tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-529506053148930655.post8272896385918300674..comments2009-10-17T13:13:58.153-07:00Comments on American Plato: Hippias MinorMr. Platohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15967781008621799474noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-529506053148930655.post-48139340461368398422009-10-17T13:13:58.153-07:002009-10-17T13:13:58.153-07:00`Introduction'
The Hippias is definitely the ...`Introduction'<br /><br />The Hippias is definitely the most tongue-in-cheek of the dialogues. He's demonstrating a lesson that you need not always be sincere in order to make a point. It's classic Socratic irony and suggests the method of inquiry isn't a separate form of truth, the unqualified points of which one must abide by in order to be correct; in a sense, the most non-dogmatic form of discourse you could imagine (though putting it like that invites Continental comparisons that I don't think are very appropriate, except maybe perhaps for this particular dialogue). Socrates is demonstrating a point he makes throughout the dialogues, in book six of the Republic especially, that if you willingly restrict the terms of an argument or line of reasoning, and don't reflect on how that situation reflects only part of the actual reality, you can arrive at some pretty absurd conclusions. In this case, it's a question of potential where you'd rather intentionally tell untruths because that at least suggestss the capacity for speaking truth--provided that the only alternative presented is involuntarily doing bad things, like perverting the truth or justice. But at the end Socrates lets you in on the irony, rather uncharacteristically (he's usually a lot less user-friendly), by saying he doesn't accept the universal validity of their conclusions: The dialogue is silent on whether this impugns the possibility itself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com