I have long been quite upset by the prevalent reigning “official” philosophical and cultural treatment, might I say, idolization, of Plato and Socrates, more, I believe, a matter of successful propaganda than of historical or philosophical truth. And an idolization that I honestly believe has had quite unfortunate significant historical consequences. Let me all too briefly explain. 

A few apparently obvious facts. Socrates and Plato were two distinct historical individuals. Plato was an apparently devoted student of Socrates. Socrates wrote nothing. Plato wrote numerous dialogues in most of which Socrates is the lead character. In one of those dialogues, the “Apology,” Plato presents his report of the trial of Socrates before a jury composed of members of the Athenian democracy. (I do not think I am being unfair to observe that Plato despised that democracy. But let that point go for the moment.) 

Under what conditions would any reasonable person take the report of one person, especially one who clearly could not be seen as impartial, as an objective factual report of the truth? Even given the best of intentions. But Plato clearly had many more passionate reasons to bias his report: to justify Socrates to the wider society, as well as to posterity; to cover Socrates involvement with the oligarchy that had overthrown the democracy in 404, killing some 1,500 citizens, and tried again unsuccessfully in 401; to defend and promote the interests of the oligarchic faction, including his extended family, in 4th Century Athenian politics; and to undermine the popular forces and emerging social classes that found expression in the activities of the major Sophists and in the plays of Euripides. Note that the word used in the Apology for corrupting the youth is the same word used by Plato elsewhere for political subversion. Does not Aristophanes speak of the “Socratifed youth” that are “Sparta-mad”? And this trial coming directly on the heals of Critias’ 401 failed insurgency about which so little is often said. Plato’s membership in, relationship to, and continuing support for that oligarchy apparently continued throughout his lifetime. He clearly wanted to show the democracy in the worst light possible - that is obviously the pervasive theme of the “Republic” throughout!! — and this throughout his entire career. We must not forget that Plato features Critias in four!! dialogues, and Charmides as a beautiful youth with promise, in one. Both close relatives of Plato, and followers of Socrates. In fact, almost all of Socates’ followers except Chaerephon were members of the oligarchy. No wonder that it is the long dead Chaerephon who is presented as reporting the Delphic pronouncement. 

Why then take the Platonic portrait of Socrates as the historically “correct” one? There are also those of Xenophon, of Aristophanes, later of Aristotle, and apparently a quite different, and democratic friendly, report of the trial from an unfortunately long lost statement, probably by a Polycrates, all providing significantly different perspectives. 

And then consider Socrates’ purported noble love for Athens and its laws as presented by the Platonic Socrates in the “Crito” (as opposed to the actions of his students such as Critias, Charmides and Alcibiades). When throughout his long life do we have a report of Socrates participating in the Assembly? Did he object to the policies of Pericles? Of he demagogue Cleon? Of the war with Sparta? Of the disastrous attack on Melos? On the voyage to Sicily? Never. His only reported intervention, very late in life, was to critique the trial of the generals, whom we may even assume were members of the oligarchy. Then, of course, there are those later followers who claim the Socratic inspiration, eg. Antisthenes, Aristippus, Diogenes, Epicurus - all of which have at least one thing in common, they are all apolitical, if not anti-political. And we know of Socrates’, and then Plato’s, admiration for Spartan society. That is probably the context in which Plato develops his argument for the role of women. As it is also the probable context for his drastic and authoritarian removal of children from their parents. If you are convinced that you are “the one who knows”, what is to limit you from imposing your ”divinely inspired” will on the”herd”, at whatever human cost. That does seem to have been Critias’ view. 

I could go on but this would become an essay. Suffice it to say, I find it absurd that the sophisticated philosophical tradition treats the Platonic Apology as an historical account of the person/life of Socrates, when no court of even moderately informed jurors would be so naive. And with what consequences, for democracy, for respect for collective self determination, and representative government. Even providing a quite misleading and uncritical celebration of the so-called Socratic method.  
 
Once we recognize that in the dialogues we are dealing with a Platonic Socrates, only tangentially and, may I say, prejudicially, related to the historical person, then we can get on with the appropriate textual, philosophical, and historical task of addressing the life and thought of Plato, as well as evaluating its immense historical and on-going cultural significance. And here, being clear about these issue, will help us better appreciate the authoritarian and entirely undemocratic nature of Plato’s work, and even that of his immediate followers. And will contribute to framing a far more critical approach to his discussions of education, character development, and constructive political engagements. This perspective would also place in a clearer light Plato’s relation with such destructive figures as Alcibiades, Critias, and Charmides, among others, as well as his antagonism to the Sophists. 

Granted, these are all scattered pieces of an argument - but these are clearly issues that have concerned me, as a committed democratic activist in the Deweyian and Camusian tradition. Generally speaking, I do not in general like Plato or his philosophy, however much I recognize its historical and philosophical significance, but I much prefer the”early” dialogues for their dramatic and thoughtful engagements among living people more than the “later” dialogues in which all too often Socrates deals with “yes men,” as in the last 8+ books of the “Republic.” (I do, however, like the challenge that Glaucon poses in Book Two.) But I must say, that the best treatment of Plato’s philosophy that I have ever seen, that makes the best defense for it and its constructible philosophical significance, is the work of Rebecca Neuberger Goldstein in “Plato at the Googleplex”. But enough. My thoughts on the historical Socrates, the Platonic Socrates, and Plato - for what it’s worth.