Teaching Plato in Translation
by Susan Gorman, Boston University
Original text © 2004 Susan Gorman
The Phaedo
Misology
One of the dangers that is expressed in the Phaedo is that of learning to hate logic. Essentially, misology is the distrust of logic. Socrates discusses the dangers of misology by comparing it with misanthropy. If someone believes the best of all people, believes that they are essentially honest and good, but is deceived by someone, he may grow to hate all people. Generalizing about the inherent goodness of people can be subverted into generalizing about the inherent evil of people.
In the same way, if someone believes in logic but eventually comes to realize that logic can be used in different ways to support various beliefs, he may grow to hate it. The danger of this attitude would be especially horrifying to Socrates, who seems to live his life according to logic and languages.
Not only is pointing out the dangers of misology important within this text, but it can be important for your students as well. Some of them may understand Plato's texts and be able to follow easily the arguments. Others may not. These students may share the experience of misology and commiserate with those people described in Stephanus pages 89c-90d. So, I find it important to discuss these particular passages about misology with the students.
I have two sets of questions that I ask students to consider concerning the text about misology.
- What is the purpose of this passage? Does it offer some sympathy and a cautionary tale to the reader who may be frustrated by the circularity and difficulty of the argumentation? If so, why is that important to include?
- Is the problem with people who do not apply argumentation correctly, or is this method of arguing fallible?
Explain to your students that facility of argumentation does not imply correctness. Think of modern-day lawyers who are able to argue effectively both sides of an issue. The fact that lawyers argue the different sides of a problem does not mean that logic and argumentation is at fault. Rather, argumentation itself needs to be examined critically, but should also be trusted if practiced in the correct manner.
