Try Prim e

Shop by

Department
Books

Advanced Search

Books

Your Amazon.com
New Releases

Today's Deals

Best Sellers

Gift Cards

Sell

Help

The New York Times Best Sellers

Hello. Sign in

Your Account
Children's Books

Try

Prime

Textbooks

Wish

List

Cart

Textbook Rentals

Customer Review
31 of 35 people found the following review helpful
A note on 'pre-political' Esoteric Practices, March 30, 2007

Review Details
Item
A Commentary on Plato's
Meno

By Joseph Martin "pomonomo2003"

This review is from: A Commentary on Plato's Meno (Paperback)

(5 customer reviews)

Jacob Klein is often describes as a 'Straussian' - but of course this is perfectly untrue. Leo
Strauss and Klein (and perhaps even Alexandre Kojeve too) either stumbled upon the practice of
pre-modern philosophic esotericism on their own and/or while in contact with each other. Well,
this last is an exaggeration too, it is more likely that Kojeve picked it up from the other two
rather than his arriving at it entirely on his own as an original insight. Now, all three of these
thinkers had been exposed to the greatest song-and-dance man (i.e., Martin Heidegger) of
twentieth century philosophy in their formative periods and thus his maneuvering was a great
influence on them all. Besides this, Strauss was deeply influenced by several non-Christian
Medieval Philosophers (e.g., Alfarabi, Averroes, Maimonides) while both Klein and Kojeve seem
to have been almost entirely innocent of the influence of these Falasifa.
In the letters exchanged between Strauss and Kojeve ('On Tyranny', Revised and Expanded
Edition, U. Chi. Pr., 2000) we see the regard and respect these two thinkers had for Klein. For
instance, in the letter of 8/22/48 Strauss says of his interpretation of Xenophan that "I know of
no one besides yourself [i.e., Kojeve] and Klein who will understand what I am after...' (p. 236).
This respect for Klein was shared by Kojeve: in a letter of 3/29/62 Kojeve says, "Except for
yourself [i.e., Strauss] and Klein I have not yet found anybody from whom I could learn
something." (p. 307). There are, by the way, several amusing asides about Kleins almost
legendary indolence. I share one example that might be apropos here: "Klein claims to have
finished his book on the Meno -only three more months for checking on the footnotes- but since
he has said more or less the same three years ago I believe I shall have to wait another lustrum
for its appearance." (Letter of 5/29/1962, Strauss to Kojeve, p. 309).
Well, Klein was, in fact, as Strauss divined only 'about' finished (the published date, 1965, is
three years after the amusing remarks of Strauss above) but the result, this book, was well
worth waiting for. Now, why has this book been in print for 40 odd years? -Because the 'Meno'
dialogue is so popular? To be honest, I rather doubt it! It is because the 'Introductory Remarks'
at the beginning of this book contain one of the best brief discussions of how to read Plato -that
is, how to take into account Plato's esotericism- that I am aware of. In fact, if a novice were to
ask me where to first learn of Plato's art of 'cautious writing' - this is the first book I would send
him to.
Why? Because Klein gives an extremely acute explanation (and demonstration) of the ancient
way of employing esotericism as a method (and a necessity!) of 'soulcraft'. Klein begins the
Introductory Remarks by acclimating the student to the notion that the Platonic dialogues are
dramatic encounters and not some sort of failed Aristotelian treatise. (It is shameful how many
academics still think that it is a great pity that Plato did not write Treatises!) It is in the
intercourse between the actions and speeches of the participants in these dialogues that Plato's
meaning and intentions emerge. Klein correctly tells us that the dialogues "intent is to imitate
oral instruction." In order to do this Plato writes mini-dramas that subtly indicate more than they
say.
A means of doing this is irony. But Socratic Irony was not the same as the older types of irony.
"The old Irony of the tragic or comic reversal of fortune they perfectly appreciated. But this new
kind, which had a trick of making you uncomfortable if you took it as a joke and of getting you
laughed at if you took it seriously? People did not like it, did not know what to make of it. But
they were quite sure it was Irony." Socratic Irony, unlike the irony of the theatre, intends to
force you to reveal yourself. Uncomfortable? - You should be! Plato is neither simply telling a
story nor, less simply, lecturing us on philosophical issues; - Plato is trying to get us, dear
readers, to reveal our very souls!
Thus Klein says that for any statement to be ironical in the Socratic sense "there must be
someone capable of understanding that it is ironical." Socrates "is not ironical to satisfy himself."
We are all called upon to be 'silent participants', not 'indifferent spectators' of these dialogues.
Klein correctly adds that, "a (Platonic) dialogue has not taken place if we, the listeners or
readers, did not actively participate in it..." The Socratic Dialogue is a form of writing that must
be completed by our active, but dialogically silent, participation. But why should we participate?
Klein quotes a scholar, "The dialogues are dramas in which the destiny of the human soul is at
stake." But to the scholar Klein here quotes the give and take in the dialogues is only a sport of
curious aesthetic appeal. Klein will have none of it: "We have to play our role in them too. We
have to be serious about the contention that a Platonic dialogue, being indeed an 'imitation of
Socrates,' actually continues Socrates' work." The dialogues are notorious for their many
difficulties (aporias) and it often seems Plato had no solution at all. But "we are compelled to
admit to ourselves our ignorance, that it is up to us to get out of the impasse and to reach a
conclusion, if it is reachable at all. We are one of the elements of the dialogue and perhaps the

5 star
4 star
3 star
2 star
1 star

80%
20%
0%
0%
0%

$17.00

20 used & new available from

$14.90

Reviewer
Joseph Martin
"pomonomo2003"
Location: NJ, USA
Top Reviewer Ranking: 42,220
See all 91 reviews

most important one."

Now, this must not be taken to mean that "the dialogues are void of all 'doctrinal' assertions."
But a Platonic doctrine is not a philosophical system in the modern sense. "The dialogues not
only embody the famous 'oracular' and 'paradoxical' statements emanating from Socrates
('virtue is knowledge,' 'nobody does evil knowingly,' 'it is better to suffer than commit injustice')
and are, to a large extent, protreptic plays based on these, but they also discuss and state,
more or less explicitly, the ultimate foundations on which those statements rest and the farreaching consequences which flow from them. But never is this done with complete clarity." It is
we who supply the additional clarity by engaging in philosophy. Thus Klein warns us away from
fitting Plato's dialogues into some scholarly developmental scheme or reducing it to some
technical vocabulary. These are but shadows that the history of Platonism has thrown. But, as
Klein correctly says, "it is the familiar that Plato is bent on exploiting."
But he is exploiting the familiar through written words. And written words are, according to
Plato, inherently playful; that is, imitative. (See the Phaedrus, and also Sophist 234b, on this
theme.) Written texts "cannot defend themselves against misunderstanding and abuse." They
resemble living thought but, like statues, they are dead and do not respond to changing
circumstances but always maintain the same stance. This is why Plato wrote dialogues in which
it is necessary for us to participate; he hoped that by doing so he could make his dialogues
resemble living thought. "In brief: a written text is necessarily incomplete and cannot teach
properly." In the Phaedrus we learn, according to Klein, that the best texts, "in addition to being
playful, can serve as 'reminders' [...], that is, can remind those 'who know' of what the written
words are really about."
"Now, Phaedrus and Socrates agree that spoken words can be clear, complete, and worthy of
serious consideration provided they come from one who 'knows' - who knows about things just,
noble and good - and who also knows, as Socrates insists, how to 'write' or 'plant' these words
in the souls of the learners, that is, possesses the 'dialectical art' as well as the 'art of healing
souls' which enables him to deal discriminatingly with those souls and even to remain silent
whenever necessary." Now, this last is also why Plato writes in a dialogical manner; not only to
engage in the great soul-shaping work of philosophy, but also in order to remain silent when
necessary. But how can a dialogue do both? It can't "if the written text is to be taken in its dead
rigidity." But it can if "the written text gives rise to 'live' discourse under conditions valid for
good speaking." Again, the Platonic dialogues demand our active participation in order to be
successful.
As if to underscore the lived, changing nature of well-written philosophical texts Klein reminds
us that after the myth of the origin of the cicadas in the Phaedrus "we hear Socrates interpreting
freely the speeches he himself made, assuming the role of their 'father', that is, supporting and
defending the truth in them, adding to them, omitting the doubtful and changing their
wording..." How Socrates treats his earlier speeches is how we are to treat Socratic dialogues,
we are to continually interpret and, when necessary, reinterpret them. We are to treat the
dialogues as conversations in which we must participate in order to get anything out of them.
We are, when properly engaged in a Socratic dialogue, attempting to understand Socrates,
Plato, philosophy and ourselves.
This soulcraft that Klein is here, at the beginning of the 'Introductory Remarks' to his 'Meno'
book, speaking of has utterly nothing to do with the parroting of some doctrine. "Words can be
repeated or imitated; the thoughts conveyed by the words cannot: an 'imitated' thought is not a
thought." Indeed, in reading and interpreting a Platonic dialogue we reveal who we are. Treat
the dialogues, and yourself, with the thoughtful seriousness they deserve.
So we see that Klein, here in the 'Introductory Remarks', has given us a masterful explication of
an ancient esotericism too often today forgotten; an esotericism focused on individual soulcraft
and not merely or exclusively on political philosophy. It is important to realize that these two
esoteric strategies are not entirely in harmony. But what of Klein and Strauss? Are they in
harmony? I think the major difference between the two is the medieval philosophers, especially
Farabi. He was the first (see especially his 'Attainment of Happiness' e.g.) to use esotericism
almost exclusively to manufacture 'politically useful' philosophical artifacts without (seemingly)
even the slightest concern for soulcraft. Strauss follows Farabi in this; also, like Farabi (see the
'Philosophy of Plato', e.g.) Strauss gives an entirely political reading of Plato.
Whenever we see Leo Strauss speak of 'Platonic Political Philosophy' we need to immediately
add that this Platonic political philosophy has been filtered through Alfarabi. So then, do Klein
and Strauss simply disagree about the Platonic Art of Cautious Writing? No, of course not, that
would be an exaggeration. Of this notion of readers of Platonic Dialogues as 'silent participants'
in the dialogues Klein says that "it certainly obtains whenever Socrates himself is the narrator of
the dialogue." But what of the dialogues (e.g., Sophist, Statesman, Timaeus, Laws) in which
Socrates is not the principle speaker? Are the principle speakers (Eleatic Stranger, Timaeus,
Athenian Stranger) in these dialogues primarily engaged in the art of soulcraft like Socrates? Or,
are they, like Farabi and the medieval falasifa, primarily engaged in what might be called social
damage control and 'philosophical' artifact making? Insofar as they are doing the latter one can
perhaps be forgiven for saying that the split between Socrates' esoteric Platonic soulcraft and
Farabi's esoteric political Platonism was already known to, and anticipated by, Plato himself.
Now, Klein isn't oblivious to the difference between esotericism as politics and esotericism as
soulcraft. Indeed, even in the latter part of the 'Introductory Remarks' that we have here only
begun to consider, he goes on to broach the subject of political esotericism. For those interested
in Klein's take on the latter I can recommend his detailed study 'Plato's Trilogy' which includes a
discussion of the Eleatic Stranger in 'The Sophist' and 'The Statesman'. I give 'Plato's Meno' five
stars for the discussion, defense and demonstration of the ancient esoteric practice of soulcraft,

which today, is too often forgotten.

Help other customers find the most helpful reviews

Report abuse

Permalink

Was this review helpful to you?

Comments
Track comments by e-mail
Showing 1-2 of 2 posts in this discussion

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first

Initial post: May 10, 2007 1:40:18 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 10, 2007 1:41:32 AM PDT

M. Campbell says:
save the preface for your edition of the work. I think what you wrote is really
interesting, but i'd much rather see a concise summary rather than an
interpretation here.
Permalink | Report abuse
7 of 15 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?

Reply to this post

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 10, 2008 7:38:36 AM PDT

greg taylor says:

Mr. CampbellI don't really understand your point of view. If the review is too long for you,
don't read it or read it in chunks. It is interesting and it is an interpretation (as
opposed to a summary) and it is worth thinking about in the context of the
book under review. Therefore, it belongs here in all its excess.
Permalink | Report abuse
8 of 10 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?

Reply to this post

Previous 1 Next

Your Recently Viewed Items and Featured Recommendations

Inspired by your browsing history

Page 1 of 10

Stalin: Volume I:
Paradoxes of Power,

The Fall of the Ottomans:

The Great War in the

Augustus: First Emperor of

Rome

The Storm of War: A New

History of the Second

Stephen Kotkin

Eugene Rogan

Adrian Goldsworthy

Andrew Roberts

113

155

52

224

Hardcover

Hardcover

Hardcover

Hardcover

$23.25

$16.12

$20.77

$20.93

See personalized recommendations

You
viewed

View or edit
your
browsing
history

Sign in
New customer? Start here.

Get to Know Us

Make Money with Us

Amazon Payment Products

Let Us Help You

Careers

Sell on Amazon

Amazon.com Rewards Visa Card

Your Account

Investor Relations

Sell Your Services on Amazon

Amazon.com Store Card

Your Orders

Press Releases

Sell on Amazon Business

Amazon.com Corporate Credit Line

Shipping Rates & Policies

Amazon and Our Planet

Sell Your Apps on Amazon

Shop with Points

Amazon Prime