READING PLATO:

“…Plato’s philosophical views are mostly false, and for the most part they are evidently false; his arguments are mostly bad, and for the most part they are evidently bad.”
J. Barnes, “Introduction” to The Cambridge companion to Aristotle, xvi.

If this is true, it is surprising that it has taken almost 25 centuries to discover the fact. Perhaps it would be better to try to discover what Plato was doing. The following are my guidelines for such a project.

I. Principles of Platonic Interpretation

1. Any mistake I can detect, Plato could. This obviously doesn’t apply if it is a matter of Plato not anticipating the future, for example, his not having read Kant.
2. Plato was extraordinarily careful. The legend of his taking a hundred tries to get one sentence right is probably exaggerated, but it is unlikely that there are any irrelevances.
3. Plato did not want to become an authority. He indicates in several places (e.g., Letter VII) that he did not consider his work “philosophy,” apparently because real philosophy cannot be written down. He used his literary skill to create dialogues that direct the reader to think on various lines, but he does not tell us what to think. To keep us from turning him into an authority, he frequently misleads us; but it is always possible to discover when he is being misleading.
4. Dialogue is a form of drama, and the action counts as much as the words.
5. Socrates is not merely a spokesman for Plato. He is an embodiment of the philosophical mind, thinking “out loud.”
6. There is no Platonic doctrine, in the sense that we could write a list of tenets that Plato taught. There are typical ways Plato approaches a problem, concepts he frequently uses, even general principles that he accepts. There are, of course, also presuppositions that he was unaware of, or to which he saw no alternative. He also has negative views, positions he sees won’t work.
7. There are many reasons why philosophy cannot be written down or taught. The main one is that each thinker must go through the process personally: it is not something to think about, it is thinking.

II. Plato’s Devices

1. Bad arguments used by Socrates. Plato will sometimes use arguments that are obviously unsound. Usually, but not always, he says something that indicates that the argument is not to be taken seriously (there is a subtle example in Meno 80C). The fact that he continues arguing on the same point is also a good reason for thinking that an argument is inadequate: if the conclusion is proved, why give more arguments? The usual purpose of bad arguments is that they contain some hint of the truth. Plato’s position seems to be that if the arguments were totally wrong, they would not tempt anyone to accept them. Sometimes the bad arguments are used to show that Socrates’ listener is not thinking clearly; he should see that the argument is bad.
2. Appeals to authority, especially to poets. Authority does not prove anything, because we need to examine the reasons that led the authority to his/her conclusions (See Meno 71D). Plato specifically says that poets, even when they say the truth, do not understand their own words (Apology 22B).
3. Myths and mythological language. Myth is like poetry: it may be true, but we need to find the reasons for it. The difference is that Plato himself constantly makes up myths. Often we can read them as saying, “Something like this is so, but I do not have any way of clarifying it or defending it dialectically.” We can include under this heading metaphor, which in Plato is not sharply distinguishable from myth. One of the problems with the commentators on Plato is that they tend to accept at face value the metaphors and myths.
4. Uncriticized assumptions. Plato sometimes lets an assumption go by without criticism, usually noting the fact. The important thing is to realize that any conclusion drawn from premises that include uncriticized assumptions can be said to be true only subject to the truth of the assumptions. (See Meno 86Cf, where they proceed without a clear definition of virtue.)
5. Stage business. The dialogues are in dramatic form, and their dramatic setting is usually relevant. We should look at the scene (Phaidros is in an outdoor, rural setting), the actions of the characters, especially Socrates (he often illustrates in his actions the virtues under discussion), and the emotions expressed (for example, the power-worshippers get angry when criticized).
6. Disclaimers. These have been mentioned already, but we should explicitly note when Plato (Socrates) dissociates himself, by saying such things as “I shouldn’t like to take my oath on the whole story…” (Meno 86B).