7.7: Dialectic

Last updated
Save as PDF

Page ID: 94550

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \) \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)\(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)\(\newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

See 531c-535a. All these mathematical studies “are merely preludes to the theme itself,” the art of philosophical conversation, or “dialectic,” a form of “inquiry that tries to acquire a systematic and wholly general grasp of what each thing itself is,” and attempts to do this by means of “discussion and apart from sense perceptions.” It is a simple enough activity as Socrates describes it: give “an account of the being of each thing,” and then “survive all examination, as if in battle.” As a description of philosophical conversation, this is like saying that playing the piano is sitting down and pushing the keys in the right order. Still, it characterizes at the most basic level what philosophical conversation has been from Plato’s time down to our own. Its elements are question, answer, objection, and reply. Not all philosophers over the centuries have agreed that forms exist, and not all have made a point of presenting their philosophical reflections dialectically, but these elements – question, answer, objection, and reply – remain essential to the kind of probing, critical thinking characteristic of what philosophers do.

If the account of a form – say, the form of justice – is examined dialectically and remains unrefuted, is there reason to suppose it is true?
Is there a better way than dialectical inquiry to determine what it is for a human being to be just? Is there any other way?
Does dialectic require working with other people or is it something that can be done alone?