The Argument with Polemarchus

Abstract

Plato’s earlier dialogues have a more or less constant pattern, both of subject-matter and of method. Indeed, it is generally accepted that they reflect the actual philosophical interests and methods of argument of the historical Socrates, whose pupil Plato was. They are mainly concerned with ethical problems, they proceed by posing a large, abstract question of the form `What is X ?’ (e.g. Protagoras: “What is virtue ?” Charmides: “What is temperance?” Laches: “What is courage? ”), and by Socrates, as the chief character in the dialogue, demolishing the successive attempts to answer the question made by the other members of the group; and they tend to conclude in a negative way, with the party agreeing that none of the suggested answers will do, and that the original question is more difficult than all but Socrates believed at the outset. The Republic, which belongs to Plato’s middle period, starts out in the same way, its question being “What is dikaiosyne?”, “What is right conduct? ”, and it proceeds throughout Book I along the negative lines of the Socratic dialectic. But in Book II a more positive approach is attempted, in the hope of finding out what justice or right conduct really is, instead of just clearing away misconceptions about it.