That said, I don’t think Plato gives us such much of substance as he gives of method…
Would you care to elaborate on that? I mean in terms of practical answers, I’d agree - but then again most philosophers don’t.
But if your talking about answers in general - doctrines or some such, then that becomes a much more difficult assessment.
You ever read Plato’s Phaedrus - his dialogue about writing? He praised Oral communication above the written word as a medium of philosophical discourse. Authors of text cannot adapt their points to the level of the audience they interact with nor can they answer criticisms or take comments.
The written word is merely a sign or a symbol to jog the memory of those who already know but have forgotten. Literary work is merely play, the task of the true philosopher remains in interacting with his/her students.
I found that position to be very odd given the fact I was reading a dialogue! But a few friends were able to help me put it together over time
1.) the written word receives the same amount of antipathy as art does for Plato because they are Images. If things in the world are already Shadows of the Forms, than Images are Shadows of those Shadows.
2.) I thought he was being what do your UK cousins cal it - “cheeky” when he said words are for those who already know. But it was pointed out to me that this refers specifically to the epistemological take found in his Meno. The dialogue illustrates an idea that human beings never really learn, but rather -recollect- knowledge that was previously ours in some previous pre-existent state.
3.) th existence of his “unwritten” doctrine. Aristotle makes reference to in passing in his physics and metaphysics about Platos unwritten teachings but never goes into detail.
A student of Aristotle, Aristoxenus, mentions a discussion with his master where Aristotle related a public discussion Plato gave “On the Good” to his fellow Athenians. It was possibly the most direct Plato had ever been - filled with mathematical and astronomical information , the discussion apparently went over the heads of his audience who were expecting a far more conventional speech on what goodness was.
Plato is difficult to interpret because in a sense, he has made himself to be that way. its been pointed out to me on multiple occasions that because Plato wrote dialogues as opposed to a Treatises, he never actually tells us directly what he as an -author- believes - we are forced to try and discern that from what his characters are talking about and the subtext of the discussion.
In the case of your Thomas Jefferson example, I’m not surprised that was his reaction to the Republic…if he thought the Republic was meant to be about political philosophy exclusively.
Think about how that dialogue started, and the direction it veered into?
One might be tempted to think, maybe he can’t stay on topic - but square that away against his last dialogue - the Laws. From beginning to end, that is a work on political philosophy that’s also less ideal, and a lot more practical.
For whatever reason, Plato seems to hate giving direct answers. It might have to do with those tidbits in the Meno, Theatetus, and the Republic. He seems to think that some people are more “awake” than others - more receptive to understanding philosophy than the masses.
In a sense, the dialogues serve a multifunction
1.) Entertainment
2.) Training Tool
3
Test to Weed out People
…dependent on the audience reading it.
