[Authors and titles are listed at the end of the review]
The aims of the conference on which this book is based were twofold: (1) the exploration of different interpretations of ancient Greek dialectic as a form of philosophical inquiry; and (2) the appreciation of the contribution of dialectic in the intellectual lives of ancient thinkers towards their relationships both with other people and with themselves.
The first aim is familiar to anyone even mildly interested in the conceptual history of ‘dialectic’. The second aim is a sight more particular. Dialectic, Mouzala claims in the Preface, was “the vehicle through which ancient Greek culture established a determinate role between political freedom and philosophy, while precisely those aspects of socio-political life, freedom of thought and expression, boosted its development and improved its use” (p. ix). This is explicitly based on the work of Enrico Berti.[1] Whatever the truth of this sociological claim, it represents an attempt to add a distinctly pragmatic color to one of the more abstruse subjects of philosophical discussion, a link between the bios theorētikos and the bios politikos. For that alone it should be applauded.
The introduction produces a potted history of ancient dialectic split into five subheadings: ‘The Origin of Dialectic, the Presocratics, and the Sophists’, ‘Socrates, Plato, and the Megarians’, ‘Aristotle, Peripatetics, Middle Platonists, Christian Platonists’, ‘Neoplatonic Philosophers and Commentators’ and ‘Michael Psellos: Dialectic in Byzantium’. These subheadings roughly mark out the territory covered by the volume’s papers, but more on that later. The volume is split in two halves, the first covering Classical Antiquity and the second covering Late Antiquity and the Byzantine period, each containing nine papers. The introduction includes a helpful synopsis of the papers, which I will now give in far more skeletal form in order to have it before our eyes.
François Renaud begins with a paper on ‘true rhetoric’ in Plato’s Gorgias, followed by Rafael Ferber’s paper on the ‘flight into the logoi’ in the Phaedo. Claudia Marsico then considers possible interactions between Plato and the Megarian school, before Beatriz Bossi tries to connect more closely the ‘dialogue’ aspect of dialectic and the ‘collection-division’ aspect of dialectic in the Phaedrus. Kristian Larsen focuses on the cognition of Being and Goodness in the Theaetetus, Mouzala herself takes a look at the fifth and sixth definitions of the Sophist, while Anna Pavani examines the ways in which, even within a single dialogue, the Plato’s ‘method’ of dialectic might fluctuate. Lucas Angioni rounds off the first section by analyzing the connection between peirastic arguments and an argumentative class which he names ‘sophistical demonstrations’. The second section begins with papers by Gweltaz Guyomarc’h, Silvia Fazzo, and Inna Kupreeva focusing on different aspects of dialectic in the peripatetic Alexander of Aphrodisias. Ilaria L. E. Ramelli looks at the reception of Platonic dialectic in Origen, while Michael Griffin considers the reception of Aristotelian methodology in the Neoplatonist tradition. Sara Klitenic Wear examines how Syrianus interprets the Parmenides, Dirk Baltzly presents Proclus’ conception of Platonic dialectic, Harold Tarrant considers the role of elenchus and syllogistic in Olympiodorus. and Han Baltussen looks at the reception of Aristotelian dialectic in Simplicius. Finally, Graeme Miles analyzes the work of Michael Psellos.
As far as these papers relate to the twin aims outlined in the preface, it is notable that studies explicitly tackling the first seem to outweigh by some distance those tackling the second. Perhaps that is to be expected. Dialectic, after all, has long been considered uniquely an epistemological and/or methodological phenomenon. The advertisement of the preface leads one to believe that this volume is seeking to redress this balance. Its success is mixed, partly because in its second aim it runs together, first, dialectic as a vehicle for understanding oneself with, second, dialectic as a vehicle for understanding others. The first of these clings far more closely to the first aim than the second does. We see how dialectic enables a better understanding of one’s relationship to oneself as a thinker particularly clearly in the chapters by Larsen, Mouzala, Pavani, and Griffin. The connection seems natural: thinkers as far back as Socrates and Plato seemed to realize that the activity of dialectic had a certain therapeutic quality. The activity of dialectic, of seeking out the truth, takes on a seemingly unavoidable introspective aspect. The link between dialectic as a philosophical methodology and as a vehicle for self-knowledge therefore seems a tight one. However, the preface promises an understanding of dialectic and “its overall contribution to the intellectual empowerment, independence, and autonomy of man with relation to the conditions of one’s life and the relationships with other people, both at a personal and socio-political level, as well as the relationship with oneself” (p. ix, my emphasis). This is a tantalizing suggestion, one which, as I have already alluded, would represent a new vista in the examination of dialectic. It is a shame, then, that it is not fully realized. Renaud’s opening chapter on the Gorgias and the relationship of ‘true rhetoric’ and ‘true politics’ hints at the connection. Griffin’s paper touches on the ‘ways of life’ in Late Antiquity. Outside of these, it is difficult to find so much as a passing reference to the specifically socio-political aspect of dialectic. Given the emphasis laid in the preface on the relationship between dialectic and the political freedoms so valued by modern societies and cultures, it would have been desirable to see some more concentrated focus on this aspect.
My brief synopsis of the contents also brings out another line of general criticism. For a volume on ‘ancient Greek dialectic’, there is a remarkably strong emphasis on Plato. Of the nine papers on the classical side, I count eight focusing on Platonic dialectic.[2] A slant towards Plato is easily forgiven. After all, he has more to say about dialectic than any other ancient thinker, and book-length monographs on Plato’s dialectic often despair in their prefaces that they can only cover so much. For a volume which claims the title of ‘Ancient Greek Dialectic’, however, this emphasis on Plato results in some rather staggering omissions. The other paper in the classical section, written by Angioni, focuses on some passages from Aristotle’s Sophistical Refutations, and is a well-argued study of the types of arguments contained within it. That this is all we are presented with on Aristotle’s dialectic seems rather short change, however. Granted, dialectic does not play the paramount role in Aristotle that it does in Plato. Still, as Mouzala herself recognizes in the introduction, debates over the exact role of dialectic in Aristotle’s thought have raged over the past century. Mouzala specifically highlights the Topics as a key work here, but this treatise is never given much attention in the volume’s papers. Given that the section on Late Antiquity features a number of papers examining the reception of Aristotle’s dialectic, some further contributions on what exactly these later thinkers were receiving would have been useful.
In fact, the longer one reads the introduction, the more questions that arise. The historical survey begins with a section on ‘The Origin of Dialectic, the Presocratics, and the Sophists’, yet none of these are ever treated in the volume. Mouzala is explicit that the ‘classical dialectic’ with which the conference was concerned begins “with Socrates and Plato, their opponents the Sophists, as they have been alluded to in Plato’s work, the Megarians amongst the Socratics, as well as Aristotle” (p. 5). It is doubly strange, then, that we find no treatment of the sophists, despite Mouzala’s recognition of the role of e.g. Protagoras, against whose conception of dialectic Plato was encouraged to set his own, and so little of Aristotle.[3] Even stranger is the heading ‘Aristotle, Peripatetics, Middle Platonists, Christian Platonists’, which seems to completely elide the other Hellenistic schools who had much to say about dialectic: the Early Peripatetics, Stoics, Epicureans, Academics and Skeptics. I grant that the bridge to Late Antiquity is primarily the work of Plato and Aristotle, and that recent work on Hellenistic dialectic (see Bénatouïl and Ierodiakonou 2018) may have lessened the need in the editor’s eyes to include much on these intervening thinkers. Still, this does not explain the lack of focus on Aristotle, the reception of whose work features prominently in the section focusing on later thinkers. In any case, the title ‘Ancient Greek Dialectic and its Reception’, and the promise in the introduction of treatment of “the period of Classical Antiquity onwards” should probably by emended.
None of these quibbles detracts from the papers contained herein, which across the board are scholarly and well-argued, and for the most part thoroughly engaging. There is much for the Plato scholar in particular to find worthwhile, and much too for anyone interested in Neoplatonism and later Christian thinkers. This volume represents a substantial contribution to the development of Platonic dialectic into, and the reception of Aristotelian dialectic within, Late Antiquity.
Authors and Titles
Part I: Ancient Greek Dialectic in Classical Antiquit
François Renaud, Dialectic as True Rhetoric in Plato’s Gorgias
Rafael Ferber, Socrates’ “Flight into the Logoi”: A Non-Standard Interpretation of the Founding Document of Plato’s Dialectic
Claudia Marsico, Friendly Fire: Dialectic Struggles between the Megarians and Plato
Beatriz Bossi, Eros on Stage: Dialogue and Dialectic in the Phaedrus
Kristian Larsen, Dialectic and the Activity of the Soul when Reaching for Being and the Good in Plato’s Theaetetus 184b3–186e12
Melina G. Mouzala, Pursuing Self-Knowledge in Plato’s Sophist. The Communion of the Sophistic and Socratic Dialectic in the Sixth Definition of the Sophist: A Reading Based on Proclus’ Interpretation of Dialectic in the Sophist
Anna Pavani, On Plato’s Late Dialectic: The Methods of Collection and Division
Lucas Angioni, Sophistical Demonstrations: A Class of Arguments Entangled with False Peirastic and Pseudographemata
Part II: Reception, Interpretation, Development and Influence of Ancient Greek Dialectic in Late Antiquity and Byzantium
Gweltaz Guyomarc’h, The Services of Dialectic: Dialectic as an Instrument for Metaphysics in Alexander of Aphrodisias
Silvia Fazzο, Aporiai with Multiple Solutions in Alexander of Aphrodisias
Inna Kupreeva, Alexander of Aphrodisias on the Principle of Non-Contradiction: The Argument “from Signification”
Ilaria L.E. Ramelli, Ancient Greek Dialectic and Its Reception in Origen of Alexandria: From Plato to Christ-Logos
Michael Griffin, Exegesis as Philosophy: Notes on Aristotelian Methods in Neoplatonic Commentary
Sarah Klitenic Wear, Syrianus and the Dialectical Cosmos
Dirk Baltzly, Proclus on Plato’s Dialectic: Argument by Performance
Harold Tarrant, Elenchus and Syllogistic in Olympiodorus of Alexandria
Han Baltussen, Simplicius and Aristotle’s Dialectic
Graeme Miles, Michael Psellos on Dialectic and Allegory
Works Cited
Bénatouïl, T., and Ierodiakonou, K. (eds.) (2018). Dialectic after Plato and Aristotle. Cambridge University Press.
Berti, E. (1978). ‘Ancient Greek Dialectic as Expression of Freedom of Thought and Speech’, Journal of the History of Ideas 39, 347–70.
Nehamas, A. (1999). ‘Eristic, Antilogic, Sophistic, Dialectic: Plato’s Demarcation of Philosophy from Sophistry’, History of Philosophy Quarterly 7, 3–16.
Notes
[1] Particularly, Berti 1978.
[2] Or perhaps, seven-and-a-half. Marsico’s paper concerns a possible dialogue between Plato and his Megarian contemporaries.
[3] See e.g. Nehamas 1990.