Review of Metaphysics 52 (3):703-704 (1999)

Abstract
With this new book the gap between Straussian and analytic approaches to Plato’s dialogues begins to look like it is unbridgeable. While the analytic side has been furiously fussing over the critical minutia regarding the dating and authenticity of the Platonic dialogues in order to determine what we can know of Socrates through Plato, Lutz without so much as a nod toward that project simply takes any Platonic dialogue to be a reliable guide to “Socrates” and his thought. This will sit poorly with those who think that we can no more know about Socrates from reading Platonic dialogues than we can about Jesus from reading the Gospels. Further, in the drama-versus-doctrine debate that is the great divide among Anglo-American scholars today, Lutz, like many a Straussian, opts for drama in the dialogues, rather than arguments in them, as the “least arbitrary and most revealing way” to philosophy. Lutz’s thesis is that Plato uses drama to support substantive Socratic theses, one of which is, according to Lutz, that “by nature we are moved by an erotic need to know we are ‘noble and good’”. Also according to Lutz, the recognition of this need is Socrates’ meaningful insight into human motivation, that of philosopher and scientist alike. He warns, however, that Socrates never decisively refutes his interlocutors’ rival conceptions of nobility and goodness. This is especially evident in the ongoing dialectic among the interlocutors in Plato’s Republic, which Lutz believes is dedicated to an examination of civic virtue. In addition, the dramatic portrayal of Socrates’ inability to educate Alcibiades shows, according to Lutz, “a fundamental limit on the power of reason to reform political life”. The value of Socratic education therefore consists in the idea that the content of virtue and efficacy of rationality are open to interpretation and must necessarily remain so. This essentially searching education, Lutz believes, may thus help us in our fragmented postmodern world, especially in bringing together competing conceptions of virtue in literature, politics, law, and science, and perhaps even Straussian and analytic philosophy.
Keywords Catholic Tradition  Contemporary Philosophy  General Interest
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s) 0034-6632
DOI revmetaph199952334
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 71,259
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Philosophy of Socrates.Gregory Vlastos - 1971 - Garden City, N.Y., Anchor Books.
Socrates, Pleasure, and Value.George Rudebusch - 1999 - Oxford University Press.
Four Educators in Plato's Theaetetus.Avi I. Mintz - 2011 - Journal of Philosophy of Education 45 (4):657-673.
Socrates on Personal Survival and Politics.Asli Gocer - 1997 - Ancient Philosophy 17 (2):283-289.
Plato on Education and Art.Rachana Kamtekar - 2008 - In Gail Fine (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Plato. Oxford University Press. pp. 336--359.
The Parthenon Papers.David Boonin‐Vail - 1989 - Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 3 (3-4):579-588.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2012-03-18

Total views
31 ( #370,771 of 2,518,714 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #408,070 of 2,518,714 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes