wood, dees mate Do You Sipe ore no ie [ihe poe ced rey maybe ace ‘ah w ie ety came and sn hi ead ‘tab ap wed he rpm, rae 192 SSS \What exactly res the esos rom ther hain and compels them turn ‘hei ga way rm the shadows cast onthe cave wall nd toward the ight that he source af ehose image? Interpreting Pao allegory, the question hecomes: What could fee an nda rom ie of uninvestigated expt ‘ice and ron ehoghlessnes wo lv, instead the ie of philosophy? ‘Whatever could counerac itime of bondage aod be weed wo earn a soulinadtston coward which ts neither accustomed nor isin would vet be allaing and powerful. Clery the eng hat might ean one toward philosophy, whaterc they are, mt be a work in lo’ dialogues ince thee weing perbaps more dan ay eters, have been espns2 “TURNING TOWARD PeuLosontty for sting off myriad individuals, uncountable generations and even ence ‘communities on the tsk of doing philoopty This bok isto discover nd examin those elemens inthe logs capable of compelling the tar toward philosophy. By looking clomiy at what eranspices dng the act of reading or heating ‘a Pltonic dialogue, Texplaia in deal how we ae so turned, My argument ‘that the mean through which the tm x ete are wha have come to be called by modern scholars the “teary and drama” elements of the lalogu’ Plato's une of thee particular devs moreove not acct besten The view of humanity consisterly portrayed in the daogues ‘sone of nhereny nite beng, and the dialogues show clay tha, a4 ‘consequence, the means of appealing wo humans pilsophically est ake fiz account thse lmtaons, Mato ues thee devices because they at he ‘most suitable and powefal means availble for igs such as ourselves. Contrary t0 more tedonl understandings of “Paton,” therefore, 1 tugue chat he loge appeal wo hasan cannot be through atid meses Alone —through pre argumentation or logic—but mat necessarily perte fon exalogical levels in order to have any pilsopical ee. J examine ‘what thoe exralogcal means ae and the pata philosophical, Socratally speaking, pchologial—ffects hey have ‘While hs wock is nor expbeity about methodology, it must concern ‘vl with mehodoloy, atleast oblige iota i focses onthe phe ‘nomenon of reading a Poni et. Sach a focus nary east uestions regarding js what we think ts we are reading, and 10 what consequent ‘experiences paticular reading states will lea. case I wish to fos ‘nliterary and dramatic element as bring ese to Pat's philosophical projet, T mast adope a reading strategy that recognize thes clement as nega pilosophial writing and integra tothe stviyof doing plo ‘phy. The mane in wiih che dialogues have been rad and ieprcted ‘by many Pato scholars in thie entry not pariulary well sited wo ee ‘ogniing and exploring the elements that caprare our anton and orm ‘our gaze in philosophical directions. begin, therfore, wih an examina tion of the method of sadn the dialogues that has ctaded our vison of them, the method hat bas hep frm discovering, describing, and ‘explaining the fanton ofthe elemeats in lat’ dialogs that tur us toward philosophy. 1, Analysis and Argument-Focused Methods Some of the mos influential contemporary scholarship ems from dhe Appliation of the oo of logical analy en Plato's dnogues Te seems fir to sy tha shear? application of analrtie methods co the dialogues com ‘etd o 4 rerassant in ewentet-centry Platonic sis, ut aed ‘vith unforeseen consequences with regard 0 what we tink the logs Comprise and lnatl what we think ® meass to do philosophy with ‘her. While lop nafs of the argumens in the dialogues not aways the ecive foo for inerpreters adopting this methodology ie neverthe- les exerts poster infsence ver the pilesophicl projets that se rom its In parti, adopting this methodology focuses pilsopes ater tin on the arguments nthe logs, nce te arguments re the repost tr the ery log thai der sertiny and which are the elements 0x Stable fo logical ana This approach resumes thatthe range of objets inthe dialogs over which pilosphicalativiy operates ae propostons, trpumenty reise and conlsins i ets puosophes aren 2 ‘eae of cosiseny, ality soundses and so forth I presames thee fore. almost by nevi 2 caneption of philosophy and phiosoobial seit as operating primal on clement chat ean be the subject of fia saya. The apprch tend to deny lilosopicalatviy with making snd analyig logcodedocive arguments. While thi is eainly 2 Bat of ‘hlosphial acy, and x pact of Platonic dialogues it eangot be the lie or even pita activity of pooper Plat’ dslogies, inal thir comple foes our aetin on many fe {oc in adon tthe arguments vanced ia the, Indien ow eet to myriad iss tha ie ute the purview of loge and lial concers the “lopus recomend s broader conception of posophy and philosophical sven, Whe 1 grant tht posible for one tobe ured sowed he hlsopical ie by an agument in the dios trully ha the arg re alone could have sch a cmpelig infence ovr india. This ‘specily 0 f ne takes seriously he character Maw exited by many of the inesocuors ad asumes, a is most cera the eas, chat 28 eaders‘ TURNING TOWARD PHILOSOREY ‘ve exibi some, if not many, of those same characteristics. This being the ‘set une tha ove would ke compelled lie the phlosophia ie age eee al et eT Alalgues What urs us toward the phowphial ie incaesnecesary the exaogcal, and so not easily named or understood by the analyse rehod "Among the argamentfoeusd scholar to whom I refer ae many who treat the characte Socrates, a a moulpies for Pate. Pilesopers who fl ino this category ange om those who recognize Socrates a Inerary character bur se bum, nonetheles, a representative of Pato views, (0 those who actually ey reconstruct and itnguish what the historkal Socrates hat atid fom what Plato hielf means to tay though him “Thee are dificuies associated with making these kinds of steibaons, and many scholars, with whom Tam in azeement, have argued against Sach appreaches The writen comsraction ofthe dsloges mitigates ‘galas ny mouthpiece reading of them, Since I would neser take Richard Is or Cleopatra’ speeches to be indicative of Shakespeare personal ‘cw, nor o be incativ of vices eld bythe histori figures hac thee literary characters represen, 20 U adopt the sane methodologies attiade for Pato and his dialogues, But this ace not lave one in 2 erent impasse, since the plays Richard I and Antony and Cleopatea do convey ‘meaning, Our experience and undersanding of those plays need aot be ‘ised en cer crn re re row bow lowly tye hs hstoccal personages they portray nor wheter we ever come #0 know Shakespear innermost thoughts a love, betrayal oe plea ale Pato's Aalogues also have meaning for ws—profound, hunan meaning—wheter tne we ever figure out Plato othe ioral Socrates views” Pervasive also in acholaly dlecusone the century, and ofenoverapping sngumenefcwsed approaches to the dialogues and prenmptiony about tolsxocaled mouthpiece, ae questions about the onder in which the di legucs were composed and therefore whether ane cn detect philosophical 4S men 7 oa pin as Ma) ae ‘env Sure ah pss Plas tee ore mae pls vows Pa [isthe tg psc wee rg porn la ‘rman asc cep a ns na" ‘sles nse wh sparc se rs naa 3, Sete aed re sy Rann Pi ace daar irropuction s deselopmen ding Pato le or whether his vews consent ad ni fed tmp Some arg the the dnlogus show ato pogresive fiulewplica development whe echere aay tht the dialogues present Fao ued and eon views My dren with bth dhe devel {mental ew sd the wiaran view, depeche substantial dienes ‘eimecr hon ancl at two presumptions thy sar: hey bath pe tome, iso aly hatte porot of te Platonic dou ever Taro hough een ough Pat, throng srl deve has gone to ‘re lenght ene authori ies and ex ambi And whe Keel schol the ek has always ee ova meingel acount of the daloqucs inthe face of ncnsiseney, contadon, sed ambigy, thse popes peu, sed hat ck ears of he agus ate tobe gle, mane or ederie "Ese and do ot see same p= “phil purpose, Bot the develops and the unieran projets need {eezpla saya in ifn fon a fr diferent reascoe— inconsiteey, contd, ck of raston, o amg fn ner © Shea thought” fom these lage “ehh ni be ri om one pa pepe of pomp wuting-ooe that demands store a, consent ap tetany xpesin nd clr of meanng—they might be Cena components of anther ype of phono wring 1 eve thn they ar oneal o Plats local wring By focsing on the Ainloguct writen ye writen sare, content and Mery devs | ‘law condos abou ow the writen lent of he tex engage Se ‘Ens oan te acti we el plsoby. The element tae ‘Shsdcedwonpibsophial by contemporary approache—os atthe very Tease exeapllsopil er etopaae che ney elenent of at Ainlogs tha cn nu toward he psopical fe. “Te approaches Ihave bly characte et a 0 pean in co tempera clr and so many of te pesimption po weston, tine te presumptions and the methodology founded upon them have tecome ety vrs herr worl to expe he dein pretmprs of ach work snd fo quscon the methodol uty of 8. a cme of ys ein Seve vi 7 alee 9 wenn ea ota ne Te‘hose presumptions since tey lint our conepios of the dialogue and, imately our coneptons of plsoply. The presumptions tha underie thescholatcip about which speak ace? +The dnloguc are intended convey Pato thought "Socrates speaks foe Pato ‘The argument in he dialogues (sully ony Socrates) ae the pilo- sophicl core ofthe dialgues andar the (onl) appropiate objers of phlosopical anal ‘Logical views are pilosophil vietes and, lewis, lopel vices are pblosophical vices." + Caregotiang he dialogues imo “ery” "mil," and “ate” periods ato’ waiting career nt only posible bat hentia ou analyst and improves ou understanding of Pat's tho Al of these presumptions, ia one way or anothes, imply Farber that a Patniedlopue in space of wing i which the author commaictes, (clave) dey and lgially “his phlosophcal view” wih the purpose ‘of eter informing an audience of what hs ew sr convincing an aience ‘ofthat view. Batti sems an impoveshed conception ofthe dalogies. ‘On the contra, I hein witha concepein of the dslogues a oes of ‘wring whose peimary purpose iso tara reader and audience toward he ‘hlosophical ite by engaging chem in philosophical airy in the foes of Aeep seleexaminatin. Beginning with this conception of the dialogs egies fleet ceadingsratesy, namely, one that looks fr and 3 he ‘means of philosophical engagement in the dalogus. Uf the argument focused approaches kep us fom seing the pars ofthe dialogues respons ‘ee she tars ward pilowophy, an alkene approach tha focaes on she wate clement ofthe aloes |r oughly fering oa he “ierary and deamatic™ elements needed if oe iso examine howe chat turnin feed 9, Not yan who ld edie in sal of a focod pence en eng cee us ts a ese TOR aie ad! yas fr sd he snl seh sam of eR 9, Vee Tennmenenolexomng Hants INTRODUCTION 7 2. An Alternative Approach Incontrast to dose who subscriber the approaches hae described above thre are several philosophers who ook to teary and dramate deals 3 Temeneue state for itespeing indvidal logue Such seas re, by and large many if eal of he presimpioas a the argument forse ‘ews am wholly sympathesc to tise projets, sharing the perspective that thir interpretations ofthe dialogues ae richer and mee complete than Inerpeation tat pratcaly ignore the dramatic aed teary element Tt my aim hve a different one, even fom hee projers, Whereas his sr inerpetve tiie of particlar legs, esting on the well founded {elie ha the erry and dramatic element ae important to forming an imerpreation of dakgat ny work temps expla wy and how the leary and dematie elements aeimporant by offering, in pat, 2 phenom ‘roy of eadng the dnl, Thats his ook offers a detailed account ‘tthe eapeinc of the india reader or autor of Marnie dslonue, wi tho aecount faces onthe phiewopical effec of specifi Inerary and hamatc devises. The projet povies an answe to dhe quston “What are the Iterary elements doing in the dalgues?™ The work shows exaciy how Speci rary and drama demens of Pt’ dialogues fiction pio phic with respect ta dhe reader or audience reject the preumpcon of some scolarship that law's primary pilo~ sophia nim oul simply hase bse anata body of (he is) pil onal knowledge oe 2 atm of thought or even several piosophical Cheores or dctines. Too maty aspects ofthe dialogues speak again his possi, we ace ich a vew of he dalogus” purpose, we pay Pato ho complet. Imagine the fly of wring what Plaro‘wrre in oder to ‘Sonvey a body of plosopbical ideas of one's own Pato present sees Niews in he voice of several chatacters who mot ofien disagree with one inher the plaloophialconveratons in which she disagreement takes hc ae fever each any sgl conclusion and leave hoe philosrp eal prcens largely unresolved Plato creates «central character who i himself ot consent in is vews, nd who datanas Rinse fom many of {198 a ronan 1089), eer 90, 945 an 1996, Geol 86 and an in, ee ik oe ‘rian an Gar 95). ‘TURNING TOWARD PHILosonsry the ideas he presen Plato constructs text with ambiguous meaning and a vast arayof posible interpretations; and fl, Pat il the dale with the cemiaglysuperdvous eapings of myth, metapoe and colo image. The combined ef of thee srateses woud el one to the unc able consason that Pato chose the met eidculoos means of conveying Jide ands one woul expec, he as lev do. none sense, of cou, ital Pato He contrive th actions, speech t= sigs dion, jokes image, pote deve, contradcsons ry and 9 on ‘atin another sere, he eases hinsel ehrough thee very dec. He pl ely ramones his own voice as pilsophicl authority throng devices that denabizeanivocal readings ofthe text. The dalogues ds har slams about Pit’ pilospbial views, thwart claims thatthe characte, Socrates sa mouthpiece for Plat, and eves thwart cms about he itor. ial person, Socrates, Moce in the mantrof gest poets playwrights, and vets fiction, Mat creates texts thay hogh angi ae ot ‘sal intended contain his west phicsophcl view. The tak ef tothe plilosoperis to ask what experience each dialog afford the reer ‘or auence and what the posophicalsigufieane i of that experience Plato is aoe atemptingto et the reader to know and understand whats ‘nis (Pato) mind when he composes the halogen" He i tempting to the reader to know and undertnd wht i er own ind and rom ‘her, rea who ahead how ake wl hoo olive he fe, Thi i fot sy that the dalgues are vid of any poste poop omen, Trista ater thatthe faction of he dalopucss altogether opposed to looking for— move dha ples us hack under his rp we Bed vist and wre com fonabiy ia is bold we are seemingly overpowered by the slfconfesed weakling who ears out to be the songst and most wily weer who ows the lds ont eecive spins or erry move, And when wear not taka pce, lal we we mcr Iu powefal p, The coun ‘ately stra with ourselves Ww des Socrates establish this telaonsip with us e would sem an nc exploration to uncover reasons why hie and hi person ave2» ‘TURNING TOWARD PHILOSOPHY such a profound effect onl hose with whom he somes in conta As rea {sof Pass dloguc—lkeSocat fellow Athenians racy sent simply please Socrtes ead moto ofa hie by dering (3526) Although bis apporentcomplanc s+ deterned effort to thware pict tion nathan examination, de abut change in his Bev, sgaled by tbe Has, draws noice Thae Socrates shes thee itesocutor irae whether o ot his dong soceed im chaning tha vews or geting thew to partite in dike (i Alebiades fel sha, bute fais o change his Behavior accordingly The same i tn, T would angie, of Thrsymachos. fi noe imme livin wheter ont Meno actualy el he shame of Being compared2d “TURNING TOWARD riaLosoPHY unfavoraly to it dave." While Alcibiades, Meno, and Thrasmachos rp ‘ese inerlocators who rest ales despite having hen shamed and te therefore no Socratic succes stor, ther are ther ypes of xargs. “The opening sone of he Protaras portray a young man, Hipoerte, ‘who, contrary to mont ther incrlocatos, does eat proper sense of Shame and i therefore well dsposed to the peste effects oft.” ‘What wean fst about Hippocrates isha 0 realousin his desi 0 ree with Drotgora and tat him #9 "mike bi wize™ (310d) that he shermaop at Sorte? Rouse wel before dawn hoping Soca wil tro ce hit (othe great sophie. With the approiching dawn, Hippocrates, too, becomes enlightened a 0 how important 2 possesion his soul is ad ‘tthe signieance and posuble consequences ar of entrusting #0 some ‘ne such a soph (or someting uch as sophie) of which es go ‘it, Hippocrates eaighenment i the dict ek of is engagenent in Socratic lectin the ue of hae, ‘Socrates pts Hippocrates to the fs (S11b),avetioning him rearing ‘what he wants om Protagors and what Protagoras wl provide him ‘Ondinaiy one seks instucson fom a profsional in order to become a profesional in thar same capacity; one takes a couse of instruction from a locos, fr examples rder wo Become 2 doctor (3115) Socrates Woe ders whether Hippocrates ack insertion from Protaras st order 10 Ircome # sophie AL the unhappy conchasion that he might become a Sophist heoush his association wth Protagoras, Hippocrates blues in ‘Shame (123) He confess that, even though Protagras ofr is sc tom gua sop, sophie i ot wat Hippocrates wisest Become, This ‘vid portal of Hippoas' shame portends his capac to he tured by and toward akties He cleatlyexhibis behavior that Socrates ofen ‘acoarge ir inerlocuors 9 dps ‘A Socrates conic the est, Hipgcrates proves tobe unable o exe {he subject mater about which sophist would make him a clever speaker, and he explicit admis his ignorance (313e), Whea he ventures an opinion ke i ne hal fe dae sd ate sone sal re nPop Eee ay mal of wig pnp prer wo opel shat ars nthe ha fe Coe en he is tenuous and not mistakenly overconfident o self assured (1 think know.” 3122) Aoreover be is wing vo engage in dialectic erly oo, sing rel, phlowophical questions of Socrates suc 3, “What is «mind fed? (3130. These behavioes distinguish Hippocaes from many other inecrlcators is they set off finally for Calne’ howe, where the reat sophie, Protagoras, tying, Socaes and Hippocrates are engaged in some con” ‘craton, the ope of which not mentioned. Sorates makes note ofthe fit though, tat hey Fish thei conversion, reaching 2 mtu age she concasion, belgeknocking onthe door (34). This ie «remarkable ean ehe dems." Flppocrats great exgees to meet Protaoras just a short wile ago scems to have been severely dampened. Recall that he hued ae Scrter hoot well Before dawn snd wanted hen 10 et out imeistly eo mee the sophie But now, just moments—and iches— vay he paedyfsbesacomverscon with Socrates. This shows hs se ov volvement tei conversation despite his arr preosupation with Inewing Protapeas. Since the topic of thir convertion seen relat Uniporeane to Seerates (he dass aot bother to relate ie othe “Fen” ‘his dramatic deta sys something about Hippocrates character and about aletic in general shows the power of shame tar the young man to Unletic engagement and intra shows the power of alee mote gn fray since hs compelled 3 zalos young mas obvag conversation to "mut greable conctoson That hee wa any agreement at atl ue ‘he Hippocrates someone with whom Socrates ea eas and someone ‘sho i epabl of the ve and skereqied of one engaing in dale. ‘he need only ctrase Hippocrates here with many oe inteloutrs 0 tee the great sificace ofthis small ac of wating out the dors to (Cts home—ithProagoss jam inside rsh convertion andto eo a agrerent with Soca nally eis bie mint doma withthe young Hippocrates, pede ‘he scene in Callas house which occupies theres of the dialogue, sinty noes the remainder of the drama Inside Call's hows we se rand ‘perch making ents daconre, peat, and obeguocs eopbancy nate which once to daketcinguir. The major dramatic tension Berwen makes ini e eaeEy TURNING TOWARD PHILOSOFEY Protagoras and Socrates is the fort's unwilling or nai o engage in dialectic, and twice the inguirynerl-eads beans of i (335b-338e and Si8b-<). Moreover the dialogue ende conspicuously wih 1 mutually agreeable condusion between Socrates and Protagoras, but instead with Socrates stating ther opposing viewpoint (3615-3423). The enphiesopi cal and disagreeable ening ofthe Powagvas contrat withthe pllosophi land aprecae begining conered around Hippocrates sha.” ‘Shame the, plays an impor ole nthe pychoogcl dimension of Ales teworks on a pesoal, existential eel compel iteroctor © refet more deeply about who they ate, what they bel, apd how they choos live i ie. eines nerlociors pecially to engage in the {pve and ake of queston and answer and, mor general to ive the pio fophical ie. There are other cimensions of dlc that operate on this {tet evel wel, and they inet tha while Socats maybe uring his nteloetors eo reject inconsistent eli ets on one leh he is exbor ing them more inportanly ea lve ter lnex: Beer lies rc ved, Sora «ally peaking, based on beter bbs aes thoroughly ested by dialectic Bat we ought not oes onthe logic of belies ache expense a the lives ved according to them. Alo Socrates examinations are about how, ultima, ‘we wl choose ive ou ves, and how or i wl inform thats OF al the dnlogues, the Apology makes ie mos exp aed poignantly ‘enrthar dls no about argumentation or log, sinply speaking, but shout teng ad speoving the sul. Dales or esting 8 way ret the sul not rom bel repugnant ro lope, ut belies epagran 00d human living, Dialectic forces persons nt t ve god argument but {0 give good acount of thereles and theives they have chown oe. ‘Ae lig dhe ar tha he i wl ove up the prt of poe ‘phy Socrates admonishes the Athenians fo ot caring forthe souls [Ae you who area ctinen of Athens the grt of ce and the ‘aos famous for wacom and power, ot ashamed a aos 0 ‘re for the aquisition of wealth and fr rpattion and honor ‘when you meter cae nor ake dhought for wisdom and tah nd the petection ofthe woul? And fay of you argues this point, nd sree hn a intr es Mag“ SST Wi! Sl aren hme a says he doc cae I shall noe hin go at one, or sal go aay, I shall question and examine aod coma hin (Eye, and if find that he does noc posses vite, but aye doe, Teal ‘rebuke him for scoring he things that are of most importance and ‘ting noe fr what i of es worth, (ology, 294-304) Aterhis death sentence has heen announce, Socrates speaks propheially tothe jerors“[Y]ou hoped tht you woald be relieved rom reeting at ncount (Eheyor) of our lives" (38), Clecy the examining and testing el at eonetng the Athenians’ lies, compelng them to eae forthe noe impor things. Socratic ili ths clearly abou ones godess wh foes oe to ive an azcoan of one's ie atone logical acme, 'A description of Socrates foe the Laces underscores is same quality of lnlecticas« means of giving an account of a unas Me, oto efuing ujament. Nia tel ysimachs, [Weoever comes ito cose contact with Socrates and as any elle igh him facto fae, i bound o he dawn oud ad round by hi inthe course ofthe arguent—thoughitmay have started fist on ute diferent themeand eae sop tl eed int ing 30 count of hinself adro8 Ayo, of the manner ia whic be now Spend is days vee rpémov vo rei and ofthe hind of ie (Bio) he has ved hither. Laces, 1872-188) We ate not repeoached by Socrates for holding inconsistent hac, ha for living ies: Likewise, we do no ear of Socrates esting Diels aa nents or defntions. Sora, and therfore dale es wand ours. er ye “gine someone ia guston ad answer, Hkewise the denon sought stern the daloges le pet. temperance, justice, courage, and 4090) eof ks mporance than et lis behind the seach for them, On one level he dialogues canbe agen a 2 search for defntion, bu ona despee sd ukimarly more impoetane leva they ae search for en Socrates tay be asking Meno, Hippocrates, nd Protagorss “What vue,” on one eve ut he i frcng them to ak themes “Who am Tn anther level. Inthe proces of addressing question aboot vite, aie, Knowedg,» ‘TURNING TOWARD PHILOSOPHY ery or temperance, these and other Socratic inklocuors mast ako face {questions abou he types of pion they rs, thefypex of perms they er ‘ive themes to bya the types of pesos they outro become. Ths {tw shame, which challenges personal identi, so powerul and neces satya tool of diet. Dies sels Socrates inerlcutors on 2 per Sonal eel by fori them wo ecognze something about themselves then ‘Genands hac they confot thir bls and whether they ae living he {0d human Ue In an hones, peenally sky, and sometnes shamefl Wry, In shor, lec demands that iteociors adress the question, "Who am Pathe dees eel "AS fuer eidence tha Socst’ questions ae about who one shoud lke to all atention tothe Phaedo where Socrates comes peat to sang cexply tha ast nt about ssessing arguments bit abo fad ‘nes the context of warning Cees and Snmias nt to be misologees, aes of argumentation, Sota says tht iti ptiable ifs man, because he as mee wih some of those angumets which fee to be sometimes true and sometimes fae, should then not ‘ame hie rhs own ack of hl, but shoud end ins vexason, bythrowing the blame pay upon he arguments. (Pheedo, 90) And fart, [Llc ws nor adie nto our soul he aoion tat there is no sound es in arguments a all Let us ar eather assume tat we ounces te not yet in sound conlon aod that we mast sve msnflly and tagity to some #0, you and the others forthe sake of all your fate, nd I Beeuse of my impending death. (80-) In thee passages, Socrates cll shite the young men's fos away fam ‘lop agumene chat might “fi” them ad ews thm toward a ‘raminstion of hei fay soul Passages such hese poi us beyond the Spore "arguments in the daiogues to an examination of ourselves and ‘ur soul. The dslogues ate personal sae they revolve around the iver ‘ation and ceting of onsel oe argument oF dein. chan Robinson, who wants sees, tong ther tins the personal nature ofthe ent cao thatthe mat sting ase of Seca’ ebay ior hat =[hes always puting to somebody vome enteral ition, sly DIALECTIC au inthe eld of ties“ Bae Robison abseraton ironic. How pesos sn the elenchs be when engages someone in conversation about “some feneralgoeton, cull in the Old of tis”? Socrater question ze not penal” questions at al, bu rather personal quetioas, and usualy gute spit othe proves and sissies surrounding a parculr comers hom. Secates always speaking this imerocuoes about themselves, aboot tho they are, fn in Sonat o who they think they are. Moreows, to ‘sa about the fi ofthis" thi manner and context seems be amis Understanding ofthe exten mature ofthe alogus. Scat quesons tte nota academic as Robinson ses o inte and do noe aes any under "eld” ce “pli” They addres eae lives and way of vig ‘Soot’ arguments ate often formated with the particle elo’ en in mind, nd tlre to be fev om int his spt, much of hie alec ia boner” Necessarily then, Socrates’ arguments are of 2 ‘fvtonal nature. He amp t pertade bis interlocutor of bails ‘shih he isl commited” ane eerie to such bes Base thoy hive so fr withiood the test of dialeaicand continue C0 do $0. "Wihscandng sch a tse at the arto the gi and igor of len [Lagi andor ary speci meaning when applied to dle hat they ‘wo ne carry in rational analy of mere argument Hone comtines le qentons—of on reasoning processes and of the conclusions that ‘elt fom dem—enly thse Belefe worth holding remain. In thi wy, Ulnletc aa» continous check on eae the bie that can be dis ‘ll tvough ss andt implies something abou ee inert alin of Futans" Disses internal log i ts sel egulatng and self-correcting. 1 yn pene ih 86h cin we svi SP ce ei hes on meme ‘man eens pe Cal pawl wi i 3 Segoe ts i me = ‘ety tle et Se net om Sn ia en sme rs pe ic emp 3 Tore hr eer thea int ph he ewe ca tt rab er ono ee2 TURNING TOWARD PHILOSOPHY 2y subjecting her belie to dale, dhe individ performs Kad of west whereby those bi that sand upto dialectic ough 9 be kept—abei sways and coinalysibjet to farther examinaon-—and thxe bei ek eee eb ectic coarser fe raed Teed ‘he meaning of loge when appli tothe whole pracsice of Sacra dsc Hippocrates poses a question to Soeates inthe Protgoras, “What i a rind fed?” whose answer elps to claiate the slfcorectve lap of ‘ete, nd therefne polos to diet’ ably to improve the su a ‘toning Hippocrates about the eae of i sou, Scrat nas the fl leg elipscal analogy: When one is inthe make place buying fod in order to feed the boy, the vendors are praising all of their wares, wheter ‘hey are od forthe dy o bd. And ures ane a expr on heh rutin, one does act kaow wat to buy so as 10 benef he ody. One oul, howees takeaway in a separate container the goods ne wishes buy and allow an exper o examine them fin, befor ngesing hem. hewn wih the sophute who haw tes wares They prise all ofthe courses fnstrcion equal apd unless oe ah expert in cate ofthe Sal, ‘oe cannot now which te od and which are ad forthe soul (Proagens, S136-314b Socrates nis bt dots not explicidy complete the analogy. Hippocrates and wea eft .9 wonder what she analogy it aking away in containers the things we might lar so that we may eet hem to determine wheter they are good fr the soul eno. ogg that dale the anlopo. forestall the ingesion of den recy and allows ws 2 atthe hi vey daletic performs dy tthe soa ike some expert who test food to ‘sc whether it ishelhyand may be ingested, or whether ough tobe de {Cardo kecase of poisonous or unbeathy inflence onthe body. Thi ‘pial analogy hint ae the slecorectve quite of dialectic. Dial, Which i the subeex ofthe Prowgors, can test belief for the sul before they at ingested, ding sin rejesting thou bits that do or pate tert ‘of dle and keeping hose eli that do bt aay subjecting th fanher esting. “Tec is kei, gor dati, butt no a loa rigor sity speaking. Rather tsa rigor that ses from is coninal and neletng Sethrouphout tine. The rigor of lect ares rom the coment ahd bing way which ts ved, and Sores ie main a pra och Figor Disleric ea phsophicl way of ifn aon vo ing piso ic procedure. Forexampe the ueioning prose taken ots iis and Ted thoroughly develops into questioning posture and rss Meas biaLecne a ict. Moreover, Socratic ignorance, cater than being singly 2 oneine mason, becomes an exeatisl stance, an aide which the source oo whic fe qust pings and relson develops. The desl ies ss therefore the sl eplatingie. One es and ale are cosially Inopered ina effort to impeone thes Life-aqut ie ved in search of uate othe question, “Who am f° And the evaluation of who one is Ineasured agains who one can and ought w be as a human being. ‘Soca’ fet the epitome of what fsb hee,» paradocs quot Soy in exhorting hi inteonitcr vo dikes, Socrates i exhorting them to le beter Hives. When engaging an interlocutor, Socrates works ‘hough netic wo tear away old bles and behaviors and eo relae them vith beter anes; tthe sme ine he rest ie te merocaor the means ty wha he hime ean iain the ie fini and leaning, nary nase Datei not merely a eo! of logsal analysis, nor simply = nih of breaking down an inloetor in argent Dist x paced ly Socrates, the fndamentl moral enepiae that compris the Soertic ‘say of ie In rating st Socrates Beelits is soul and eal the souls Ut his inteiocutes are opened upc the same posi. Dilectic’ ai s the improvement of hose who engage i it andi has he capac to tas on thon who pa ioe To learn rough dialectic i 0 ve the examined life a Socrates ined Dialectic gives as both a way tie and a way to lena way tbe and 1 ay to know. Tis theefoce a leaning pees that exposes the insepra> lily ofthe personal and the inellcral~the tial ad the epsemelog Sol Thus andertood, ales undecores that vite is knowledge. In netic whae fad how) ove belive and who one i are conjoined. Reis in living the calcite that vie and knowledge Become one. 2, Dialectic in the Meno That vie and knowledge te one is intinate in he Mano This dalogne shows the ink beeen dite as philosophical proesare wed 0 examine rand ili 8 orl engagement sted fo examine and improve the sh i hh yin hp» “TURNING TOWARD PHILOSOPHY soul of tote who engage in The Mano ask explicly what vires and ow one becomes itwous, but lcking nti dialogue ithe quandary that ‘rue mighe be some kind of nosledge and yt not be eachable. Bath the "quandary and whtion center onthe practic of das The porte of| dialer that emerges from thi dialogue shows ast how one might kecome ‘eruoas dough engagement in dialectic and, consequently, how vite can be Knowledge and yet not be teachable. The Mewo demenstats how we ‘ght engage in ales and jess why we ought to engage inc Tn the ‘ao we ace mos deat what is impli inal ater Phone daogues arly, that dlc the ey to evi toward the philosoricl ie Since t provides an exellent example of Sorat dali and an explicit dxcossion abot dnt ineacion, [therefor er that dialogue now f+ means of asain ina mote dtd and concrete manne the work fags of dake nthe fie third of te dialogue, Meno repeat also give am adeyoaee Akeintion of vrs. Wher Meno reaches high poi of festa dec Snorer’ quewtions and his ability wo respond adequately he atemps throw a wrench in the works He presets Socrates with a thomy lemma,” posed in sch a way tha ether choice i oe Socrates would no want to ‘make: no man can search ter fr what be kaows or for what he doesnot now; he canoe search foe what he knows for he knows it ad there is | need to seach fo is nie can he search for what he doesnot know, fr he ‘does noose what search for ad wil ace know ie when he come ip 54805" Meno’ lems says that ingly and, consequently, Iaring fe impossible le therefore threatens to fret the present ingury in ‘rose bereen him and Socrates (What wre? It teachable), and ai imately it threatens all ing. The sory of ecollion i Socats dec, respons fo Menus change ands easonabl, therefore, to expec tat fhe ory sil athe very least show hat rang is poseible—and his i doe. I adison, the story of ralton provides an explanation and 2 furadigm for how learning s posible, Recollection explains the fearing [roses ina manner eat ses guy and leening rom Meno’ skepcal allege and that pines toward the vituows lem single min. Is Sout acount of recollection that also ulmately soles the dl of how ‘vite can be knowledge an yet ne teachable iaecne 3s Socrates gets around Meno dilemma—ethee we know something slieady and don't hae to seach foro we donot know rand wal not recognize i tnhon we dincover iby arping that prensa fase dzoromy, The Slory af eolleton pute haman knowledge inner ofthese wo sates {ategericlly (known or noe known). Socrates el us tha the sou, being immortal has ee al hinge bth here and in the underwood heres noth ine that thas lend (1-d. So al leaving onthe part ofthe sou, nse it embod, x kind of recalcuon oF memory Sine we have Siwaysaleady known the tru, ad yet have been cated to forge i at Tit earning thn becomes an act of recovery rater than discover. Thee ia way to search fo something when ane does noe know it one wll recopsze ie when one comes upon i. Learing is tetfore posible, con ‘try tothe implication of Meno calege Tht Bow are wet lean? Socrates exchange with dhe slave—as well 5 the dalgue as a whole—demonstaes ho learning is posible tough the ‘woton and answer of dale. The logue presen fur elements that tr ngs althouph proba nae salient, o lear ale: II) To bein wit ienorance is he stating pot for lamin. Learing an take place only when the walls of slfigheousacrogance are tom ‘hwm and one amis ne ignorance. Without such an admision, the inter Ibewtor tains sack wth his previous presumptions and erroneous Wes vith no incense to move beyond them, After a series of qusions, tele ISredned to a pston of ignorance from whic be tates explicit“ dont Tho a), Soe then rn to Meno and ainsi ase thatthe lave hae now been made beer of cause wen e did oe know and was lnaware of his ignorance he woul no search, but now that bes aware of Iisienorance hi search can gin (a-}. The puzlement or api that ne expences after being one & 2 necessary and postive compo- hen inthe learning proces An avareness of one's ack of knowlege it Via puts one ons inguie: The search concinues wih the ave, solely Thnough crate’ gustions andthe slave x uccestly Brought to «point ti soning the dagonals elaonship co the area and length of the ides bf the sue 12) Dialectic leamsing comes trough slfexamiaton and the arse is ‘hetefrethe mediate source of Kooedge. Bul ito the story of rclle tion i the wovon thatthe sul recalls rom isl what has alkeny nw, Socrates exits Meno, telling him that be who i Brave in he searh fr knowledge purses ifr incl (win, 1a) and, even more ‘lic he ways ha he individual st earn fo himself (2 ao) oe6 “TURNING TOWARD PraLosontty having been aughe bu only questioned (4) 1dr he leering sajet ‘asthe “mediate” oareof knowledge as opposed tothe “ulna” source ‘of knowledge ice the ater must be the orm (lo, 720) 10 whi the indvideal oo, bot ech inva es ces to know through al ‘examination There osuljective rlatvam ample, Diet iabstine only insofar as the learning subject recalls trom herself, sot source eral to her, but he objects ecolleced are presumably extemal univer Sal and absolute, (3) Soratically speaking one mas subit to quetion and anewer if ne {is going wo learn. Quetioni sips one of any cone of knowledge and thas one river athe tating poe of earning. Meno i exer erin he Alsiogue to het and ge long speeches, but this sphaic metho, which he presumably acquired from Gorgias, sands in wark contrast to Socrates Aisle qertion and answer in which Meno isnot particulary adepe oe willing to participate (75,76, 76. Sects expliclydsnguses dle tie question and answer—ingiry and respome—fom teaching Sorts stress repeatedly and conspicuously that he wil only question he slave, ot teach hi anything abou geometry (822, 84-d, 88d). Teaching, at Seeraes understand there, wou see to be eli» The acti of aus tioning sis the metry, and so one ecole or lars, We an asume that ata ctly stage another person may be involved inthe earning proces as someone who ass questions, but orer tine, the individual migh simate this method into her owa life and develop farther tthe pin of being able teak herself and others question. ‘An 4), oe camet lean dle rom an authori, Authority is cechened hy the clement of rollstion tha place the india ow soul 5 the objet of sveaigation and tthe medae source of knowledge. We Soul look co our ova souls and tothe realities themseve in oer t0 leaen, Questioning and answering, as oppesd to teaching (a ling) fae ton similarly and shun authority. Whie not actually present 2 ee ene, Gorgias presence a an authority figure for Meno lon age the erly potions this dialogue. The dlogae gest rest lent o establish tt “Mene' view i assured tobe the sme a5 Goes’ the sabe a hand (71d, 73 790), but Socrates tes to move Meno away from reliance on (Gorgias authority (7c). Meno i exhorted to lean absent of authority and the sve serves aa mode of esning independently of yah IaLEcTIC y Recollection thus solves the dfculty Brough up in Meno' challenging erm Ie shows thet earning and ogi ae posnbl, and it presents 4 vel for how to seach for what one does at kro aon eo che wert presentation of zeal, ewo questions are pt forth expby Inthe Memos What is virtue? and Can i he taught? The dialogue in i nic intimates that vr i knowledge, but keowledge whichis noe ‘igh, and which comes abou sa spell way, ha, decal. Viewe rl em, therefore to cone dough dls enterprise and ile Sr inowlege ta Kit of knowledge which cannot be rug I comes Yhroug vel-examinaton, by question and answer t muse ccc i the Alvence of authority, and fom a postion of recognized ignorance, Bit Aerie eels mach more than copnve activi. team work through he fenotins for its esied ct we sa with same Iisa mode a examn- ining the woe person, forcing her take stock of er ete if hough ah ‘samiaation of belief psychological site, celations and ations. }, Dialectic and Belief: The Socratic Disposition Understanding dlc eps to undead the manne in which Socrates Dokl his bles and the nature of bis commizment 10 them. Dialect isan nypropiate means of nvesaton ed an appeopite way of i in pare Irenus ofthe file nature of human knowledge, Bo dialectic also pow ful enough to provide Socrates with samatched vigor i defending his Ines strong ein thas pervades the dialogs betwen their portrayal fie tenows human grap on wdom and the tenacios conviction with rhc Sorte eds cereain bli The nature and fancion of dice Shand athe ery presse point of thi tention The manner in which Sorte? views ae presented i che dialogues i, 1 ‘hin, indict of the manner in which he oll chem. Neier ae they resented postely aoe are they held dogmatically. The dialogue ate dea Ina pets conning myth, rom spd hamos aad bets embedded in fa context are never ponte dec Rae, hey emerge ina quali tnannet from sh teats Socrates as often heard theories om ober, he Inerpesin nant wae the words ofthe radional pots, eel mh, be takes analogies, he vmeimes contads biel ad his phosophicl incon er spore. What seeds scusion then i wha it means hkl bli Secraly3s "TURNING TOWARD PrILosonErY “To aleve someting Socata iy i fl to bjt that bei ‘th st of dlc Presumably Socater’ Bel have thu ar withstood the ‘igors of questioning. But dale, remem, isn finite proceso abe rithm fo eng and holing bell. So, by being sober ali these | flies are consamly open te revision, Tete can he no sone toa so-called 'ystem of Sora belts. There mus always bey cheer, a a of lle iy susounding Socrates” els and all human belts. Moreover, ight of ‘he possibile of alibity andthe consequent need for conse tevin of ble, we are compel ote seriosly Socrates” claim o ignorance ‘The paradox of Socratic ignorance hatin sides is wisdom uan wisdom (Apology, 232-b), Dialect, a embodied in Socrates ois burman ‘gnorance and human widom in on being. Dili the sme time the ‘means dsoveiag one gnorance a well athe means to oving beyond In spite of man flit, however, we cannot assune Sorte! cm tment to his bebe be a wel one. Simply reas dnt takes shape in question and quest it need not ead o skeptical ends. Sarat rcogi- ‘on of human flit leads eter to epismologial nor tical epi ium." Rate, we observe in the logue Sorte” dep comumtinent to elie and wa way of i which ly inthe face er Kind shepism, Ina effort co save off pistemalogical skeptic, Sotates ends Cehes and Simmias and all thers assembled nil ll ha tey ought ot flim despa when tonal dscoure scm tobe filing hem, ‘Then you know, those men expcily who have spent thei time in oc of the reads the text and mening since these the elaents ae ‘woven tgabe in the process alld readig For simpli’ ke owes ‘shall ty to speak roughly inte tems with the ate that a dctson of 287 one of thee elements neces alk ofthe oes two. The reader in ‘ollang bers view, takes on wandering viewpoine which bot perp twvaland temporal the ade wanders among many perspectives within he text and movesamong various parts of the wat temporally curing the ein procs. The text contains many pspecver—for example the maator’y the protagonist other charac, o perp an invisible person to who the work eadersed Tit ile merase te lpn {illo ml epee "lle Cpe yee te act Sop eh ‘pe othe ese sentra ca Hel om ies {ecient son andi cna Ete tose cal "bree meng ie omy x ese en tre ag he oo 3"ier Re ar ce wa Af Rai READER 4 [Tike wandering viewpoints. situated ina patculr perspective uring every mort of reading, but—herei es the spell nature ‘ofthe wandering viewpoint—ie not confine to that perapetve, (nthe contrary, conway swchex between the eel prec” tes. Buf the wandering viewpoin defines elt by wa ofthe changing perspectives, i fellows chat throughout che reading past respective sents mut be resined in ech present momen. [As the wandering viewpoint ino stated exclusively nay one ‘he perspectives, te reader’ positon can oly be esalsed hough ‘combination ofthese perspectives. (At of Reoding, 114,115) The eader does aoe erly internalize the various potions inthe tet, but laters ndaced to make them act upoa and so wansiorn exch other 362 real of which thease objec begins to emerge." This makes the iter ney eet somewhat diac rom other aestetie abject, which Ter Ibe ven” objects. Whereas one always ands ute te given objec ad experiences it qua objet trary text egues the partcipation ofthe sab ct inside of the object in onder to consute the aesthete experience (Prospecting, 103). The reader wander abot through the reat viewing Fromall of these perspectives and atempéing 10 syathtiz’ meaning ase way The reader’ viewpoints in his way a product of othe perspectives in {he et bor (nse the reader maves among the varios perspectives frm (he wandering viewpont) i aot dential any oe of the The empora movement fee eaders viewpoint ae diet, Hien, ‘sooth; eather itis leaping and ieulat, During the act of reading the ‘waders viewpoint is unstable, changing. and being continually formed “jadi doesnot merely flow forward, but. eld segments aso Inve a etouetive effet, with the present wansforming the Pas” (Act of “Reading, 115). While moving thus within the ext the reader works ac what ae Ele cnet eed rte ec Foe ee The wandering wewpoine “permite proces through which the antic jects constant being srdctured and estacere. AS there 0 definite Fame of efeence o regulate his procs, successful communication must imately depend on the ceader ceive astiity™ (112). The reader ite eral making sense ut of the et 4, e199, 0 ais itn Prosi Ske err tof aig“ TURNING TOWARD PHILOSOPHY ie what ithe nature of ths ee that the readers making sense ut of That coe does the ex itself playin the reading proces? According to Ie, ete rere gee alee eee indeteemiony ofthe went ce fundamental precondition for eader pti ain (Prospecting, 10) ic “sends the reader of ona search for meaning” (27) Ie talks about wo paicuae kins of indeterminaces: blanks and egatons (Ae of Reading, 182 blak canbe an abet tantion ia the aatative enpetv, «hats or disruption ofthe ow of the nol, fr simly 1 confsng or obscure portion within the ext er clas that ‘nk refer to urpeded connetbiliy in theta (Prospect, 37). They stimulate the render toward constency baling, within he framework ‘of ser response they, cach lak is so a potential connection, Like the lank o interpton inte text agains alo sere as poe: fal consracti pints for he ener Each ext mst incorporate an exter realy context i which i embedded, whch ner call te “repetie” of the ex I coos of te historia, socio earl aoc om which the text aes and which provide a frame of reference. Nations may revoke raf, or neutralize the knowledge resented or invoked by the repercie 1227) Negatins i the tex thrcore serve t date the and clue oan. The reader fads that hitherto fai Je postions—contemporary norms and the given wor—are concnually egg each other” (215). Negation iavoke familar nd determinate le Pe tet ey ese el What cae ae ‘emai view and ths bogs about modiications the readers aed toward wha is fiilar or determinate—that iy he gilded to adope 4 postion in relton to the text” (Progpeting 34). Te reader brings et ‘ean ofthe text certain experiences, dipotions and views about hes {nd the word (he own viewpoint) er viewpoint ats upon and is ace ‘pon bythe reading proce. The redler sages with the negations and eset Eee Ritien betpcan te tol weal nl cla geal {ngand possible alenatives 0. Negation th compl the reader to stand ina new elation ro those norms and ths in relation eo the text. Meaning, tise fom the readers response tothe indeterinaces in the ext fom bet scenpt at consneny baling inthe face of blanks and nepaons, and {rom doing this work rom dhe wandering viewpoint. The reader sts © steate a connected and coherent experience ine reading ofthe ext, ad meaning emerge rom ha experience ‘One might abject that Ler response theory open the dort a kin of ‘saiviam—that any ext ean be interpeeted in ny way by anyone—but er READER ° cil defends hi theory aginst sch abjetons. Jus ax there are inde termina inthe text, there are determinate elements aswel, While Blanks in! mations ae in one sense indeterminate cements ofthe text in that they eeate the opportunity for ang oe constructed daring thes ening they ater the sme reasons determinate ements 36 well. They ‘truce he very response they elic.The element of indeteniacy ene Uh tent to commoniate wit the zeader inthe sense that hey inde the ender o prepa ia bath the production and the comprehension af the Ierary work. The determinate clement exerci «kind of regulation ove the reading proces, Act of compreenson are ide bythe structures of the teat but these sroctres, or derminate elements can never exec Compete conte, They esate but donor enforce the reader experince lhe textes the mixta of deerminacy and indeterminacy that cond tins sh nteaction between tex and reader and this daketical procs sing to ie therefore canner be arbiraey ‘While ee theory eed oe imply elas, does open the way for a bind of subjetvsm, Fis teory plies sujet tar asthe textual Ineaning dependent in parton the sje, an engaged and active reader hth nef ned ne imply ay Kindo adc relativism in inerpetve ‘hoon an anything gous” kind of hermeneutic’ The aon theory [ves gemony to te text whic has sore mewage or mating tat the Fender mast dncovee. Any ral relativistic they gives this same hep ‘ony tothe reader ser places himself eeweea these two positions arguing fi dst relationship here text and readet er then opens the pos ‘ily for mile eadings and an indeterminate mame of these night be a” reading Bat any deat tepetation must bie the aps and sncr the conraitions inde text. Some trary rts have difcls with he dete ature cf he the oy abet Pound bas argued that [tbe dyadic shape of ars theory is bot is steegth an its weak ress Onthe one hand wehave a determinate esta statue which 6h ihn ae fen ert of ag, 20 a bdo theta pln opens 33 ‘Se pe Bsa yen ath gon and soe“ ‘TURNING TOWARD PeuLosomiy es nd insrucs he reader reponse On the oer hand, thee the ext depends en on thereto. This doubles is ‘ial for etablising the ineractive exe reader relationship, whist ‘scaping to avoid the question of interpretive authori But er iki view of text and ead nrc inthe above mannet, does aces the hate of inerpeetive author ir simply doe ot reskin "ny single monolith autor, Inepreie atborty x grated onthe ‘round of bridging the rata gape and making seme of the ets icons Tenis. Asolo to this general problem of itrpeivesuority aso bes within the mructre of Pato dialogues and mierors er’ view as described bere afl argue blow thatthe dalgues have a selicoreting expat through dls that guides us to an aniwer to the queton of erent autor. “The proce of filing in Maks and cononingnegarions—the act of eangcan potently, transform the rade. The reader may be ea i ferent stat ring and arte reading proces, chanel bythe ey expe ence called reading, The readers daw ito the wx, bu Shei so dawn ‘say omer haba csposions. Se makes new dcoveces inthe et of ‘ang an finds hat they are neongraows with her habia dsponison as ‘well swith her sol and eleuralpreseppontons Shei then susp eeween them pled 19 make + choice Bees stanpoits, This incon sity can be removed only by a emergence ofa third dimension which i ‘Bcsved a he meaing of che text When the habtaldiapoion expe nce a correction, the reader achieves 2 new balance (Ac of Reading, 218-1), Thre x potential he foe eal groweh onthe part ofthe rede I ‘ses ceae rom ler sad on the transformative power of the ato ead Jing that atabutes a moral dimension eo ear act. The character and jd ment ofthe reader ac, and are matey sce upon, the reading proces. Teer describes one case of this potential tnsformaton inthe reader of Henry ing’ Josep Andras: I the eakr feels supeie to the woldly-wise characters because he ‘case through them, fom he Adams perspective hes then forced to ee through himal because in sim sitaion he know he two have reared like them and not ike ee parson. Bu fe READER » wishes co see through Adams and no himself oder 1 mala I sperony the, as we have ee, he mst share the viewpoint of thowe whom his coniually uma. At of Reading, 218) Vitor way the reader chooses to interpre the text, she must comet learn someting about href, Thin torn might inte a tsnsormaton of se ‘if nota full-blown wansormaton, «kind of elFAnowledge dha could Ne onside fie ep toward wansformatin. 2, Dialogue and Dialectic: A Phenomenology of Reading. lor theory can ep eo explain the relationship between a Pstnic dialogue nn the rade. Pom ter on can we the paral between Platonic dix es (ith respect othe reader and Socratic dati (with spect the inerlecir) egnagin wit er “wandering viewpoint.” The drama form ofeach dslogus «determinate lemere, srcres the wang so thatthe reader sts the pergectvs ofthe iteracutors though tha they say and what ehey do. The rade experiences Socrates viewpoint In he same manner apd, shee activ ole a participant inthe dialog, she ils her ew viewpoint, She then works with all of hese perspective Inv eff o understand the west. The reader of he Mero, for exapl, 1 5 he tie of dcuson ad the ineracion among the neloutos toma numberof perspectives. Most obviously he can take onthe peepee: tive of Mane or Socrates, Sine thee perspectives eilfer fom one anathr siderably, the reader most work at comsency building with the da logis. Pom Meno’ perspec, an pehaps the nal perspective of the ‘ede, vite seems simple enough concept to ge hold of Bu then the ener must grant Sorte objections to Meno’ tempted defnisons. The Fenle ould even empathize with Menesrastation a Socate’ ol in the invrsaton, «phenomenon wienesed by anyone who uss Pato dialogues inh clase. less deveoped manne the dialog poreays Meno’ Sve and Anas bt thse tw charctee ako present stot perspectives vc provide the eader wih era broader conception ofthe ses a stake i he contest in which they are dias Sein sues rom these many