This article investigates how Plato thinks we secure necessary motivational conditions for inquiry. After presenting a typology of zetetic breakdowns in the dialogues, I identify norms of inquiry Plato believes all successful inquirers must satisfy. Satisfying these norms requires trust that philosophy will not harm but benefit inquirers overall. This trust cannot be secured by protreptic argument. Instead, it requires divine intervention—an extra-rational foundation for rational inquiry.

This article focuses on the structures of humor and joke telling that require particular kinds of attentiveness and particular relationships between speaker and audience, or more specifically, between classmates. First, I will analyze the pedagogical and relational preconditions that are necessary for humor to work. If humor is to work well, the person engaging in humor needs to gauge their interlocutors carefully. I discuss, too, the kinds of listening necessary for listening for the joke, including attentiveness to complex possibilities for (...) meaning. This attentiveness to complexity is linked to curiosity and a willingness to be startled, two qualities that are central to the risk and pleasure of learning discussed by Socrates and Maria Lugones. Examining the place of risk in Socrates’ teaching and the place of serious play in Maria Lugones’ discussion of difference, I suggest that humor can help to illuminate complicities and invite more robust interactions with difference, creating pleasurable encounters to work through difficult social divisions. (shrink)

La lectura que aquí se presenta quiere recoger los elementos que aparecen en la estructura formal compleja del _Eutidemo_ y comprender las razones autoriales para esa disposición. Para ello, analiza la parte final del diálogo y la vincula a la narración del encuentro de Sócrates con los hermanos. El juicio negativo del interlocutor final de Critón se revela así como una de las posibles impresiones que deja el diálogo socrático. Por su parte, la crítica ejercida inmediatamente sobre ese interlocutor permite (...) al autor descartar esa lectura del diálogo, planteando así la cuestión de cómo interpretarlo correctamente. La tesis que aquí se esboza es la de que el diálogo debe leerse en clave protréptica, pero no solo por las partes explícitamente protrépticas de Sócrates y Clinias, sino en todos sus niveles de interacción, incluyendo la complejidad formal en que el diálogo se dispone. (shrink)