schloars believe that the “Socrates”, in Plato’s dialogues, does not reflect the views of the historical Socrates, but is merely a “mouthpiece” for plato’s views, particularly, regarding the Forms.

But fair ’nuff. Change the ‘merely’ to ‘sometimes’ and i’m pretty much on board. Sorry for the hasty generalizations.

I’m a little unclear, as to how I’m being unfair. I’m merely pointing out that Taylor’s reading of Plato, is, probably,wrong. But, I state at the first, that Taylor is an acomplished Platonic scholar. I can only speak for myself, but I think that Plato’s dialogues are interesting regardless of whether the “Socrates” so contained is real, or fiction. But it’s not a matter of the “Socrates”, in the dialogues being real or not. It’s both, in all liklihood: the early dialogues, being historical representations, of Socrates, more or less, and then, gradually, there’s an inverse relationship between the diminuation of the historical Socrates, and the development of Plato’s doctrines of the forms,and the later dialogues, emerging.

The problem, and I’m not a platonic scholar, but the problem with Taylor’s approach, is he seems to not give adequate credit, to Aristotle’s statement, in his Metaphysics, that Socrates, did NOT seperate the forms, from empirical reality. However, in the middle to late dialogues, “Socrates”, is espousing a detailed, and complicated theory of the forms. Hence, the hypothesis that the Socrates of the later Platonic dialogues is a literary invention.

I certainly don’t “dismiss” Taylor’s work. How you derived that conclusion, from my comments, is unclear.

Certainly, Taylor was an acomplished platonic scholar, but he had a rather heretical view, on the historical nature of Plato’s works. As all readers of Plato’s works know, in nearly all of his dialogues, Plato has his mentor Socrates, as the hero. The latter is engaging in colorful conversation, with an individual who’s I.Q. is remarkably lower than Socrates, and the latter aptly proves this. but most schloars believe that the “Socrates”, in Plato’s dialogues, does not reflect the views of the historical Socrates, but is merely a “mouthpiece” for plato’s views, particularly, regarding the Forms.

Most scholars believe, based on stylistic differences, that Plato’s dialogues can be divided into three, distinct groups, the early ones, which are probably more historically accurate, and are more or less reflective of Socrates actual philosophical views (more ethically based), the middle, and late. The last two groups, have Socrates espousing detailed ontological views, about most aspects of reality, not merely about ethics. He postulates Forms, which are eternal, nontemporal, nonspatial, entities, that make any “thing” what it is. And the earthly reflections, of this, participate in the Forms. For example, what makes all birds, “birds”, is they “participate” in the eternal essence, of form of “birdness”.

It’s believed, by most scholars, that Socrates did not believe this. He only espoused his ignorance, and the importance of asking logical questions, about the moral life. He never endorsed positve, elaborate theories of reality. They base this on Aristotle’s (a student of plato) assertion, in his metaphysics, that Socrates, did not believe in the Forms.

Taylor, believed that all of Plato’s dialogues reflected the accurate views of Socrates. So there’s no distinction, between Plato and Socrates, in terms of their philosophical views.

This gives one pause, about the legitimacy of his other views. After all, if he’s wrong about Plato’s works, (and I think that it’s safe to say that he was), maybe his interpretations, in other areas, such as christianity, are as well. One must not be too hasety, here, maybe not, but it’s something to consider.