Abstract

Avi Kujman claims in this book that the differentia between Plato and Socrates is essential to the understanding of Plato, and thus, to us qua philosophic souls who deal with the "absurde" and "the "mystery". First, Socrates tried to make a philosophy, as if it can be limited to the here and now, as if the here and now is not influenced and controlled by the more metaphysical questions; in postulating that the metaphysical is impossible, Socrates should have adhered rather to the mystical and to abandon altogether the philosophical. Second, Socrates, while not having the position of wisdom, should have abstained from the political; in "speaking", in his viva-voce philosophy, he brought "the many" into a situation of negativity and unhappy consciousness that had resulted inevitably, without a positive teaching and without their ability for self-culture, in a renewed conservatism that was eventually directed against him. Against these criticisms, Plato's humanistic attempt is revealed.