Portraying the Philosophers as Chorus Members and Leaders Thereof in Plato’s Theaetetus 172c-177c

Resumo

One of the most puzzling aspects of the portrait of the philosopher in the Theaetetus is that the depiction of this disengaged and aloof character is odds with the depiction of Socrates himself both in this dialogue and in others. In this paper I follow thinkers like Dorter, Sedley, and Blondell, who argue that the philosopher-leader is an abstract ideal that is not meant to be understood as a character in flesh and blood, but I aim to go beyond what they have done so far by enlarging the scope of the question and elaborating on it. More specifically, I want to explore the significance of this double-tiered assessment of the philosopher in terms of the philosopher in flesh and blood as philosopher of the chorus (οῖ ἐν τῶ τοιῶδε χορεθύοντες, 173c1-2) and this abstract image of the idealized philosopher-leader of the chorus (οῖ κορμφαίοι, 173c6-7). I ask specifically why we need such an idealized figure as a model to emulate especially in a context in which Plato’s Socrates is offering us God as ultimate model to follow (“becoming as like God as possible” 176a-b). Whom is a philosopher like Socrates supposed to be taking as model: the idealized figure of the philosopher-leader, the god, or both? And, if both, then isn’t the figure of the idealized philosopher redundant? Do we need the image of the idealized philosopher at all?