Book Club: Early Socratic Dialogues, 8, Euthydemus and the difference between sophistry and philosophy

Ancient Athens

We have finally reached the last installment of my chapter-by-chapter commentary on Early Socratic Dialogues, the wonderful collection with new translations put out by Penguin and edited by Chris Emlyn-Jones. (The first five installments can be found at the old Footnotes to Plato, here; part 6 is here; and part 7 here.) This last entry is about the Euthydemus, whose main purpose is to contrast the Socratic approach to philosophy with that of the Sophists, represented by Plato in the form of the brothers Euthydemus (the title character) and Dionysodorus.

Since the Sophist Protagoras is mentioned here in the past tense, while the general Alcibiades is referred to as being still alive, historians place the action between 420 and 405 BCE. Philosophical and linguistic analyses situate the dialogue near the end of the early Socratic period, but with Plato still firmly presenting his mentor’s thinking, as distinct from the middle and late dialogues, which are more representative of Plato’s own mature philosophy. The Euthydemus is also one of the most amusing and best written of all Plato’s dialogues. Indeed, since it features a prologue and a clearly defined epilogue, it is even tempting to treat it as a (philosophical) play.

In the Euthydemus, Plato overtly labels the brothers’ approach as “eristic,” a technical term meaning contentious, or designed for victory. This is meant to be obviously distinct from the Socratic aim of arriving at the truth, or at least at better understanding. The eristic approach used by Euthydemus and Dionysodorus is, more specifically, of the antilogic type, meaning that it proceeds from a given logos, for instance the position adopted by an opponent, to the establishment of a contradictory logos in such a way that the opponent must either accept both logoi, or at least abandon his first position. The goal is neither truth nor understanding, but the defeat of an interlocutor seen as an opponent.

Setting aside legitimate qualms about just how fairly Plato characterizes the Sophists (I am planning a post on Protagoras to explore this question), this strikes me as so modern as to be uncanny. Much of our current discourse, especially on social media, and particularly about politics…