Five ways of reading Plato

How to read Plato; and was Socrates real?
Five ways of reading Plato

When approaching Plato’s dialogues, we are led to a quandary concerning several contradictory positions held, and yet attributed to Socrates. The most blatant of these is between the positions held in Protagoras and Gorgias regarding the Socrates’ view(s) on pleasure. In the former he equates what is ‘good’ with pleasure; while in the latter he rejects this equation put forward by one of his interlocutors (Callicles).

I am not interested in resolving this contradiction. Many respected academics have tried to, and typically have come with opposing views. My interest in this article is to elucidate the varying possibilities of reading Plato’s dialogues; and indeed on the character of Socrates in these dialogues. I see five ways to approach Plato’s dialogues, all of which say something about the contradictions and, hopefully, can clear up the confusion arising from reading his work. It should go without saying that a combination of these ways is not only possible, but even recommended for an in-depth understanding of Plato. Yes, that could lead to contradictions (and much headache), but will also make the reading more pleasant and hopefully also clearer.

Plato as Socrates’ student

The view currently held by most scholars in the field is that Plato’s dialogues are based on a historical figure of Socrates. As his student, Plato thought as Socrates did (or thought that he thought as Socrates did) and aimed to represent Socrates’ views through his dialogues. What we thus have is Plato playing lip service to his master in his early work, aiming to spread Socrates’ views through his writing. As he matures, Plato engages in philosophy for its own sake and, while still playing lip service to Socrates, he in fact develops his thoughts further, changes his mind and becomes less ‘Socratic’ and more ‘Platonic’. The change from clear dialogical/conversational style in Plato’s early work to more scholarly work in his later dialogues is meant to testify to this end as well.

Holding this view explains the inconsistencies/contradictions – Plato grew from a student of Socrates to a philosopher in his own right. This reading may not explain all contradictions in Plato’s work, but it remains the most dominant one, and perhaps the most natural one to hold. We think it natural because, as teachers know, students more often than not start by mimicking their teachers for a very long time (and we hate that) and usually reproduce the college lectures to the best of their ability. It is only later in their research (if they become researchers) that their own voice slowly starts coming through.

Pedagogical method

It is often opined that some of Socrates’ positions and arguments are so poorly thought through, that it is almost embarrassing to even have put them to writing by his student. But what if Plato only intended to propose a pedagogical method? It is possible that his intentions were to have the reader think about the issues that are discussed, and find the answers by reading between the lines, between the different characters. Contemporary educators find great pleasure in this kind of ‘sadism’ – but the truth of the matter is that it also works very well. Studies have shown that giving answers to students up front is almost useless (I am exaggerating), and that going through the problem is of much more benefit (here I am not exaggerating). Some universities are slowly shifting towards something called Problem Based Learning (and similar, like Bloom’s taxonomy, etc.) precisely because going through problems is deemed of higher benefit to students than spoon-feeding them the right answers.

According to this view, the inconsistencies in Plato do not really matter – after all, neither Plato nor Socrates are then believed to hold any concrete views but only aim to encourage the reader/listener to think. In support of this claim, there is The Seventh Letter, which reveals the existence of his ‘secret teachings’ or ‘esoteric doctrine’, communicated orally and not written down in his dialogues. If this is the case, as some scholars have argued, then we can easily disregard the contradictions and hold the pedagogical method having some weight.

Plato the frivolous writer

Additionally, it can be held that Plato did not hold any particular views. He was merely exploring different possibilities, writing his thought processes down.  He was writing frivolously and without any particular outcome in mind. Any writer can confirm that we often do this – the aim is to strike that moment of inspiration from which something beautiful will come out. In Plato’s case, what came out are numerous dialogues of good quality on their own/individual standing. Their merit is precisely in that they can convince the reader of a position held in that one dialogue. The dialogues are then not meant to be compared to one another, but only to present the reader of a position. Any inconsistencies are irrelevant because Plato was not ‘dogmatically’ holding to any position but only aimed to write – he was, as it were, writing out loud. A lot of thought experiments in history of philosophy are in fact nothing more than this particular approach of thinking on a piece of paper – a ‘what if?’.

The point here is not to diminish Plato’s work as a mere thought experiment without any value, but in contrast to enrich it beyond the scholarly/academic philosophical reflection. Contradictions in his work become superfluous, the reader is enthused with a position – how far he aims to go with that position is then up to the reader. As long as the reader finds value in, and does not aim for some absolute truth beyond that value, becomes irrelevant.

Some recent scholars have pointed out that Plato was only using Socrates as a genre – the so-called Sôkratikoi logoi were written throughout this period and there is evidence of similar writings by Phaedo, Aeschines, Antisthenes, Euclides, and Aristippus (next to the better-known Plato and Xenophon whose works remain). The aim of this genre was to present a believable depiction of the real Socrates discussing similar topics that he would, but remaining fictitious at heart. The aim was, in other words, only to resemble the real Socrates by capturing his spirit and not to reproduce him. We have only somehow assumed that Plato was writing philosophical treatise, or historical narratives; in reality he was writing fictitious meetings of Socrates with great men and arguing certain positions. In this regard, Plato simply wrote as a tribute to Socrates, but did not aim to capture his thought, nor to present his own – in neither case do the contradictions then matter.4

The inconsistent Socrates

It is, of course, also simply possible that Socrates himself was somewhat of an eccentric person. My analysis of his trial certainly points to this direction – he aimed to antagonise his opponents, perhaps make fun of them, show their dogmatism and lack of grounds for their beliefs. Socrates may have been crazy and irrational, perhaps somewhat mad even, and believed opposing views simultaneously. Perhaps, as I have suggested before, he changed his mind on the issue depending with whom he was arguing, precisely for the reason of keep that passionate agon alive – ‘the Greek spirit’ as Arendt calls it. Socrates then was not interested in truth, as most contemporary philosophers are thought to be (very few in fact are), but only in the process of philosophising. Plato then only recorded the master’s words and deeds, he was a mere historian/biographer – impressed by a philosopher of great stature, he aimed to reproduce his words in writing for all to witness the ample abilities of his teacher to persuade whomever that they are wrong in whatever it is that they are believing.


  1. Cf. further Osborne, C. (2006). Socrates in Platonic Dialogues. Philosophical Investigations, 29 (1), pp. 1-21.
  2. I hold this position only speculatively, and I do not endorse it in any way. It is my belief that Ancient Greeks did not aim for an eternal truth, but for contingent wisdoms, which can only come by abandoning all dogmatic notions (eternal truth entails dogmatism). The inconsistent Socrates is an embryo of what would later come in Sextus Empiricus as Outlines of Pyrrhonism (Amazon, and my article here).
  3. I have once read that 'if Nietzsche does not contradict himself on an issue, he has not thought about that issue long enough' (paraphrasing). I am not entirely sure of the author, but I think it was Karl Jaspers. The same, I contend, applies to Plato.
  4. Cf. further Osborne, C. (2006). Socrates in Platonic Dialogues. Philosophical Investigations, 29 (1), pp. 1-21.


  1. I really like your readings, and I think they are mutually compatible and reinforce each other nicely.

    I particularly like view (3), because I tend to develop my own ideas through frivolous writing and do not expect them to have great consistency over time. Dialogues with ‘prophets’ or ‘moral exemplars’, in the particular form of Socratic dialogue, also seems like a popular medium of the time and since. However, I also doubt this view given that writing and publishing in Athens would have been significantly more difficult than it is today, even for somebody as wealthy as Plato. I can’t imagine that Plato would write frivolously instead of developing his philosophy through discussion with students, as Socrates before him and Aristotle after him did.

    1. Frivolous writer should probably be between hyphens. I tend to agree with you that it is doubtful that Plato would simply write down whatever came to his mind; much thought definitely went into the dialogues, and much preceding discussion with his students, etc.

      My point is of course, as you understand, that he wrote not with a particular consistency in mind, but for the sake of writing. As the last paragraph of that view shows, there was a genre of writing where Socrates would meet people of fame and have arguments with them. The aims of the dialogue are irrelevant then, there is a level of entertainment, rather than learning, involved. And the audience then is very limited to the similar writers, not academics over two millennia later. But as other views, this is only a speculation. But I think it fruitful to occasionally approach Plato from this position as well, as you say, and I say too, a combination of these ways are always possible and indeed encouraged.

Leave a Reply