Representations of Socrates

This appendix to my doctoral dissertation, currently in preperation, reconstructs most of the secondary sources cited by John Burnet in his 1901 Oxford Classical Text of Plato’s Philebus. It clarifies numerous opaque references given only by surname and proposes three minor corrections: 17e1 ὄντων ἓν Turr. (instead of ‘Wohlrab’); 57b10 μιᾶς] μιᾶς ⟨οὔσης⟩ Stallbaum (instead of ⟨οὖσης⟩); 58c3 ᾗ Cornarius (instead of ᾖ).

This is the inroductory chapter to my Section on Plato's Middle group of dialogues.  It builds on Section I's keys to understanding his dialogues and on Section II's examination of his Early group.  It continues to evidence my holistic understanding and ordering of all the dialogues - viz. that they compose a whole of three parts, each divided into three inter-connected and connecting parts based on the programme of teaching and learning them themselves set out.  Towards this end S.III.1 introduces the common pattern of the Middle group as a whole, splits it into three ordered subgroups, and briefly gives reasons why each member of the group occupies the place it does and what it does.  Later chapters in S.III will examine in detail each dialogue in each subgroup

To show that Plato's middle group of dialogues bears the marks of the middle stages in the education and recollection of soul as described in S.I -i.e, move from false to true belief. In so doing, they take up and advance Socrates' godly quest to purify soul. Their overall purpose is to bring now relatively better conditions of soul to weak and progressively stronger true beliefs about the nature of the human world, soul, and its causes. As ever, the form and content of each dialogue and the group as a whole is dictated by the condition of its characters and its specific purpose. Plato's Middle group of dialogues finally focuses on human soul as a whole, its nature and powers, its cognitive states, its proper education and learning, and its proper objects, 'Forms'. Forms are both causes and unchanging intelligible foundations for thought. The Middle group, however, founds them on an unquestioned hypothesis, separates them from the qualities they cause, and separates true opinion from knowledge. As Late group dialogues examine the origin of divine-related love (the Phaedrus), question the hypothesis of the forms and ties them to higher first kinds (e.g, the Parmenides), focus on knowledge and opposite first kinds and their powers (Theaetetus), and introduce, practice, and use philosophical dialectic to examine human kinds, including soul, this suggests that the Middle group lies between ignorance (the Early group) and knowledge (the Late group), and occupies the intermediate field of false and true opinion, not knowledge. In showing this, this section will also show that the Middle group is in continuity with the Early group and lays foundations for the Late. Based primarily on their characters, their conditions of soul and thought, and many internal references and literary clues, I include in the Middle group, and in this order, the Protagoras, Meno, Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Menexenus, Phaedo, Symposium, Republic, and Cratylus. Collectively, these works display a pattern and teach a number of positive and inter-dependent doctrines. Like the Early and the Late groups, however, they also fall into three natural subgroups. The first three dialogues listed above, my first Middle subgroup, are transitional with the third Early subgroup in characters, method, and style. For the first time, however, they push their now more widely-thinking sophists and their pupils into considering whole/part relationships -i.e, virtue as a whole rather than its separate parts -and essential natures and causes. The middle four works, my second Middle subgroup, focus on the trial, imprisonment, official farewell, and noble death of Socrates, Plato's model of the truly good, wise, and holy man. The last three dialogues, my third Middle subgroup, then pick up and advance Socrates' holy mission of purifying human soul by examining its nature, powers, and objects, and setting out the ongoing stages in its education and learning, ascending from its human condition (ignorance) to its divine (knowledge). Like the first Middle subgroup, the third is also both backward and forward-looking. The Symposium reaches back to Socrates' death, and the Republic and the Cratylus forward to the Late group's opposite first kinds. Viewed as a whole, therefore, the Middle group progressively strengthens soul's rational power, its characters image increasingly receptive conditions of soul, and it ascends to the Republic's second stage in teaching and learning -from false to true opinion -and to the Meno's second stage in recollection (S.I.2&3). To facilitate this understanding, this chapter will outline the distinctive features and general pattern of the Middle group . Chapters 2-4 will then pull it all together by individually examining each dialogue in each subgroup. Middle group dialogues have many common features and introduce and use a new method and theory about the nature and causes of things in a manner appropriate to the widening and improving levels of education and learning of their characters. The Protagoras moves away from Early group single virtues to consider virtue as a whole and the relationship between its parts. The Meno then examines the nature of virtue as a whole and introduces the Middle group method of hypothesis. The Euthyphro goes on to consider the nature of virtue's most important part, the holy, and introduces its opposite, the unholy. Very appropriately, the second Middle subgroup then focuses on the fate of a lover of the holy, Socrates himself, highlighting his good life, divine mission, and noble but unjust death. The third Middle subgroup Symposium begins by setting out a series of self-revealing educated human views about the nature of the god of lovethe object of a lover of the holy -before introducing Socrates' second-hand view that Love is intermediate between a wise father and an ignorant and needy mother and that an ascending path of education must be followed in order to grasp its eternal oneness. Appropriately. the Republic then describes the intermediate good and bad nature of human soul, a whole of parts, and sets out a clearly defined ascending path of education that takes it from the womb-like stony cave of human ignorance to the blinding light of knowledge and beauty, the Good itself. Appropriately again, the Cratylus then rejects using names to examine two opposite first kinds in favour of learning about them through their samenesses and differences. And this nicely leads on to the Late group's dialectical examinations of opposite first kinds. Protagoras uses the Early dialogue method of question, answer, refutation, and perplexity to examine the nature of human soul and virtue, its character, a selfadmitted sophist, finally, albeit reluctantly, and unlike the Gorgias' Callicles, submits to defeat in argument. In the Meno, however, Socratic argument and refutation lead to outright admissions of ignorance and are immediately replaced by friendly joint enquiry, which invariably leads to more positive and increasingly explicit teachings. Indeed, the Protagoras' Prodicus is the first to propose and introduce reconciliation and joint enquiry: "I add my plea, Protagoras and Socrates, that you should be reconciled. Let your conversation be a discussion not a dispute" (Prot.337b). Soc."I suggest we leave the subject of songs and poems, for I should be glad to reach a conclusion, Protagoras, in a joint investigation with you. . . " (ib.347c). And, despite Protagoras' initial resistance, the dialogue very appropriately ends on a friendly, respectful, and positive note. The Meno, however, suggests a friendly joint enquiry immediately after both Meno and his slave have openly admitted their ignorance, and their admissions are immediately followed by positive teachings about learning:

The Pseudo-Platonic Rival-Lovers: The Polemic against Isocrates and Plato's Academy. In the article, the Author analyzes the dialogue Lovers or Rivals. Some scholars argue in favor of Plato's authorship, while others agree on its inauthenticity. This latter thesis is defended without reappraising and developing the most prevalent hypothesis, namely that the dialogue was composed in the third century BCE as a pamphlet against the Peripatetic School. The Author advances the hypothesis that the Lovers was written by a disciple of Plato in the fourth century BCE, and that the dialogue clearly attacks Isocrates and, in particular, his conception of philosophy as described for example in his Antidosis. The Author goes on to argue that the dialogue possesses a protreptic intent and may be addressing some of those issues that were given much consideration by Plato himself: finding a proper definition of philosophy and encouraging philosophers to engage in politics.

On Socrates reputation for babbling:-"Socrates; that despicable beggarly babbler." Comic playwright Eupolis i. In bemused response: "The dialectic cannot possibly deserve the appellation of babbling." Neoplatonist philosopher Proclus ii. Plato does not explicitly define the dialectic; the simplest answer is it was known colloquial as a useless idol repetitive chattering iii. When Socrates challenges his opponents through a series of questions this is known as the elenchus dialogue the notorious reputation for babbling is distinct to the elenchus but intrinsic. Proclus was unsure why their opponents demean the practice as useless idol chitter-chatter about nothing. He did however realise it is a method of reasoning which brings the many into a one complete union by turning the eye of the soul away from generation and upwards towards real Being.

Jean-Pierre Jeunet and Classical Reception: A Case Study on the Embodiment of Eudaimonia in the Character of Amelie Poulain. The universally acclaimed French movie directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet, The fabulous destiny of Amelie Poulain has received numerous reviews, both positive and negative. This critical review however, will not aim to assess and define its multifaceted artistic features, but it will dare to achieve a dialogue between the ancient concept of εὐδαιμονία (Eudaimonia) as proposed by Socrates and Aristotle, and the character of Amelie Poulain, played by Audrey Tautou.

My paper discusses how the aesthetics of West Lake is problematic on both a Kantian and Marxist account given the disturbing actual history of the building of West Lake and the purpose for building it under the Song Dynasty. After all, to the historical mind, and we are historical being,  images of forced labor and death linger behind its surface harmony, indeed, perhaps not on the same scale but not so different from as the terrible images of human suffering that come to mind as we marvel at the Grand Canal constructed in the Sui and Yuan Dynasties. The “missing scenes”—the toil and pain of those who built it, the forced labor—form a negative space that haunts these landscapes. In today’s trendy Western liberal politics of cancel culture, West Lake would be summarily canceled/boycotted. Looking for a way to think about the aesthetics of West Lake’s harmony in light of its history, I have turned to Nietzsche’s negative aesthetics and his idea of evolution as the sacrifice of life for power, which became the basis for his negative aesthetics and which is ultimately an aesthetics of nature.
I will discuss how the aesthetics of West Lake can be understood through Nietzsche’s philosophy of negative aesthetics using two powerful artistic examples: the blinding of Oedipus in Sophocles’ drama Oedipus Rex and the beheading scenes in Caravaggio’s paintings. By connecting these dramatic moments with Nietzsche’s ideas, we can begin to think outside the framework that the beautiful must be based on a relation with a super-sensible moral order (Kant) and or serve as comforting respite from willing (Schopenhauer) and instead, recognize beauty in suffering, estrangement, and the creative-destructive force of life, which is the will to power. Furthermore, in drawing attention to some examples of negative aesthetics, I hope to bring into focus some critical questions about the shortcomings of the transactionalist analysis of art as a construct involving the engagement by the viewer or reader. The analysis of West Lake’s beauty through a negative aesthetic is indicated by the facts of West Lake’s history as the ideological centerpiece of the Song dynasty in feudal society.

The third speech of Maximus of Tyre “Whether Socrates was right not to speak in his own defence” was little researched, although it is an original text connected with the tradition of Socratic writings. In this article this speech is considered in the light of the tradition of writing Socrates’ Apologies, as well as in the literary context of the I–II centuries AD.

RESUMEN El presente texto explora la retórica de la prostitución tal y como aparece ligada a la figura de Sócrates en los textos de Platón y Jenofonte, específicamente como analogía de su práctica erótico-pedagógica. Nuestro objetivo consiste en analizar los vínculos que se establecen en estos diálogos entre prostitución, pederastia y pedagogía.

The notion ‘historical Socrates’ is widely used in Socratic studies – mostly in an inappropriate way. Since Olof Gigon, scholars have stopped dealing with the Socrates delivered to us by sources, preferring to put forward hypotheses about the nature and main features of the ‘historical Socrates’. In this short preface, I try to show that such an approach is problematic because the notion of the ‘historical Socrates’ is far from being an objective fact. The ‘historical Socrates' has in fact nothing historical: it can neither be measured nor demonstrated.

Between the second and sixth centuries AD, numerous Christian leaders condemned the theatre. Their criticism was directed not only against the pagan theatrical tradition, which still enjoyed much popularity in late antiquity, but also against theatre as an art form. To them, theatre was equivalent to deception and illusion. It literally deceived the spectators and corrupted them through false realities. This meant that theatre was regarded as a devilish and dangerous practice. These critiques closely echo Platonic warnings against the deceptive allurements of fiction. They also explain why Byzantium (unlike the Christian West) never developed a religious theatre. At the same time, the Byzantines had their own ways of entertaining the public.

The parallels between Luke 24,1, depicting women arriving early in the morning at the tomb to anoint Jesus’s body, and Plato’s Prot. 310a and Crito 43a, where disciples visit Socrates early in the morning, either at home or in prison, are striking. These resemblances, as well as the contexts in which they occur, suggest that Luke’s narrative may be directly influenced by Plato’s dialogues.

Offering brief yet comprehensive overview, this well referenced article rejects scholarship concentrating on Ion's stupidity or the weakness of Socrates' argument, arguing instead that its quite deliberate construction holds an epistemological and psychological message for all.

This paper highlights key characteristics and aspects of the methodology for historiographical studies in philosophy in the context of contemporary theories about the trans-historical dimension. Significant examples of this type of inter-epochal dialog serve to illustrate the utility of this kind of approach.

The most prevalent criticism of AYP (Vol.1) has become that the monograph ultimately proves thick on theory but thin on actual evidence. This Chapter therefore represents the first of several, which works through the surviving inscription evidence beginning Archonship Theellos and running through Archonship Aristophon.

Two primary goals here: 1) Knowing what Calendar Equations ought have occurred aids greatly when working with recovered epigraphical evidence that display such equations. When any deviations surface, we can develop a thorough understanding of why they took place.

2) Show the ancient Athenian Calendar proves nowhere near as “chaotic” as assumed. Classicists can instead attribute most deviations to (simple) observational difficulties.

This early writing of mine is about the beginnings of the building up a  "socially unattached intelligentsia" that had an important disenchanting impact on societies during the centuries. The cultural rationalization and devaluation of religion apparent in modern societies has firm roots in ancient Athens and particularly in one person: Socrates. He is blamed by many for disappearing almost all spiritual content from our post/modern society and leave nothing but naked interests instead. Is that true that he would be responsible for that whole process, or is he only a scapegoat?

TATJANA ALEKNIENĖ L'idéal platonicien de l'assimilation à dieu : un aspect biographique 1 Résumé Au début du XXI e siècle, il est devenu courant de considérer l'idéal platonicien d'« assimilation à dieu » comme un élément central de la pensée de Platon ; les chercheurs discutent de la mesure dans laquelle cet idéal est otherworldly (J. Annas), purement théorétique, de même que de sa dimension éthique et politique. La visée de cet article est de montrer l'influence du procès et de la mort du Socrate historique sur l'émergence de l'idéal philosophique de l'assimilation à dieu. À cette fin, on se propose de mettre en évidence le rapport étroit entre la deuxième partie du Gorgias et la célèbre digression du Théétète ainsi que l'intention apologétique de Platon en tant que portraitiste de Socrate.

, Sat 4 Room 7: "Ion Resists, Socrates Refuses" This paper defends the idea that the Ion constitutes a failure for Socrates. This failure depends on an epistemological conception that only takes as knowledge what can be rendered as objective propositional representation of universals, and therefore rejects artistic performances as valid instances for the discovery of knowledge about art. Methodologically, this paper focuses on the discursive situation of the Ion rather than focusing on the positive conclusions Plato might be said to draw about art or poetry. Accordingly, this paper pays special attention to two types of discursive occurrences present in the dialogue. On the one hand, Socrates directly or indirectly makes the validity of any account about art dependent on the philosophical rational discourse, as opposed to the artistic performance. I will call these, the Socrates-refusing cases, in which Socrates refuses even to consider the artistic performance as source of knowledge. The second type I will call the Ion-resisting cases. In these situations, Ion simply resists yielding to Socrates' conclusions, based on the inner experience of his art, and therefore maintains the validity of art as confirmed precisely by his particular experience. This analysis finishes with an analysis of the end the dialogue, in which strangely enough Plato seems to draw a fallacious conclusion that apparently favors Socrates' position. However, this paper shows how this doubtful ending gives us reason to maintain the unsolved antagonism between the philosophical and the artistic accounts about art. Thus, the conclusion will not only show the philosophical discourse as inimical to art, but

In A Platonic Theory of Moral Education, Mark Jonas and Yoshiaki Nakazawa have argued that Plato outlines a theory of virtue education. Alkis Kotsonis has similarly argued that Plato articulated a theory of intellectual character education. I think that Jonas, Nakazawa, and Kotsonis have opened a productive line of enquiry on this matter, and I expand on their work in this paper by identifying connections between Plato’s work and the contemporary discourse on character education, which features four domains of virtues: moral, intellectual, civic, and performance virtues. Plato’s treatment of virtue, I argue, not only can be mapped onto the contemporary treatment of character education but it also further demonstrates that cultivating virtue—the project of character education—was a paramount concern for Plato.

Xenophon’s changing importance in English political thought provides an interesting lens on the changing relation between the classics and democracy in 19th century England. Part I of this chapter briefly introduces Xenophon’s historical writings, which were criticized by German scholars but awarded higher status in their English reception. Part II briefly introduces Xenophon’s depiction of Socrates, which was given greater credence than Plato’s as evidence of an historical Socrates. Part III examines the changing reception given to Xenophon’s non-historical and non-Socratic writings, chief among them the Cyropaedia. In the conclusion, the chapter reflects on the relative importance of these aspects of Xenophonic reception in England. What the 19th century English reception of Xenophon reveals is the changing relation between text and audience in a period informed by new historical methods and by growing contemporary support of pro-democratic and neo-Athenian political thought. Although Xenophon is by no means forgotten in the English 19th century, the decline in the influence of Xenophon emerges from three key changes in the reception of his works, which are detailed in the three substantive sections of the paper: the tension between old and new historiographical preferences, an image of an analytical and rationalist Socrates versus Xenophon’s moralizing Socrates, and new commitments to anti-Spartan and pro-democratic political theory.

The history of interpretations of Socrates covers the entire span of the history of philosophy, ranging from the earliest followers of Socrates – each of whom provided their own view of Socratic philosophy – to the historiographical trends that emerged in the 19th and 20th centuries. The round table held on August 2, 2025 in Rome discussed crucial highlights of this history: notably, the speakers addressed the following key moments: (1) the (often conflicting) interpretations of the 5th-4th century
(Aristophanes, Xenophon, Plato), as well as the scholarly trends that stress the ‘interaction’ among the first-generation Socratics and take into account the constraints of the literary genres they employ; (2) the interpretation of Socratic literature provided by major German and French scholars in 19th and 20th century (Schleiermacher, Gigon, Foucault, and Hadot among others); (3) the image of Socrates as reconstructed by the philosophical historiography of the late 20th century in Italy, with special regard to the studies of the so-called ‘Roman school’ by Guido Calogero and Gabriele Giannantoni; (4) the major interpretive trends of the mid- to late 20th and early 21st centuries in the Anglophone world and their application to the study of (Plato’s) Socrates (e.g. analytic method, constructivist and anti-constructivist approaches, the Straussian movement, literary interpretative methods); (5) the recent Socratic literature in Portuguese and Spanish.

Quello di Socrate è forse il profilo filosofico più enigmatico da ricostruire e da analizzare in maniera critica. Questa difficoltà emerge, in prima battuta, dalla pluralità di fonti da cui veniamo a conoscenza del personaggio e del filosofare di Socrate. Nella lunga storia della ricezione della sua filosofia, l’analisi più rilevante dal punto di vista storico, metodologico e filosofico ci è data da Hegel, che ha interpretato Socrate come uno sprungpunkt fondamentale per la storia universale, fornendone, al contempo, un resoconto filosofico che, per la prima volta, tentasse di comprendere l’essenza del suo insegnamento senza cadere nella banalità delle varie interpretazioni moderne.

Cicero is one of the most important witnesses of Socratic literature. His writings contain textual units of otherwise lost Socratic dialogues, some of which are of fundamental importance for reconstructing the conceptions of Socrates' lesser-known companions. For Cicero, Socrates and the Socratics are at the origin, but also at the height, of Greek philosophy. Socrates represents an example of virtue, eloquence, and argumentative method. The only aspect that Cicero criticises of Socrates is the separation between philosophy and oratory, which is evident in several Platonic dialogues. Cicero claims that philosophy and oratory must instead be harmonised: just as the philosopher must have oratorical skills, the orator must have a sound philosophical training.

The paper focuses on Socrates’ so-called ‘big talk’ (μεγαληγορία) during the trial – which Xenophon presents as the distinctive trait of Socrates’ defensive speech (Apol. 1) – and its reception in antiquity. Based on a close examination of this notion in Xenophon’s and Plato’s Apologies, two main issues are addressed: (1) the relationship between Socrates’ behaviour in court and his position regarding the timeliness of his death, and (2) the question of whether or not Socrates has waived his defence. In order to challenge the assumption that Socrates’ ‘arrogance’ aimed at his own conviction, some modern interpretations are discussed and contrasted with three ancient readings of Socrates’ trial, to which the bulk of this study is devoted: namely, the ‘defences of Socrates’ defence’ provided by Cicero (Tusc. Disp. I [29] 71; De orat. I [54] 231-233), Quintilian (Inst. Orat. XI 1, 9-11) and Maximus of Tyre (Diss. III).

Robin Waterfield has established himself, over a period of several decades, as the world's leading anglophone translator of ancient Greek prose literature. In a remarkable body of work (approaching some thirty volumes), he has produced characteristically fluent and stylish versions of such authors as Herodotus (complete), Xenophon (Anabasis and the Socratica), Aristotle (Physics and Rhetoric), Demosthenes, Polybius, Plutarch, Marcus Aurelius, and Epictetus. But at the heart of his output have been the dialogues of Plato, of which he has translated sixteen to date, including Republic, Symposium, Theaetetus, and Timaeus.[1] He has also published several trade books on topics in Greco-Roman history, so he is highly experienced at writing for a general audience, the explicit target of the present work. In Plato of Athens Waterfield even anticipates readers who may not have sampled any of Plato's own writing (94), and he is mostly very careful to take nothing for granted historically or philosophically; his light footnotes cite primary sources but contain only very occasional references to secondary literature (though a fifteen-page bibliography is supplied, surely overkill for novices). He certainly writes with a clarity and eloquence which will make his book engaging for non-specialists.[2] But does the aim of writing for such an audience justify Waterfield's willingness to talk in terms of a 'biography' of Plato, when he knows full well the scarcity and shortcomings of the evidence available for such an undertaking? In a way, yes, since the book does not purport to be a rigorous reappraisal of the evidence for Plato's life but, instead, one kind of 'introduction to [Plato's] work' (x). Even so, Plato of Athens prompts some difficult questions about what it means, or might mean, to think about Plato biographically.

Sarah Fielding’s last literary effort, after writing a collection of fairly successful novels, was a translation of Xenophon’s Memorabilia. Inspired by Elizabeth Carter’s popular translation of Epictetus’ Discourses, Fielding undertook to translate Xenophon over a period of five years, working in correspondence with classicist James Harris (“Fielding”). On all accounts an accomplished Hellenist, Fielding only deferred to Harris regarding the most difficult portions of Xenophon, otherwise primarily consulting a Latin translation and Latin-Greek lexica for reference (Pignot 12-4). Aside from Hélène Pignot’s recent publication of a new edition in 2016, little contemporary scholarship has focused on Fielding’s Memoirs of Socrates. Scholars have produced much work on the classicism of the Blue Stockings Society (to which Fielding belonged) and even on Carter’s translation of Epictetus, but no comparable study has been completed about Fielding’s translation of Xenophon. Comparing Fielding’s version to the original unveils suggestive omissions of content and insertions of distinctly gendered language for virtue and vice. Fielding leaves several sections of the Memorabilia untranslated seemingly for personal objection to their content (e.g. Xenophon’s discussion of male homosexuality in 1.3.9-13 is wholly absent from Fielding’s translation). Additionally, Fielding translates a broad range of Greek words used to describe the morally corrupt with “effeminate,” one instance being where she renders ἀκολαστοτέρως as “too effeminately,” which Amy Bonnette translates as “too undisciplined” (Xenophon 2.1.1; Fielding 69; Bonnette 33). In this paper, I will document the sections of Xenophon that Fielding either elides or significantly alters, analyze the gendered language that Fielding applies to ethical concepts, and provide an account of Fielding’s interpretation of the Memorabilia with special focus on her implicit views about the relationship between ethics and gender.

A previous version of this paper was read in Sep. 2023 at the conference held in Perugia and devoted to "Cinquant'anni di studi sul pensiero greco". A book stemming from this conference is expected to appear and include a widely revised version of it.
Below you may find, for the moment, no more than title, table of contents, and an updated section 1.
A salient feature  of these notes is the attention paid to the non-doctrinal dialogues.

Aristophanes describes The Clouds as "the wisest" of his comedies. The choice of wisdom as an attribute of comedy seems strange because the common perception of comedy understands it to be concerned with the absurd and the ridiculous. Wisdom is associated more with philosophy. This paper argues that comedy is an arena for philosophical ideas in society. This paper traces the ancient Greek philosophical fight of Aristophanes and Socrates and its manifestation in the arena of comedy within the two comedies The Clouds and The Cynics' way of life. In this paper, there are also examples from the Egyptian comedian theatre like The Married, Imprison Your Daughters and It Is Truly a Very Respectful Family and the Egyptian comedian media like Al Hudood mock news website. The analysis of these examples supports the claim that comedy is the arena of philosophical thought in different societies and times (not only in ancient Greece). The larger aim of this paper is to examine the philosophical potential of comedy and its effect within the realm of ideas in society.