In Plato’s Apology we have an account of Socrates ..

Through my reading of Plato's Apology of Socrates and Crito, I have been able to see how Socrates makes important decisions and what he primarily bases his decisions on.

Xenophon | Socrates | Apology (Plato)

It is here Plato speaks his own version of a speech given by Socrates to defend himself.
Photo provided by

Reason and persuasion | Apology (Plato) | Socrates

Some of the furor surrounding deconstruction has now died down, and discussion need no longer be in terms of endorsement or rejection. This essay explores one case in which the language of Plato's Ion, seen through deconstructive glasses, can unsettle the ostensibly fixed polarity of reason and inspiration. I try to trace the consequences of borrowing an interpretive strategy, while not embracing the basic tenets of deconstruction. Section I outlines the contrast set out in the Ion between reason and inspiration in the activity of the rhapsode. Then, focusing on the word (mind), Section II considers the instability of that contrast. Such speculation begins, in a very traditional manner, by finding and articulating the apparent intentions of a text, the dominant rhetoric, what it 'means'. But then, in a manner borrowed from deconstruction, this reading of the text is unsettled by recovering the latent reverberations of the language, which can upset the dominant rhetoric. In a fashion appropriate to Plato's early dialogues, this essay then ends with a question mark (Section III); my musings, in the end, may not elaborate the instability of language itself (as in more committed deconstruction), but rather the instability of the rhapsode Ion's own use of language. In this way, these somewhat tame deconstructive moves may embellish and deepen (rather than subvert and refute) more traditional modes of interpretation. Finally, there is an appendix, something of a palinode.

Socrates and Plato (or Socrates is Plato?) | philastockton

The postulated contrast between reason and inspiration is drawn by a univocal, denotative reading; the dominant rhetoric of the text has established this contrast. Plato has used the language to make a clear separation between the two sources of interpretive ability. In a deconstructive reading, however, any term in any text is an unstable accumulation of expectations and anticipations, resonances and recollections. Also, in a deconstructive reading, there are no dead metaphors; we are enjoined to unpack etymologies and idiomatic phrases, even (and especially) if they do not support the argument of the text. A deconstructive reading sets aside the controlling expectations of unity, coherence, and denotative meaning, all of which guide most of our readings: we are advised to look for unwanted associations that unravel the weave of the univocal reading. The thread which I shall pull here is the use of as an exclusive property of REASON. It is used most explicitly in the explanation of the simile of the magnet- stone (534b3-6):

The reason Socrates is one of histories most famous philosophers is largely due to Plato's writings.
Photo provided by

What politicians could learn from Plato | Thought Leader

The contradiction, it seems, focuses on whether or not Socrates is a proponent of civil (dis)obedience, and the apparent conflict between the two works revolves around passages from the Apology, that seem t...

Religion and Mythology Flashcards | Quizlet

The suspicion remains that Plato is looking over our shoulder.() This use of the deconstructive approach may not have unraveled the exclusive distinction between reason and inspiration, but rather taken the argument one step further. What if, in playful fashion, this figural slippage is part of the argument? The exposure of Ion's in his apparently inspired performances and disquisitions may not indicate that the distinction between reason and inspiration does not hold. It may lead, rather, to the more merciless conclusion that Ion has neither. Socrates claims that Ion does not understand what he does, but is, rather, inspired, a state defined by the absence of . Ion claims, however, to have his with him when he is supposed to be inspired. Perhaps Ion, as caricatured in this dialogue, has neither reason nor inspiration.

Reason and Persuasion, Three Dialogues By Plato ..

We know that the rhapsode's ability to speak about Homer, as well as his ability to recite the poems, derives from inspiration; , , and have no part in this activity (532c5-8, 533d1-3, 534b6). Yet Ion can and does express about Homer. How can he produce 'that which comes about through his ' if he has no ? (This is a form of reasoning used by Socrates; cf. Apology 27c1: if there are then there must be .) The word , in this context, denotes Ion's pieces of Homeric criticism, without a connotation of the embedded . But, although latent in this context, slips in through . While this is not enough to undercut the division established in the dialogue, it does gaze across the gap.