English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Book I of Plato’s Republic differs notably in style and philosophical strategy from books II-X. In this paper I explain why there is such a difference. I defend a novel version of a well-known thesis: that the main role of Republic I is to criticize Socrates. My interpretation is novel in two respects: (a) I emphasize that the critique is directed exclusively to Socrates’ philosophical method (the elenchus) and not to some specific Socratic doctrine, and (b) I claim that Republic I shows that the elenchus may fail in two different ways: by failure of the elenchus’ preferred dialectical weapon (the techne analogy, Cleitophon) and by failure of one of the conditions of possibility of the dialogue (basic agreement about values and virtues, Thrasymachus).

<i>República</i> I y la crítica al <i>elenchos</i> socrático