The passage at 192 is one particularly sophisticated argument that I was referring to, and it seems to have lost even Theatetus. The possibility that Euclides and Terpison probably only heard this read aloud, and one time through, I think, gives an added meaning to aporia in Plato's dialogues. The confusion is not only induced in the characters, but surely a once through would have left most Athenians in a similar state of aporia, though certainly a different kind of confusion than the type that we encounter, after reading the dialogue over and over again. Thoughts?
Actually, I would disagree that this sort of once-through reading produced an aporetic reaction. Just because they are read aloud is not to say that the audience cannot interject, which may in fact be the strength of reading and listening together. A lone reader, though possessing the freedom to stop and reread at any moment, has only the text with which to converse, whereas an audience (even just Euclides, Terpsion, and the slave) have each other to prod and question when they don't understand.
ReplyDeleteI really dig that you brought up the fact a lone read can only question themselves and the text, Brett. I think that this is a really strong argument to the dialogues being most effective and useful when discussed with others or in a classroom setting. It makes me wonder if there is something to the performance of these dialogues.
ReplyDeleteI think I may have to agree with Brett with thinking that a once-through reading would be able to summon aporetic feelings in the listeners/readers. I think that without the ability to look back and reread sections and contemplate what was mentioned earlier leaves an individual unable to make a lot of the deeper connections we have been able to make in our classes.