Vigilancia epidemiológica

Holger Thesleff

Most of Plato’s dialogues, including many dubia (q.v.), are carefully composed (q.v.

Literary composition). They have a ‘literary’

stamp. This is interesting, since they were not on the whole meant for presentation to general anonymous audiences used to public performances of poetry, drama or oratory, the main genres of ‘literature’ in Plato’s days. The refinements of the compositional patterns of the dialogues, like the philosophical contents, the language and style (q.v. Language) and the irony (q.v.) and allusive play (q.v.), are rather adapted to small groups of relatively well informed persons and their friends who appreciated such moves.

One can easily detect a certain rhythm or pulse in the composition and technique of the dialogue. There is normally an intro-duction, sometimes in two or more stages, gradually leading ‘into’ the place where the

9780826435354_Ch03_Final_txt_print.indd 121

9780826435354_Ch03_Final_txt_print.indd 121 3/8/2001 5:12:58 PM3/8/2001 5:12:58 PM

122 philosopher meets his interlocutors. Then there are variations between argumentative passages and interludes with different types of dialogue. At the end there comes a com-paratively brief conclusion which, interest-ingly, tends to leave the discussion somehow open. Even explicitly ‘aporetic’ conclusions suggest that something is bound to follow.

A study of the compositional rhythm of the texts may, like the study of shifts of style (Thesleff 1967), contribute to our under-standing of where and how the author wants to place the emphasis.

It has sometimes been noticed that the majority of Platonic dialogues follow a gen-eral pattern which can be termed ‘pedimen-tal’ (Thesleff 1993) or ‘ring composition’

(Douglas 2007), the archaic compositional principle of returning to the beginning at the end. Plato’s pedimentality, however, is a refinement of classical ring composition since the central section of dialogues often rises to a higher intellectual or conceptual level before returning to the mundane level where the conversation began. The central parts or sec-tions of a dialogue often form a core where essential thoughts or new aspects or a crucial phase are introduced. As in the triangular

‘pediment’ or tympanum of a Greek temple, symbolically important ideas are placed in the centre. More peripheral or more ordi-nary facts and suggestions, and less signifi-cant circumstances, are pushed towards the beginning and the end. Reflections of simi-lar principles can be found in other classical Greek genres of literature, notably in tragedy (the peripety) and old comedy (the paraba-sis). Plato was influenced by drama (q.v.), though a direct dependence is unlikely.

A closer consideration of the character of the central sections and their function within the pedimentality may give useful clues to the interpretation of the dialogues.

The most manifest example, easily under-stood by every reader, is the pyramidally cen-tral place of Diotima’s speech in Symposium (q.v.). There is a gradual rise to it, and then a slope beginning with Alcibiades’ joining the company. Other very obvious cases include Socrates’ musings on inspiration in Ion (q.v.), and the first part of his palinodic speech on the cosmic flight of the soul in Phaedrus (q.v.), an illustration of true ‘psychagogy’

( Phdr . 271c), so different from myths and oratory.

The relevance of pedimentality in the Republic (q.v.) is worth specific notice (Dorter 2006:3–8; cf. the challenge by Roochnik 2003:4–7). The beginning and the end concern rather concrete human realities or myths seen from a human perspective, but from the opening onwards, and backwards from the end, we find ever more abstract philosophical themes which culminate in the three, mutually interdependent analogies in the centre of the work (bks 6, 7), the sun, the line and the cave (qq.v.). These are actively illuminating symbols pointing to the fact that metaphysics and its application to the edu-cation of philosophers constitute the central nucleus of this work. The other themes are arranged around it in a kind of descending order.

Metaphysics is often more prominent in the central sections than in other parts of the dialogues. Pedimentality can make a push, as it were, towards the higher level of Plato’s two-level universe (Thesleff 1999). The dis-cussion on the whole concerns human mat-ters, but the central sections give glimpses of the (metaphorically) ‘divine’.

The pedimental composition is seldom as spectacularly evident as in the examples just mentioned, yet it may offer an impor-tant aid to the interpreter. In the Phaedo (q.v.), where innumerable generations of

9780826435354_Ch03_Final_txt_print.indd 122

9780826435354_Ch03_Final_txt_print.indd 122 3/8/2001 5:12:58 PM3/8/2001 5:12:58 PM

123 readers have sought towards the end for the ‘definite’ proof of the immortality of the soul, the resumption of the frame dialogue at the centre ( Phd . 88c) in fact indicates a retardation and a concentration on an idea which is emphasized in various ways: what-ever hopes or myths or arguments there are for the survival of the human soul, dialectic ought not to be rejected and Socrates’ logos with its metaphysical reach will live on even if he does not do so as a person. But at the beginning and the end of the dialogue, the perspectives of living human individuals are in the foreground.

A similar framing of the central section occurs in Euthydemus (q.v.) where Clinias unexpectedly hints that the Royal Art will give a lasting solution to the problems at hand. This probably refers to the schooling of philosophers, treated with banter at the beginning and the end. In Protagoras (q.v.), the two-level contrast of ‘becoming’ or ‘being’

good, an implicit clue to the entire dialogue, is playfully alluded to in Socrates’ sophistic answer to Protagoras’ speech in the cen-tre. Meno (q.v.), again somewhat playfully, introduces the recollection doctrine in the pedimental central section. And Theaetetus (q.v.), to take a last rather obvious example, has a digression on the two paradigms of human life in its centre: one of the implica-tions seems to be that an orientation towards the upper level is essential in epistemology, in spite of all the different perspectives opened by the discussion. Some scholars regard the provocative ‘philosophical digression’ in the Seventh Letter (342a–4d) as a sign of its authenticity; others, the sure sign of a prac-tised imitator.

The aspect of pedimental composition ought to be observed in almost all Platonic dialogues. Occasionally, however, it is not very easily traceable. Notably in Gorgias

and in Crito (less obviously in Philebus ), the rhetorical principle of ‘climactic’ arrange-ment is dominant. In both dialogues Socrates is intent on persuading his interlocutor and his listeners by consistent argumentation, an approach not normally used so explicitly by Plato. The principle of pedimentality is better suited to the reflective mood of most dialogues.

PLAY

Holger Thesleff

Since a solemnly serious Plato has dominated the picture of Platonism since antiquity, it is particularly important to note his use of playful wit and humour (q.v.). Indeed, this general feature, taken in a very large sense, is essential not only as a literary device in the dialogues but basic for the interpretation of his philosophy.

Awareness of the aspect of play is a pri-mary challenge for readers of Plato, even if they do not feel Platonic play is amusing.

Though Plato often hints that he is jest-ing, his playfulness ( paidia , derived from the word for child, like English ‘kidding’) involves various degrees of seriousness: it is always ambiguous to some extent, but nor-mally with an earnest point. ‘ “Play” . . . com-bines interested detachment with cautious engagement and enables the philosopher to give both the rational and sensuous worlds their due’ (Plass 1967:359). Like most kinds of humour, Platonic play has two significant constituents, distancing or perspective, on one hand, and a simultaneous confrontation with two different paradigms, a double expo-sure, on the other. The latter corresponds to his non-dualistic two-level model of thought (Thesleff 1999). Play and earnestness belong

9780826435354_Ch03_Final_txt_print.indd 123

9780826435354_Ch03_Final_txt_print.indd 123 3/8/2001 5:12:58 PM3/8/2001 5:12:58 PM

124 together (e.g. Symposium 216e, 223d), but suggestive play may reach higher than mere statements of facts (see Press 2007:104–29).

The two-level approach is manifestly present in the Platonic irony (q.v.), which is normally a gently ambivalent reference from what appears to be the case to what is really true. Most of Socrates’ apparent aporiai are understatements of this type.

Plato’s philosopher has nothing of the cynic’s laughing scorn from below, and his moral polemics are seldom explicitly bitter (as in Gorgias and parts of Republic ; note the regret 7.536c). Occasional overstatements may involve some playful disdain, such as the profuse praise of the sophist in Hippias Major . Sometimes Socrates’ self-irony clearly includes the author (e.g. Theaetetus 174ab).

Ambivalent word play is an integral part of Plato’s reasoning. This is indirectly reflected in his notorious lack of consistent terminol-ogy: language can be played with. He plays semiseriously with the belief that words have a covert meaning (q.v. Language), and this belief somehow lies behind his two-level dihaeretic method (q.v. Dialectic), pedanti-cally overplayed in the Sophist and Politicus . But other kinds of word play also abound in the dialogues, sometimes boisterously as in Euthydemus , very often with cognitive allu-sions, as the musings about what might be forms in Meno (72a–5c). Translations usu-ally miss such points.

A humorous distance from everyday trivi-alities and duties is implied in the concept of ‘leisure’ ( scholê , in Tht . 172cd), neces-sary for play and the pursuit of philosophy.

Plato has a delicate sense of the bizarre in human behaviour. Though he perhaps lacks a humorously warm understanding of ordi-nary people, he makes his chosen dialogue characters (q.v.) subject to intellectual wit.

It is reflected in much of his two-level play in mime-like or even farcical confrontations of his always odd Socrates (who has more truth inside him than others, see Smp ., espe-cially 215ab) with his interlocutors. Good humoured banter often creates an every-day background to more serious elements of thought. While others may laugh, Plato’s philosopher rather smiles (Rankin 1967). In the Phaedo such play is reduced to quiet gen-tleness, but reflections of oral banter occur in the late works (see Sph .; Philebus ).

Oral communication can be deeply serious even if writing is play or pastime (q.v. Writing;

Guthrie 1975:56–66). Plato’s famous censure of poetry (q.v.) has traits of active mockery motivated both morally and epistemologi-cally; but his appreciation of artistic quali-ties notable in poetry is beyond doubt (e.g.

see R . 10.607b–8b). His satirical handling of rhetoric (q.v.) indicates the same ambiva-lence. More one-sidedly extreme is the cen-sure of ridicule in Lg . (e.g. 7.816de; cf. Phlb . 48a–50c). Playful seriousness can be recom-mended ( Lg . 7.803d), and all learning ought to be accompanied by play (e.g. R . 7.536e;

note the pun on paideia in Lg . 1.643bc).

The play inherent in parts of Plato’s pow-erful imagery also illuminates the ambiva-lence of his two-level thinking. His well known myths (q.v.), which can be regarded as constructive thought-play (below), often contain some bizarre ingredients (e.g. R . 10.607b–8b). The tentative, partly comical similes in Tht . (191a–200d) of how epis-temic memory works perhaps reflect some frustration on Plato’s part. Numerous other similes are humorously suggestive, such as Socrates the gadfly ( Apology 30e) or the torpedo fish ( Men . 80a). Even in the natu-rally earnest Epistle 7 there is vivid imagery, and the notorious ‘digression’ has a touch of

9780826435354_Ch03_Final_txt_print.indd 124

9780826435354_Ch03_Final_txt_print.indd 124 3/8/2001 5:12:58 PM3/8/2001 5:12:58 PM

125 irony. Mathematical passages may be play-fully complicated (as the Nuptial Number in R . 8.546c–7a). However, the three central allegories in the R . 6–7 (see Pedimentality) are primarily serious with very slight touches of humour (e.g. 509c). The modern reader has to listen very carefully to the tone of the wording, which was made clearer by the original oral delivery.

A particular challenge to all interpret-ers of Plato comes from an attitude that can be generally called ‘thought-play’. He rarely gives explicitly unambiguous ‘proofs’

for the position his philosopher takes (but cf. Grg . 509a; q.v. Account). The atten-tive reader will often find signs in the con-text to indicate a thought experiment (or

‘abduction’) or a provocative step without firm ground in the author’s convictions.

Given Plato’s sense of wit and amusement, we have to be aware of the playful aspect of such instances. Sweepingly generalizing claims such as the remarks on recollection as the basis of true knowledge in Men . (81b, etc.) and Phd . (72e–6c, but not really fol-lowed up elsewhere), or the utopian vision of the ideal state (cf. R . 9.592ab; Lg . 5.739a–e), or the implications of the kingly art at the centre of Euthd . (291cd), or per-haps the so-called unwritten doctrines (see Thesleff 1999:104–7) are worth consider-ing as thought-play. Sometimes there is less humour than human hope and belief in Plato’s thought experiments, notably in the main lines of his eschatological myths and in Socrates’ personal expectations in the Phd ., too often interpreted as Platonic doctrines.

It has been occasionally suggested that perhaps there is more play than consistently serious thinking in Plato’s dialogues. It is bet-ter to describe his attitude, generally, as play-ful seriousness open to much ambivalence.