Against that interpretation, it turns out (I should have checked before) that while Simonides was a poet, the other wise men mentioned — Bias and Pittacus — seem to have been sages or philosophers. I have a feeling that this doesn't entirely destroy my interpretation, but I'm not sure.

Maybe setting up a guilt by association? The wealthy pay the piper and he plays their tune. So the poet is just a tool.

Or undermining any claims to authority with respect to wealthy men and poets alike.

Other than that, I've got nothing.

Thank you for starting this discussion. An exceptional OP with clear thoughts, quotes and sources.

My first attempt at reading Plato's Republic was some time ago. I think on the OnlinePhilosophyClub site. Even with help from @Fooloso4 and an online course, I found it perplexing and gave up on it.

I'm interested in interpretations of a comment by Socrates in Book 1 of the Republic. — Jamal

Yes. I look forward to hearing more. As yet, I don't understand enough to participate with any confidence. Now motivated to pick it up again and pleased to say that I rediscovered the online Open Yale course.

Prof Steven Smith is excellent and has an easy rapport with his students who are active participants. The video lectures include transcript and audio. Also available on YouTube.

https://oyc.yale.edu/political-science/plsc-114/lecture-4

The Seven Wise Men could not have been wrong nor would they teach such a distasteful doctrine. I think this reasoning (or lack thereof) adds more to the character development of Socrates, specifically giving the reader another reason not to trust him. Probably a reference to his arguments in Protagoras

Plato, Republic, translated by C. D. C. Reeve, Hackett (2004) — Jamal

I searched for the free online version for ease of reading and using quotes.
Reeve's approach seems sensible. From the Preface:

Every translation, even the most self-consciously and flat-footedly slavish, is somewhat interpretative. There is no avoiding that. But I have tried to make this one as uninterpretative and close to the original as possible. One conscious deviation from strict accuracy, however, will be obvious at a glance.

The Republic is largely in reported speech. Socrates is relating a conversation he had in the past. But I have cast his report as an explicit dialogue in direct speech, with identified speakers. In the Theaetetus, Plato has Eucleides adopt a similar stratagem. “This is the book,” he says to Terpsion; “You see, I have written it out like this: I have not made Socrates relate the conversation as he related it to me, but I represent him as speaking directly to the persons with whom he said he had this conversation.” Decades of teaching the Republic have persuaded me that the minimal loss in literalness involved in adopting Eucleides’ stratagem is more than made up for in readability and intelligibility. — The Republic (trans. C.D.C. Reeve)

Maybe setting up a guilt by association? The wealthy pay the piper and he plays their tune. So the poet is just a tool. — Benkei

Guilt by association, yes, and several levels of it: (1) the definition is suspect because it came from these bad guys; (2) Polemarchus is ignorant or insuffiently virtuous for the same reason; and (3) is the weird one that I'm advancing, that the poets are bad too. The trouble with (3) is that Socrates explicitly says the opposite, and that's why I'm saying it's ironic.

Or undermining any claims to authority with respect to wealthy men and poets alike. — Benkei

Yep, that's part of what I'm getting at, I think.

Other than that, I've got nothing. — Benkei

No no, you did well.

Thank you for starting this discussion. An exceptional OP with clear thoughts, quotes and sources. — Amity

Thank you.

My first attempt at reading Plato's Republic was some time ago. I think on the OnlinePhilosophyClub site. Even with help from Fooloso4 and an online course, I found it perplexing and gave up on it. — Amity

It is rather perplexing, yes, and only gets more perplexing the closer you look. The last time I read it, a long time ago now, I read it too shallowly. What's working for me this time is the Reeve translation and secondary literature such as An Introduction to Plato's Republic by Julia Annas, which is a pretty thorough analysis that's very good for encouraging you to read more closely than the text seems to demand at first.

I haven't watched the Yale videos but I did find a series of lectures that works as a reliable introductory guide (I've found many other videos, such as those by Michael Sugrue, to be engaging but unreliable and shallow).

I considered leading a reading group here but I have mixed feelings about them.

Yes. I look forward to hearing more. As yet, I don't understand enough to participate with any confidence. — Amity

It should be noted that what I'm interested in here is a side-issue. Many introductions and guides don't even mention it, so it's not important for reaching a basic understanding of the work.

EDIT: To be clear, the side-issue is what Socrates means in this passage from Book 1, not his views of poets and tyrants.

A different interpretation just occurred to me and we might be reading more into it than he meant.

He seems to be nice to the poets, but is he really? He only believes the idea of doing good to friends and harming enemies didn't originate with them. It doesn't logically follow that Socrates thinks poets are absolved from wrongdoing. And we find no irony in his approach as a result.

Well, he does hold up Simonides as a man of wisdom, and he does (on the face of it) imply that Simonides could not have been wrong.

Shorter answer:

The question of whether a saying or definition should be credited to someone who is wise is secondary to the question of what the saying or definition means:

Well,” said I, “it certainly is not easy to disbelieve Simonides, for he is a wise and divine man. But although you probably appreciate what precisely he is saying, Polemarchus, I do not understand it.

(331e)

Socrates attempts to clarify what Simonides means:

Then when Simonides says that giving back what is owed is just, he is not referring to this sort of thing but to something else.

(332a)

He goes on:

“In that case,” said I, “it seems Simonides was speaking in riddles, as poets do, when he spoke of what is just. For apparently he had in mind that what is just is this: ‘giving back what is appropriate to each’. But to this he gave the name ‘what is owed’".

(332b-c)

What is owed and what is appropriate are not the same thing. This is a crucial distinction:

So, if someone maintains that it is just to give back what is owed to each, and by this he means that harm is owed to enemies by the just man, and benefit is owed to friends, the person saying this was not wise for he did not speak the truth, since it has become evident to us that there are no circumstances in which it is just to harm anyone. [Emphasis added.]

(335e)

There is a shift from what Socrates thinks Simonides meant to what:

… anyone [who] maintains that Simonides, or Bias, or Pittacus, or any other wise and blessed man, has said so.

(335e)

Prior to this Socrates asks:

“Then tell me,” said I, “you, the inheritor of the argument, what do you say Simonides says, and says correctly,about justice?”

(331e)


This leads to the longer answer.

There are several themes that are developed at the beginning of the dialogue including the questions of persuasion and inheritance. We need to take a step back.

Socrates asks Polemarchus :

Could we not persuade you that you should let us leave?

(327e)

The question of persuasion and its means is of central importance. On the one hand, it is behind both the arguments of Thrasymachus and the other sophists as well as those of Socrates and the philosophers, and, on the other, of the poet’s stories of men and gods. The stories of the poets are an inherited means of persuasion manifest as belief. From an early age children are told the poet’s stories.

Socrates asks:

Cephalus,” said I, “did you inherit most of what you have, or did you acquire it yourself?”

(330a)

In response Cephalus says:

As a money-maker, I am sort of midway between my grandfather and my father. For my grandfather, whose name I bear, having inherited about as much wealth as I have now acquired, made many times as much as this again. Then my own father, Lysanias, reduced the wealth below its present value, while I would be pleased if I could leave just as much as I inherited to these lads here, and a little more besides.

(330b)

Polemarchus inherits his father’s argument regarding justice. (331e) What will he make of it? Will he become more just or less just than his father? What shapes his idea of justice? Does he depend on the wisdom of the poets or those who make arguments?

This is reflected in what Socrates says next:

Well,” said I, “it certainly is not easy to disbelieve Simonides, for he is a wise and divine man. But although you probably appreciate what precisely he is saying, Polemarchus, I do not understand it.

(331e)

It is not simply a matter of inheriting wisdom, as if it can be passed down from generation to generation as wise sayings, but of how one is to understand what is said and how one makes use of it. In other words, it is not simply either the poets or the philosophers but of how one understands and makes use of the stories of the poets and the arguments offered by sophists and philosophers.

The opening exchange with Polemarchus asks about the connection between persuasion and power. Socrates accuses the sophists of making the weaker argument the stronger. It is, however, not at all clear what is to stand as the weaker or stronger argument. Thrasymachus reduces justice to power. Argument is regarded as a means to power. The power of argument, however, depends, as Polemarchus points out, on whether someone is willing to listen. Otherwise it is powerless.

Cephalus believes his money is power. It is used in his old age to protect himself. His only interest in being just is self-serving. He is persuaded by the fear engendered by the poet’s stories of what will happen to him when he dies.

We might ask whether Socrates is wise in claiming that we should not harm our enemies. How can one win a war without harming his enemies? It is at this point that Thrasymachus enters the argument. What Socrates means is put on hold but remains in the background. Socrates agrees in part with Thrasymachus. He does not deny that there is an element of self-interest in being just. He attempts to persuade Glaucon and Adeimantus that being just is itself a benefit, both to oneself and to others. To this end, he acts the poet, weaving stories together with arguments.

Cephalus believes his money is power. It is used in his old age to protect himself. His only interest in being just is self-serving. He is persuaded by the fear engendered by the poet’s stories of what will happen to him when he dies. — Fooloso4

Maybe it's just the phrasing, but that seems a little harsh. I had rather a good impression of the old man, and I thought Socrates did too. His age and circumstances allow him to be more interested in less worldly matters, like talking with Socrates, which won't make him or his family any richer.

His age and circumstances allow him to be more interested in less worldly matters, like talking with Socrates, which won't make him or his family any richer. — Srap Tasmaner

Implying (unintentionally) that philosophy is only good when you're old and have nothing better to do, hardly something that would enamour him to Socrates.

But I agree that F's picture of him is a little one-sided.

philosophy is only good when you're old and have nothing better to do — Jamal

I wasn't talking about TPF, exactly.

Still, as I recall, Socrates says he's interested in talking to him precisely because of his advanced age, and seems to hope it will be a more reflective time of life, when matters of the soul might loom larger than worldly affairs. And he crosses that interest with a question about his wealth, whether he can only spare his attention because of his financial security. (Maybe he doesn't specifically ask that, I don't remember, but he's interested in how much interest he has in money and why.)

To me, the idea of old age being naturally a philosophical period strikes me as quite reasonable and very Greek, if I may say so. At the other end, Socrates tries to get at the (noble) young before they're too caught up in responsibilities and cares. Also natural and reasonable, in the same way.

By "Greek" I mean that obsession with stages of growth and development, progression toward embodying your deepest nature, that stuff.

I don't know if it's relevant, but back then, there were no academic credentials to add weight to an idea. It was common for people to pass their own ideas off as the ideas of famous people in order to gain credibility. An elaborate example of it is the book of Daniel in the Old Testament. From the text, we can tell that this book was written much later than it purports to be. They used the name of Daniel because he was a folk-figure. He was supposed to have been a wise man, but there's no record of his existence.

Plato might have been sensitive to this issue because he himself was using Socrates as a mouthpiece. So it's possible that the exchange is the sort of thing we do when we argue over sources, but the whole issue was much more wide open. There might have also been some clever subtext to it as well.

In Book 2, the trio begins sorting the poets into different baskets. Adeimantus says:

“Fathers, when speaking to their sons and offering them advice, and indeed anyone 363A who cares for anyone, speak to them presumably about the need to be just, by praising not justice itself but the good reputation derived from it, saying that by seeming to be just, from the reputation alone, they may secure positions of authority, and marriages, and whatever else Glaucon listed just now, all from having a reputation for being just.

“Yet these people have more to say on the subject of reputation. For when they throw in good reputation in the eyes of the gods, they describe a whole host of goods that, they declare, are given by the gods to holy people, just as noble Hesiod, and 363B Homer too, declare in one case that for the just people the gods make oak trees

Bear acorns in their topmost branches with swarms of bees below.

“And he says,

Their woolly sheep are weighed down with fleeces.[4]

“And there are many other good things connected to these. In the other case, Homer says something similar:

… as of some king who, as a blameless man and god-fearing,

and ruling as lord over many powerful people,

363C upholds the way of good government, and the black earth yields him

barley and wheat, his trees are heavy with fruit, his sheep flocks

continue to bear young, the sea gives him fish…[5] — Plato, Republic, 363A, translated by Horan

It is odd that Adeimantus puts such an emphasis upon reputation when it seems the virtuous are receiving actual benefits from the gods themselves, not just looking cool to other people. This oddity is continued in the talk immediately following of succeeding generations getting a benefit from virtuous living.

In any case, Simonides probably belongs in the first basket rather than the ones about to be introduced in the dialogue. The Thrasymachus thing is more obviously presented in the subsequent baskets. So, what to make of Socrates pulling this particular beard?

In the Republic, Socrates attacks not only the abusers of power and wealth, i.e., tyrants, but also poets. — Jamal

In those days, poets existed [made their living] through the patronage of the rich. They penned praises for their patrons.

That portion of the story plays a part in the Republic.

Still, as I recall, Socrates says he's interested in talking to him precisely because of his advanced age, and seems to hope it will be a more reflective time of life, when matters of the soul might loom larger than worldly affairs. And he crosses that interest with a question about his wealth, whether he can only spare his attention because of his financial security. (Maybe he doesn't specifically ask that, I don't remember, but he's interested in how much interest he has in money and why.) — Srap Tasmaner

I don't think we get an indication that Socrates hopes old age will be a more reflective time of life. The point is different. When Cephalus says that old age brings peace and freedom from the appetites, Socrates says

I imagine when you say that, Cephalus, the masses do not accept it. On the contrary, they think you bear old age more easily, not because of the way you live, but because you are wealthy. For the wealthy, they say, have many consolations. — 329e

And this is not just or primarily about how you live when you're old but about how you have lived throughout your life and what kind of character you have, a point that Cephalus has in fact already made. So Socrates approves of Cephalus to that extent.

Socrates next focuses on wealth and seems to drop his interest in old age. It's not clear how they relate to each other, but if old age is connected to power, as it was in prominent families of Athens, then the conversation leads quite naturally to Socrates' criticism of wealth and power in relation to the tyrants (Periander, or Perdiccas, and Xerxes, and Ismenias of Thebes). In other words, in the conversation with Cephalus it's not really about old age as such, but about traditional authority.

EDIT: I've realized that what I've said above is not a clear response to you. But I'll leave it and hope you can get something out of it.

To me, the idea of old age being naturally a philosophical period strikes me as quite reasonable and very Greek, if I may say so. At the other end, Socrates tries to get at the (noble) young before they're too caught up in responsibilities and cares. Also natural and reasonable, in the same way.

By "Greek" I mean that obsession with stages of growth and development, progression toward embodying your deepest nature, that stuff. — Srap Tasmaner

Good point. You can't be a philosopher king until you're 50. However, this is a final promotion following a life of preparation directed to the most noble way of serving the community, whereas Cephalus' turn to discussion in old age seems frivolous -- he has done the important work in his life already, and since he leaves the debate the moment he gets a difficult question, it looks like he's not so interested in discussion as he claims, or else he really just wants a chat.

But yes, Cephalus is not simply a bad or contemptible character. As is often the case in the Republic, Plato is dialectical in more than just the ancient Greek sense.

I don't know if it's relevant, but back then, there were no academic credentials to add weight to an idea. It was common for people to pass their own ideas off as the ideas of famous people in order to gain credibility. An elaborate example of it is the book of Daniel in the Old Testament. From the text, we can tell that this book was written much later than it purports to be. They used the name of Daniel because he was a folk-figure. He was supposed to have been a wise man, but there's no record of his existence.

Plato might have been sensitive to this issue because he himself was using Socrates as a mouthpiece. So it's possible that the exchange is the sort of thing we do when we argue over sources, but the whole issue was much more wide open. There might have also been some clever subtext to it as well. — frank

In those days, poets existed [made their living] through the patronage of the rich. They penned praises for their patrons. — L'éléphant

Excellent points. Thank you.

In Book 2, the trio begins sorting the poets into different baskets. — Paine

Great, I'd forgotten about that.

Thank you for your contribution, which is informed and interesting. The point about inheritance is particularly good — I hadn't thought about that much.

Quite how your post relates to the OP, though, I am struggling to understand, because you don't actually say (except to suggest that the question of attribution is secondary, and the bit about P's appeal to authority).

A better way of using quotations is to illustrate an argument you make in your own words (an interpretive argument in this case). As it is, when you do proceed to use your own words, it's contextual exegesis that does not seem to produce any relevantly pointed conclusions or questions. I'm quite a good reader, but reading the great works of philosophy is hard enough without having to struggle to understand people you're discussing them with.

Thanks for further recommendations.

Yes. I look forward to hearing more. As yet, I don't understand enough to participate with any confidence.
— Amity

It should be noted that what I'm interested in here is a side-issue. Many introductions and guides don't even mention it, so it's not important for reaching a basic understanding of the work.
EDIT: To be clear, the side-issue is what Socrates means in this passage from Book 1, not his views of poets and tyrants. — Jamal

Thanks for clarification. It seems I was misled by the title: Poets and tyrants in the Republic, Book I

It seems that you are limiting the discussion to a particular passage and what Socrates means by it.

Fair enough. However, I've never been a fan of speculating about the meaning of a quote without understanding the wider context.

Plato's views about poetry are part and parcel of this. And how he uses Socrates in the Dialogues to express them.

In the Republic, Socrates attacks not only the abusers of power and wealth, i.e., tyrants, but also poets.
— Jamal
In those days, poets existed [made their living] through the patronage of the rich. They penned praises for their patrons. — L'éléphant

I think there is more to be said about poets and the different types. Interesting to read that some travelled in groups and attended the various city festivals. A festival is the starting point of Book 1.
It is important to recognise this and the religious/political aspects.

But not only the poet could be a traveller. The public also could make a journey by attending or reading a text. And even more, a poem could travel and spread the fame of both poet and patron. Names like Theognis and Pindar are examples of that. And there’s still another possibility of travel in the act of composing or enacting a poem. This also can be seen as a kind of journey and the Argonautica, by Apollonius Rhodius, must be cited in this context.

It was very common that poets and performers travelled to receive honors like the proxenia but also to get payment, like the epinician composers and the Artists of Dionysus. This kind of activity continued into Hellenistic times and even into the Roman period, as the example of Archias, the poet defended by Cicero, shows. So, there were a munber of motivations that led to poetic mobility. — Wandering Poets in Ancient Greek Culture - Bryn Mawr

Context needs to be understood as to why Plato might wish to banish poets, even as he wrote in such a poetic and creative manner.

In his time poets were certainly not outcast rebels like the Beat Generation, nor pursuers of the sublime like the Romantics. They were highly revered central actors in ancient Greek city-states. Poems functioned as much more than mere aesthetic artifacts — they represented gods, goddesses, and partially narrated historical and everyday events. More importantly, they played a significant role in social life, reenacted through theatrical performances. Poets, also often called “bards”, traveled around and recited their poems. Plato himself expresses his respect to great poets, acknowledging their talents as a form of “god-sent madness” that not everyone is gifted with. — Plato's Philosophy of Poetry in the Republic

So, poetry had a social function. Poets are highly influential. However, there is a danger of misinterpretation and manipulation. Do they reflect a true state of affairs?

Plato in his Dialogues and as a poet has also been interpreted in different ways. And I think that was his main project. To show the importance of philosophy, to arouse both the intellect and passions. The danger lies in misinterpretation...

In Book 2, the trio begins sorting the poets into different baskets.
— Paine

Great, I'd forgotten about that. — Jamal

Do you intend to widen the focus beyond Book 1 ?

Do you intend to widen the focus beyond Book 1 ? — Amity

Well, everything in Book 1 is relevant to the rest of the work, so even though I'm focusing on a particular passage there, I'm not intending to restrict the conversation. My point was that my particular focus, even if it's a way into the wider themes, is not itself indispensable on the way to an understanding of the work --- there are other, perhaps better, things to focus on. It's probably an eccentric focus. It's a bit like a literary easter egg, (although in the Republic you could argue it's not quite so trivial or irrelevant as that).

EDIT: Another way of saying this is that my focus is more important from a literary than from a philosophical point of view.

Context needs to be understood as to why Plato might wish to banish poets, even as he wrote in such a poetic and creative manner. — Amity

This is one of the fascinating tensions in Plato. Relatedly, he denigrates mere images but uses imagery all the time.

A festival is the starting point of Book 1.
It is important to recognise this and the religious/political aspects. — Amity

Socrates
I1 went down yesterday to the Peiraeus2 with Glaucon, the son of Ariston, to pay my devotions3 to the Goddess,4 and also because I wished to see how they would conduct the festival since this was its inauguration.5 I thought the procession of the citizens very fine, but it was no better than the show, made by the marching of the Thracian contingent. [327b] — Perseus Tufts - Plato Republic Book 1

Cephalus' turn to discussion in old age seems frivolous -- he has done the important work in his life already, and since he leaves the debate the moment he gets a difficult question, it looks like he's not so interested in discussion as he claims, or else he really just wants a chat.

But yes, Cephalus is not simply a bad or contemptible character. As is often the case in the Republic, Plato is dialectical in more than just the ancient Greek sense. — Jamal

Who says that Cephalus is bad or contemptible?
It is not the case that he leaves the debate the moment he gets a difficult question. He engages with Socrates up to the point where he agrees but then he must leave to attend to religious matters.
He talks of old age in the wisest of terms and uses poets as support. Sophocles, 329c.

From the Perseus site (excellent with notes):
“You are right,” he replied. “Then this is not the definition of justice: to tell the truth and return what one has received.” “Nay, but it is, Socrates,” said Polemarchus breaking in, “if indeed we are to put any faith in Simonides.” “Very well,” said Cephalus, “indeed I make over the whole argument48 to you. For it is time for me to attend the sacrifices.” “Well,” said I, “is not Polemarchus the heir of everything that is yours?” “Certainly,” said he with a laugh, and at the same time went out to the sacred rites.49 [331e]


He is thinking ahead to his death and how to please the Gods.
He uses Pindar 331a to talk about the 'ledger of his life' - Cephalus is perhaps haunted by any wrong doings or injustice at his hands and wants to make amends.

OK. Understood.

Who says that Cephalus is bad or contemptible? — Amity

Various commentators suggest that he is a somewhat contemptible figure (e.g., Annas), and @Fooloso4 is less than complimentary here (the source of my exchange with Srap). I don't disagree too much with them, but there's another side to it.

It is not the case that he leaves the debate the moment he gets a difficult question. He engages with Socrates up to the point where he agrees but then he must leave to attend to religious matters. — Amity

He leaves when Socrates shows that his view of justice is inadequate, even though the discussion is continuing. (I used "gets a difficult question" loosely, to mean the question as to the meaning of justice that Socrates brings up and shows to be harder than Cephalus might have realized).

Cephalus is perhaps haunted by any wrong doings or injustice at his hands and wants to make amends. — Amity

That's possible, but I don't think it's implied, and I don't personally think Plato is hinting at it, since I think he wants to portray Cephalus as ordinarily just, but complacent.

There are several themes that are developed at the beginning of the dialogue including the questions of persuasion and inheritance. We need to take a step back. — Fooloso4

I agree.

The question of persuasion and its means is of central importance. On the one hand, it is behind both the arguments of Thrasymachus and the other sophists as well as those of Socrates and the philosophers, and, on the other, of the poet’s stories of men and gods. The stories of the poets are an inherited means of persuasion manifest as belief. From an early age children are told the poet’s stories. — Fooloso4

Thank you for explaining things further. The importance of poetry as a means to persuade has not always been apparent.

Polemarchus inherits his father’s argument regarding justice. (331e) What will he make of it? Will he become more just or less just than his father? What shapes his idea of justice? Does he depend on the wisdom of the poets or those who make arguments?

This is reflected in what Socrates says next:

Well,” said I, “it certainly is not easy to disbelieve Simonides, for he is a wise and divine man. But although you probably appreciate what precisely he is saying, Polemarchus, I do not understand it.
(331e) — Fooloso4

Again, thanks for the questions you raise. It motivates me to read more. Particularly, the last one.
Which path will be taken. Poetry v Philosophy? Both are open to misinterpretation.

It is not simply a matter of inheriting wisdom, as if it can be passed down from generation to generation as wise sayings, but of how one is to understand what is said and how one makes use of it. In other words, it is not simply either the poets or the philosophers but of how one understands and makes use of the stories of the poets and the arguments offered by sophists and philosophers. — Fooloso4

Totally agree. It is how the various texts are understood. How they are used. How will they impart wisdom on the inexperienced reader? Each generation learns anew.

Cephalus believes his money is power. It is used in his old age to protect himself. His only interest in being just is self-serving. He is persuaded by the fear engendered by the poet’s stories of what will happen to him when he dies. — Fooloso4

Cephalus is indeed financially comfortable but perhaps not spiritually. The 'self-serving' aspect re 'being just' - is this about his concerns as to death and his legacy? How 'just' was he in his life? How will he judged by the Gods? Have you an example of the 'poet's stories' that might have engendered this fear in him?

Socrates agrees in part with Thrasymachus. He does not deny that there is an element of self-interest in being just. He attempts to persuade Glaucon and Adeimantus that being just is itself a benefit, both to oneself and to others. To this end, he acts the poet, weaving stories together with arguments. — Fooloso4

Again, thanks for taking the time to engage in a meaningful way. Explaining and asking questions.

Who says that Cephalus is bad or contemptible?
— Amity

Various commentators suggest that he is a somewhat contemptible figure (e.g., Annas), and Fooloso4 is less than complimentary here (the source of my exchange with Srap). I don't disagree too much with them, but there's another side to it. — Jamal

I read the exchange and found it less than charitable. Indeed, a 'harsh 'reading.

Maybe it's just the phrasing, but that seems a little harsh. I had rather a good impression of the old man, and I thought Socrates did too. His age and circumstances allow him to be more interested in less worldly matters, like talking with Socrates, which won't make him or his family any richer. — Srap Tasmaner

Perhaps rather than speculate and talk about impressions, read carefully and ask questions?
I've always found @Fooloso4 willing to read and respond to any relevant criticisms.

Edit: Apologies to @Srap Tasmaner if that sounded too personal. My intention here is not to sow discord but to progress the discussion in a positive manner. Good to hear your perspective. :sparkle: