Why Engage in Philosophical Conversation?
A few months ago, I read an interesting book entitled Socrates in the Cave: On the Philosopher’s Motive in Plato (Edited by Paul J. Diduch and Michael P. Harding, Palgrave MacMillan, 2019). The book comprises 15 essays inquiring into why Socrates engaged in philosophical dialogue. I’ll set aside the difficulty of distinguishing between the historical Socrates and the Socrates of Plato’s dialogues and instead consider a few significant questions raised in the book.
First, was Socrates hoping to learn from his conversation partners? As one author writes, he was the intellectual superior in every (or nearly every) conversation, with the possible exception of the dialogue between Parmenides and the young Socrates, which occurred when Parmenides was in his prime and the young thinker was yet to find his. One thus wonders what Socrates could have learned from discussions with intellectual inferiors. It seems unlikely that his inferiors directly taught him anything of value, although in Apology he indicates that by speaking with his contemporaries he learned some important things about the human condition.
Second, did Socrates hope to teach his discussion partners? He claimed not to be a teacher, at least not in the traditional sense. Moreover, most of his interlocutors lacked the philosophical nature – a nature quite rare for human beings – and hence were unlikely to learn from him. Theaetetus is an exception: he seems to have been a youth with a philosophical nature and therefore an exception to Socrates’ typical associates. This raises the intriguing question: What constitutes the philosophical nature? (The answer depends on what ‘philosophy’ is. I’ve started to address this issue here.) In any case, perhaps Socrates intended to provide obstetrical guidance to the few of his friends who were able to think philosophically.
Third, did Socrates have other motives? For instance, did he take himself to be completing a divine mission? There is evidence in Apology that he did construe his work in this way. Was he trying to serve as an exemplar for philosophers who observed him, either in the flesh or in the future by reading Plato’s corpus? Clearly, Plato learned from Socrates, and many have learned from reading Plato; we should be thankful for these boons to humanity. Was Socrates working out his own philosophical nature? Did he intend to take dialectic as far as he could and reflect on the results? These are plausible explanations for his philosophical career.
Such questions can be generalized and posed to other philosophers who communicate their thoughts publicly. Most folks are not prepared to follow the ideas of a philosopher, lacking as they do the intellect, will, and/or desire rigorously to pursue philosophical problems. And yet philosophers disseminate their ideas to the public. Why?