Opponents - (Dr. ἀντεραστα, Anterastaí) is a Socratic dialogue included in the traditional Plato collection of works.
Content
Etymology
This dialogue has two names in manuscripts “Anterastai” (Ἀντερασταί) and “Erastai” and is translated either as “Contenders” or “Lovers”.
The Greek word “Erastai” is a plural form of the term erastēs, which means homosexual relationship between a man and a young man.
Since in classical Greek plots such relations are characterized as amorous, the name “Lovers”, sometimes used for this dialogue, makes sense only if the word “lover” is understood as “beloved”. Footnotes in the margins of ancient manuscripts explain that the name could have been Anterastai (Ἀντερασταί), which specifically means rival. This term, used in the dialogue itself, is mentioned both the name of the dialogue (together with the subtitle), and in the list of Diogenes Laertius in “Tresillan tetralogies”.
The Latin terms Amatores and Rivales (Opponent) were also used as the name of the dialogue.
Nevertheless, the translators prefer the name "Contenders", based on the content of the dialogue: in the heated discussion about the philosophy of the debaters, the spirit of rivalry encompasses, the competition between them begins.
Contents
The action took place at the grammar school of Dionysius. In ancient Greece, the humanities were music, poetry and philosophy. Socrates enters high school and finds a dispute between well-mannered young men.
“ It happened that at that time two boys were arguing among themselves, and about what,” I didn’t quite hear: it seemed as though either about Anaxagoras, or about Inopid. ”
Socrates asks a person who is standing nearby and turned out to be the lover of one of the young men, whether the argument of the boys is connected with important questions of philosophy. Judging by the answer of this man, Socrates has the impression that he is quite dismissive of philosophy. The impression is confirmed by the words of the second interlocutor, who explains to Socrates that his rival specializes in physical development rather than mental development.
Socrates decides to ask both about whether philosophy is a noble and admirable affair. The second rival answers him that this is so, and Socrates continues to ask him if he really knows what philosophy is. He claims that he knows and answers that philosophy is, in essence, multi-knowledge. With the help of his athletic rival, who knows that the benefits of exercise depend on moderation, Socrates points out that the same is true for most things, and addresses the question of what things a philosopher should learn. The opponent assumes that the philosopher, without bothering himself with practical actions, should strive for such a level of understanding in all the arts that he is second only to an expert in this particular field. Socrates challenges this assumption, forcing him to admit that under any conceivable circumstances, a philosopher would be useless compared to a true expert on this issue. For example, a doctor is always preferable to a philosopher in case of illness, like a pilot, when you need to direct the ship.
Socrates proceeds from an alternative explanation of the philosopher’s true interest, based on the premise that the good (which the interlocutors agreed to attribute to philosophy) critically depends on knowing how to distinguish good people from bad and educate bad ones - it means to become better. This knowledge, agrees "cultural lover", is the knowledge of the one who serves as a judge. Socrates continues to maintain that this knowledge can be identified with justice, self-control and self-knowledge, as well as with the arts practiced by a statesman, ruler (or tyrant) and head of family (or master). The conclusion is that all this is actually only one art, one of the paramount meanings in which the philosopher must be supreme.
When Socrates first met rival lovers, he had little hope of a conversation with an athletics enthusiast who professed experience “in practice” and not “in words”. But in the end he wins the applause of the crowd, so his fabrications are closer to the truth than the “wiser” young man, so his rival athlete agrees with the conclusions of Socrates.
Conclusions on the dialogue
Socrates claims that only a comprehensively developed personality can advance philosophy. The one-sidedness of talent will not be able to have a full-fledged perception in universality and, moreover, its assessment. There is a high probability of not seeing the full picture, being carried away by the skill of individual elements.
Interesting Facts
Socrates tells the whole story-discussion in the first person, without interrupting or indicating which audience he is addressing.
In “Lovers” a little over seven pages is one of the shortest dialogs in the Trasillan canon of Plato’s works.
Sources
Opponents // Works of Plato: in 6 volumes / transl. V. N. Karpova. - St. Petersburg: printing house spiritual. the journal "Wanderer", 1863. - V. 4. - S. 422-434.