Plato’s dialogues as tragedies
After reading each dialogue, ask yourself the following questions:
1. How has Plato tried to use the human propensity toward imitation and the desire to
learn in the way he has presented the plot and the characters?
2. Are the characters “serious-minded” people? Why or why not?
3. What is the catharsis this work is supposed to bring about:
What/who are we supposed to pity?
What/who are we supposed to fear?
4. Which element is most important in this work: plot, character or thought? Why?
5. How does the dialogue reflect either Plato’s agreement or disagreement with
Aristotle’s claim, “the goal of life is a certain kind of activity, not a quality. Men are
what they are because of their characters, but it is in action that they find happiness or the
reverse.”
6. Does the dialogue reflect Aristotle’s criteria for unity, “plots must have a length that
can easily be remembered...[the plot] must be so constructed that, if any part is displaced
or deleted, the whole plot is disturbed and dislocated.” Why or why not?
7. Does this dialogue succeed in being “poetry” rather than just history, as Aristotle
describes the difference, “poetry is something more philosophic and of graver import
than history, since its statements are of the nature rather of universals, whereas those of
history are singulars.” Why or why not?
8. Plato, like the tragedians, began with historical personages and then wrote the dialogue
in a way which tried to convey a universal message. Who were the historical personages
in this dialogue and what happened to them, or what did they do with their lives? What
do you think is the universal truth conveyed in this dialogue? Do you agree? Why or
why not?
9. Aristotle described three elements of a tragic plot: a) Reversal: a change of situation
to its opposite; preferably from happiness to misery; b) Recognition: a change from
ignorance to knowledge of a bond of love or hate; and c) Suffering.
Why must a good work of art/tragedy contain these elements?
Why do people want to watch tragedies?
Does this dialogue contain these elements? Why or why not?
10. Aristotle describes the tragic character as, “a person who is neither outstanding in
virtue and righteousness, nor is it through wickedness and vice that he falls into
misfortune, but through some flaw/ignorance.” Which character or characters fit this
1
description? Why? Does Aristotle’s view of tragedy conflict with, or agree with,
Socrates’ famous claim that, “no one does wrong willingly’? Why?
11. Aristotle describes the tragic situation this way, “As the tragic poet must aim to
produce by his imitation the kind of pleasure which results from fear and pity, he must do
so through the plot. We must therefore investigate what sort of incidents are terrible or
pitiful...[when]suffering is inflicted upon each other by people whose relationship implies
affections...those are the situations to look for.” Why are such horrible situations
supposed to generate some kind of pleasure? What kind of pleasure could this be? Does
the situation in the dialogue fit this description? Why or why not?
12. There are four aims in characterization: a) the characters are good; they make good
choices; b) they are true to type; c) they are true to life; d) they are consistent. Do the
characters in the dialogue fit these criteria? Why or why not?
13. Aristotle thought the plot should gradually become more complicated and then there
should be an “unraveling,” when the tragic figure discovers the truth and everything
becomes unglued. Does the dialogue have this kind of structure? Why or why not?
2