Teaching Plato in Translation
by Susan Gorman, Boston University
Original text © 2004 Susan Gorman
The Republic
What methods of argumentation does Socrates use?
Readers can find it useful to look at the methods of argumentation that Socrates uses. The discussions contained in Platonic texts are designed to be persuasive. I usually prompt students to figure out how Socrates makes his points. Once they can figure out the rhetorical strategies that are used, they can evaluate more effectively how persuasive the argument is. For example, the myths and lies may be persuasive, but they may not hold up well under close examination. So, in order to demystify these arguments, understanding narratological strategies is useful. I usually list them on the board for discussion.
1. Socratic Irony: Thrasymachus in Book 1
a) Socratic irony: “So called after Socrates whose favourite device was to simulate ignorance in discussion, especially by asking a series of apparently innocuous questions in order to trap his interlocutor into error.” (Dictionary of Literary Terms)
b) Why do Socrates’ listeners allow him to use this method on them? A very interesting question for students and readers in general is why people engage in these types of conversations with Socrates. If they know that the person with whom they are speaking will twist words and sentiments in order to trap them, why continue? Even if we consider that those who speak with Socrates want to be persuaded by him in order to understand an issue more clearly, it is odd that they continue to argue so readily with a person who twists words.
2. Myth: Myth of the Metals in Book III
Myth is considered one of the ways to spur recollection. In this example, the myth is a lie.
How can it be understood that recollection of the truth is spurred by a lie? Or is this a different understanding of myth? Is it worthwhile to learn from a lie?
3. Analogy: The city of Justice in Books II, III
The assumption behind this analogy is that justice is the same for the individual and for the city. Is it? How is analogy a useful method of argumentation?
4. Dialectic:
Discussions with Glaucon and Adeimantus in Book II. All these different speakers working toward a definition of justice that takes into consideration different definitions and different ways of viewing justice. How does discussion help prompt all of the audience, both within the text and outside of it, to figure out how to define justice?
