What do you think?
Rate this book
Laches
This book was converted from its physical edition to the digital format by a community of volunteers. You may find it for free on the web. Purchase of the Kindle edition includes wireless delivery.
51 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 381
45 people are currently reading
656 people want to read
About the author
Plato
5,332 books8,717 followersPlato (Greek: Πλάτων), born Aristocles (c. 427 – 348 BC), was an ancient Greek philosopher of the Classical period who is considered a foundational thinker in Western philosophy and an innovator of the written dialogue and dialectic forms. He raised problems for what became all the major areas of both theoretical philosophy and practical philosophy, and was the founder of the Platonic Academy, a philosophical school in Athens where Plato taught the doctrines that would later become known as Platonism.
Plato's most famous contribution is the theory of forms (or ideas), which has been interpreted as advancing a solution to what is now known as the problem of universals. He was decisively influenced by the pre-Socratic thinkers Pythagoras, Heraclitus, and Parmenides, although much of what is known about them is derived from Plato himself.
Along with his teacher Socrates, and Aristotle, his student, Plato is a central figure in the history of philosophy. Plato's entire body of work is believed to have survived intact for over 2,400 years—unlike that of nearly all of his contemporaries. Although their popularity has fluctuated, they have consistently been read and studied through the ages. Through Neoplatonism, he also greatly influenced both Christian and Islamic philosophy. In modern times, Alfred North Whitehead famously said: "the safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato."
Plato's most famous contribution is the theory of forms (or ideas), which has been interpreted as advancing a solution to what is now known as the problem of universals. He was decisively influenced by the pre-Socratic thinkers Pythagoras, Heraclitus, and Parmenides, although much of what is known about them is derived from Plato himself.
Along with his teacher Socrates, and Aristotle, his student, Plato is a central figure in the history of philosophy. Plato's entire body of work is believed to have survived intact for over 2,400 years—unlike that of nearly all of his contemporaries. Although their popularity has fluctuated, they have consistently been read and studied through the ages. Through Neoplatonism, he also greatly influenced both Christian and Islamic philosophy. In modern times, Alfred North Whitehead famously said: "the safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 146 reviews
May 23, 2014
Earlier this year, we picked up a handsome 1930 edition of Jowett's complete Plato, and I recently started reading through it. I was deeply unimpressed with the first two dialogues, Charmides and Lysis; I'm afraid my frivolous reviews reflect my disappointment. But the third one delivers. Plato, either using Socrates as a mouthpiece or (at least according to some experts) reporting his words, discusses the concept of courage. He constructs a dialogue between the characters to explore the themes, and does a nice job of it. One of the reasons I found the first two dialogues so dissatisfying was that they were barely dialogues at all; Socrates does nearly all the talking, and the other players don't get to do much more than agree with him and exclaim at his brilliance. Here, in contrast, there was dramatic tension and some humor.
One of the reasons I found the dialogue in Laches interesting is that "courage" is an idea frequently referred to by gamers. Socrates is a soldier, so it's natural for him to think about it. I have never held a weapon in my life, but chess is a war game, and I have fought thousands of virtual battles, sometimes for stakes high enough that I seriously cared about the outcome. In most games, a point comes when a crucial decision has to be made, and then you find people talking about courage.
As Socrates skilfully shows, people think they know what courage is, but as soon as you start picking at the definition you find that it's remarkably hard to separate it from other desirable qualities such as foresight, balance and judgement. Every chessplayer knows how difficult it is to decide what to do when you've got yourself into an inferior position. You usually have to make a choice between passively defending on one hand and counter-attacking on the other. A beginner thinks it's obvious: the coward sits and defends, the brave man counter-attacks. But as soon as you've got a reasonable amount of experience, you see that it's anything but clear. Very often, your opponent is bluffing. He's hoping to lure you into a foolhardy counter-attack, and true courage consists in standing your ground and refusing to be provoked. As Socrates demonstrates, it's almost impossible to draw a clear line between courage and wisdom.
This is more like what I was expecting! Next stop, Protagoras.
One of the reasons I found the dialogue in Laches interesting is that "courage" is an idea frequently referred to by gamers. Socrates is a soldier, so it's natural for him to think about it. I have never held a weapon in my life, but chess is a war game, and I have fought thousands of virtual battles, sometimes for stakes high enough that I seriously cared about the outcome. In most games, a point comes when a crucial decision has to be made, and then you find people talking about courage.
As Socrates skilfully shows, people think they know what courage is, but as soon as you start picking at the definition you find that it's remarkably hard to separate it from other desirable qualities such as foresight, balance and judgement. Every chessplayer knows how difficult it is to decide what to do when you've got yourself into an inferior position. You usually have to make a choice between passively defending on one hand and counter-attacking on the other. A beginner thinks it's obvious: the coward sits and defends, the brave man counter-attacks. But as soon as you've got a reasonable amount of experience, you see that it's anything but clear. Very often, your opponent is bluffing. He's hoping to lure you into a foolhardy counter-attack, and true courage consists in standing your ground and refusing to be provoked. As Socrates demonstrates, it's almost impossible to draw a clear line between courage and wisdom.
This is more like what I was expecting! Next stop, Protagoras.
November 6, 2017
Laches is Plato’s dialogue which attempts to define the virtue of courage, but succeeds in doing so much more. As with most of the Dialogues, it ends in the discovery that such nebulous concepts are nearly impossible to neatly describe to everyone’s satisfaction.
In this case, two fathers (Lysimachus and his friend Melesias) want their sons to become honorable men and are trying to obtain instruction along those lines—something which they did not have themselves—despite the fact that their own fathers, the young boys deceased grandfathers, were legendary generals.
Lysimachus and Melesias request assistance from Laches and Nicias, reputable contemporary generals, seeking to discover specifically what they think of the art of fighting in armor.
Laches and Nicias disagree on what constitutes the ‘art of fighting’, so Lysimachus calls in Socrates to break the tie, but Socrates will have none of this. He insists numbers will not settle the question, for it is a matter of expertise. He says they must find out who is the expert and ask his advice. If neither general fits that quality, then another must be found, but what Socrates means by expert, is not one who is the best in the art of fighting with armor, but that person expert in the soul of youth. One who knows the thing called virtue; specifically, only part of virtue, i.e.,—courage.
Both generals attempt to define courage with Socrates leading them question-by-question. This is the best part of the dialogue, so even if I have revealed this much of the plot it is still not spoiled. To see Socrates in action is the real enjoyment; it is like watching a superb fencing master—in this case parrying with two friendly adversaries. Immensely entertaining!
In conclusion, I will leave you with some parting wisdom from Socrates himself:
In this case, two fathers (Lysimachus and his friend Melesias) want their sons to become honorable men and are trying to obtain instruction along those lines—something which they did not have themselves—despite the fact that their own fathers, the young boys deceased grandfathers, were legendary generals.
Lysimachus and Melesias request assistance from Laches and Nicias, reputable contemporary generals, seeking to discover specifically what they think of the art of fighting in armor.
Laches and Nicias disagree on what constitutes the ‘art of fighting’, so Lysimachus calls in Socrates to break the tie, but Socrates will have none of this. He insists numbers will not settle the question, for it is a matter of expertise. He says they must find out who is the expert and ask his advice. If neither general fits that quality, then another must be found, but what Socrates means by expert, is not one who is the best in the art of fighting with armor, but that person expert in the soul of youth. One who knows the thing called virtue; specifically, only part of virtue, i.e.,—courage.
Both generals attempt to define courage with Socrates leading them question-by-question. This is the best part of the dialogue, so even if I have revealed this much of the plot it is still not spoiled. To see Socrates in action is the real enjoyment; it is like watching a superb fencing master—in this case parrying with two friendly adversaries. Immensely entertaining!
In conclusion, I will leave you with some parting wisdom from Socrates himself:
‘Every one of us should seek out the best teacher whom he can find, first for ourselves, who are greatly in need of one, and then for the youth, regardless of expense or anything. But I cannot advise that we remain as we are. And if any one laughs at us for going to school at our age, I would quote to them the authority of Homer, who says, that ‘Modesty is not good for a needy man.’ Let us then, regardless of what may be said of us, make the education of the youths our own education.’
November 25, 2019
Initially, I felt slightly guilty adding this short book to my 2019 ‘books read’ list, but I re-read this book and various passages many times. It’s worth noting, I needed to refer to the similarly brief Sparknotes booklet to help me understand the thing. In the end, I spent more time on this effort than my usual 400-page affair, and feel it is more than worthy to add to my list of books read for this year.
Okay onto the layperson’s review of Laches by Plato, who is considered the father of Greek and Western Philosophy. Most of his work takes the form of dialogues, and Laches is no different. This piece involves the fathers of two sons and they’re trying to decide on how best to educate each of them in the art of fighting in armour. As both Dads are not proficient at this, they engage two noteworthy Generals (Laches and Nicias) in a discussion to help assist them to decide which one to engage to train their sons.
Enter the argumentative (let’s not deny it) Socrates, to adjudicate. Seems Socrates spent most of his days sauntering around Athens arguing, debating, probing, poking and questioning people’s logic and assumptions with the whole intent of demolishing their arguments, to show they knew nothing. I can imagine people running in all directions when Socrates was approaching. I think it did him in, in the end.
Anyway, Socrates gave Laches two attempts at defining ‘Courage’. He finally admitted he hadn’t the slightest idea what Courage was. This was followed by Nicias’ attempt, this is where it got really complicated for me, as Nicias tended to use forms and various abstract arguments that seemed so far removed from Courage, my brain ached. But in the end Socrates proved Nicias didn’t know either. This presented Socrates with an incredible challenge on who best to select to teach the two boys.
I must say, after immersing myself in this dialogue for a short but intense time, I haven’t the faintest idea on how to define Courage. In fact, I probably am less able to do so after reading Laches than I was before – perhaps that is Socrates point. I know nothing.
I did chuckle at this (From Sparknotes):
“Interestingly, Socrates own teacher, Cratylus, was so focused on his own thoughts of wisdom that he even refused to speak”……..Imagine that!
They must have been an interesting bunch back in 500-400 AD.
Much is said about engaging one’s mind, as we age, in new activities such as learning an instrument or a new language to fight off the risk of dementia and other similar diseases. Well, trying to understand books such as this and performing the mental gymnastics required to figure out even the most ‘simple’ of passages, certainly has the potential to keep us all mentally nimble. Enjoy – I did!
4.5 stars.
Okay onto the layperson’s review of Laches by Plato, who is considered the father of Greek and Western Philosophy. Most of his work takes the form of dialogues, and Laches is no different. This piece involves the fathers of two sons and they’re trying to decide on how best to educate each of them in the art of fighting in armour. As both Dads are not proficient at this, they engage two noteworthy Generals (Laches and Nicias) in a discussion to help assist them to decide which one to engage to train their sons.
Enter the argumentative (let’s not deny it) Socrates, to adjudicate. Seems Socrates spent most of his days sauntering around Athens arguing, debating, probing, poking and questioning people’s logic and assumptions with the whole intent of demolishing their arguments, to show they knew nothing. I can imagine people running in all directions when Socrates was approaching. I think it did him in, in the end.
Anyway, Socrates gave Laches two attempts at defining ‘Courage’. He finally admitted he hadn’t the slightest idea what Courage was. This was followed by Nicias’ attempt, this is where it got really complicated for me, as Nicias tended to use forms and various abstract arguments that seemed so far removed from Courage, my brain ached. But in the end Socrates proved Nicias didn’t know either. This presented Socrates with an incredible challenge on who best to select to teach the two boys.
I must say, after immersing myself in this dialogue for a short but intense time, I haven’t the faintest idea on how to define Courage. In fact, I probably am less able to do so after reading Laches than I was before – perhaps that is Socrates point. I know nothing.
I did chuckle at this (From Sparknotes):
“Interestingly, Socrates own teacher, Cratylus, was so focused on his own thoughts of wisdom that he even refused to speak”……..Imagine that!
They must have been an interesting bunch back in 500-400 AD.
Much is said about engaging one’s mind, as we age, in new activities such as learning an instrument or a new language to fight off the risk of dementia and other similar diseases. Well, trying to understand books such as this and performing the mental gymnastics required to figure out even the most ‘simple’ of passages, certainly has the potential to keep us all mentally nimble. Enjoy – I did!
4.5 stars.
March 15, 2025
In which Socrates takes a broversation among dads as to which is the best martial art for their sons to practice and fixes their minds instead on the nature of courage and what it means to perpetually seek the good. A delightful conversation among friends that invites the hearer/reader in. What is courage? Since time and hemlock mean I don't have to fear Socrates pointing out the weakness in my conception, I offer: Courage is the performance of duty under duress.
November 19, 2019
A Question of Bravery
18 November 2019 – Echuca
Well, in this dialogue we have Socrates discussing with some military types what the exact meaning of bravery is (and one of these military people happens to be the General Nicias, of the SicilianDisaster Expedition fame). Well, I would have probably recommended that they consider the Oxford English dictionary, but I’m not sure that is what the purpose of this dialogue was. Anyway, the OED definition of bravery is:
Yeah, that seems to be a little simplistic, and I’m not sure whether that is what they are trying to get at. For instance, consider this:
I guess this is one of the things that they were trying to determine – what is bravery, and what is just plain stupidity. Of course, we do have a number of problems with the above meme, namely because we all know that penguins and polar bears don’t live in the same part of the world as each other, but that aside, it does help us understand what is being discussed here.
Of course, it goes further than that to raise the question as to whether bravery can be taught. This is of course one of the major themes that seems to run through a lot of Plato’s works, and of course it comes down to us today – can we teach virtue. Is it the case that there are people who are naturally timid, and is it possible for them to overcome their timidity, and then comes the real question as to when is it appropriate to stand and fight, and when is it appropriate to high tail it out of there.
The catch is that, and I know that I experienced this as I was growing up, especially as a guy, and that is that sometime you are enticed to do something stupid because if you don’t then you are labelled a coward. This is one of those things that nobody seemed to have wanted to have attached to them, which resulted in us doing lots and lots of stupid things, and some of us getting into to lots of lots of trouble, all under the misconception that if we didn’t then we would not be considered to be brave.
There is actually another catch as well, namely because the scene in this dialogue is taking place in a training facility (though of course we need to remember that there was no such thing as a standing army back in those days) where young people would practice their fighting skills. Yet, as has been well documented, fighting in a controlled environment, and fighting in a real battle are two completely different things. It is interesting that a lot of highly trained, and rather intimidating people, show their true colours when they suddenly find themselves at war. Mind you, it seems that it is that first battle that basically makes or breaks the soldier, and a part of me suspects that things start to get easier from then on.
Yet one does not take into account the whole life or death aspect of bravery. Sometimes people will do things purely due to the survival instinct. What would have been a foolhardy venture has resulted in the fact that people have become almost superhuman due to not only their own lives being in danger, but the lives of their family, their city, and even their nation.
There is probably more that can be said of this, but, like a lot of Plato’s dialogues, they don’t seem to actually reach a foregone conclusion, unless the idea of facing danger tempered with wisdom is the conclusion that they have reached. This is no doubt because the purpose of the dialogue is to set the stage for further discussion, and further reflection. If what Socrates says at the end is anything to go by, then we all have a lot more to learn about the subject.
18 November 2019 – Echuca
Well, in this dialogue we have Socrates discussing with some military types what the exact meaning of bravery is (and one of these military people happens to be the General Nicias, of the Sicilian
ready to face, or endure, danger or pain.
Yeah, that seems to be a little simplistic, and I’m not sure whether that is what they are trying to get at. For instance, consider this:
I guess this is one of the things that they were trying to determine – what is bravery, and what is just plain stupidity. Of course, we do have a number of problems with the above meme, namely because we all know that penguins and polar bears don’t live in the same part of the world as each other, but that aside, it does help us understand what is being discussed here.
Of course, it goes further than that to raise the question as to whether bravery can be taught. This is of course one of the major themes that seems to run through a lot of Plato’s works, and of course it comes down to us today – can we teach virtue. Is it the case that there are people who are naturally timid, and is it possible for them to overcome their timidity, and then comes the real question as to when is it appropriate to stand and fight, and when is it appropriate to high tail it out of there.
The catch is that, and I know that I experienced this as I was growing up, especially as a guy, and that is that sometime you are enticed to do something stupid because if you don’t then you are labelled a coward. This is one of those things that nobody seemed to have wanted to have attached to them, which resulted in us doing lots and lots of stupid things, and some of us getting into to lots of lots of trouble, all under the misconception that if we didn’t then we would not be considered to be brave.
There is actually another catch as well, namely because the scene in this dialogue is taking place in a training facility (though of course we need to remember that there was no such thing as a standing army back in those days) where young people would practice their fighting skills. Yet, as has been well documented, fighting in a controlled environment, and fighting in a real battle are two completely different things. It is interesting that a lot of highly trained, and rather intimidating people, show their true colours when they suddenly find themselves at war. Mind you, it seems that it is that first battle that basically makes or breaks the soldier, and a part of me suspects that things start to get easier from then on.
Yet one does not take into account the whole life or death aspect of bravery. Sometimes people will do things purely due to the survival instinct. What would have been a foolhardy venture has resulted in the fact that people have become almost superhuman due to not only their own lives being in danger, but the lives of their family, their city, and even their nation.
There is probably more that can be said of this, but, like a lot of Plato’s dialogues, they don’t seem to actually reach a foregone conclusion, unless the idea of facing danger tempered with wisdom is the conclusion that they have reached. This is no doubt because the purpose of the dialogue is to set the stage for further discussion, and further reflection. If what Socrates says at the end is anything to go by, then we all have a lot more to learn about the subject.
December 1, 2020
STUDIATE il saggio introduttivo prima di leggere questo dialogo. Così è possibile coglierne l'immensità!
March 21, 2018
Here is another of the inconclusive dialogues. Socrates is asked by a couple of older men, Lysimachus and Melesias, whether to educate their sons in the art of fighting in armor. Socrates characteristically shifts the theme to a more abstract inquiry: What is courage? Commonsense definitions—such as “to stand and fight” or “to endure”—are quickly eliminated as admitting of exceptions. Nicias, a well-educated general, then proposes that courage is a certain kind of knowledge: that of future good and evil. After further dialectical maneuvering, the conversants find that they have gotten too general and have defined all of virtue and goodness, while leaving the specific nature of courage undefined. Socrates shrugs his shoulders and they break for lunch.
Though the question of courage is of somewhat limited philosophical interest, I do think that Plato hits upon the oft-overlooked role of knowledge (or lack of knowledge) in this seemingly physical or emotional virtue. This is characteristic of Plato, of course, for whom knowledge and goodness are tightly linked. Argument aside, the well-drawn characters of this dialogue are yet another example of Plato's talent as a dramatist.
Though the question of courage is of somewhat limited philosophical interest, I do think that Plato hits upon the oft-overlooked role of knowledge (or lack of knowledge) in this seemingly physical or emotional virtue. This is characteristic of Plato, of course, for whom knowledge and goodness are tightly linked. Argument aside, the well-drawn characters of this dialogue are yet another example of Plato's talent as a dramatist.
May 9, 2025
Listening to Plato's dialogues is our new convivial cowboy commute time activity. In this one, Socrates and the old guys discuss how to get the young guys to turn out well. Should they learn to fight wearing heavy armor? (Sparta would scoff) What is the point of education? (To cultivate virtue) And what even is courage and why is it so hard to define? (Spoiler, they never figure this one out).
September 10, 2024
“I maintain, my friends, that every one of us should seek out the best teacher whom he can find, first for ourselves, who are greatly in need of one, and then for the youth, regardless of expense or anything. But I cannot advise that we remain as we are.”
July 1, 2025
Plato gets to the heart of one of the most persistent problems that plagues scholars to this day: The incapability of defining universally known concepts.
As Laches is one of the inconclusive dialogues, the characters are unable to arrive at an answer as to what exactly courage is.
As Laches is one of the inconclusive dialogues, the characters are unable to arrive at an answer as to what exactly courage is.
September 23, 2018
God this made no fucking sense. 😂 I'm so tired of Socrates bullshit
September 17, 2016
SOCRATES: But then, Nicias, courage, according to this new definition of yours, instead of being a part of virtue only, will be all virtue ?
January 13, 2019
Laches: what is courage?
————————————————————
Socrates: dunno
————————————————————
5/5
————————————————————
Socrates: dunno
————————————————————
5/5
December 11, 2020
En sammanfattning av gränserna för innovationsförmåga och mod i ljuset av maskulinitet som fenomen. Inte läsvärd.
February 11, 2021
honestly, this is an ancient greek edition of mean girls
September 29, 2025
"Ne obraćajmo dakle pažnju na to šta će ko reći, već se obrazujmo zajedno sa svojim sinovima."
June 13, 2021
Un diálogo en el que la mayéutica de Sócrates demuestra el por qué de su existencia, ya que por medio de su método, el griego logra hacer que uno de los dos generales del ejército ateniense admita que no sabe absolutamente nada, y que para saber cuál es la mejor manera de educar a sus hijos, deberán dejárselo a alguien que esté totalmente instruido en la materia. Este es Laques, quien se ve obligado a explicar lo que es el "valor", algo que los presentes habían dicho que era necesario enseñar a sus hijos, pero como vemos, se da cuenta de que no tiene ni idea de lo que es el valor, por lo tanto de lo que quiere enseñar a sus hijos.
Hay muchos razonamientos en el diálogo, pero yo me quedo específicamente con dos:
1. “La ciencia tiene un carácter universal y absoluto, no es una para las cosas pasadas y otra para las cosas del porvenir”.
2. “El valor, es una parte de la virtud entera”.
Lo que más aprendí de estas afirmaciones es que Sócrates tiene un compromiso con la verdad única y objetiva, dejando en claro que la esencia de una cosa (en este caso la de valor, por lo que vemos que ese era su propósito con el diálogo, encontrar una definición para la esencia de valor, lo cual vemos que no logra ni por Nicias, ni por Laques) tiene carácter absoluto y universal, no es una para el pasado y otra para el futuro. En la actualidad se tiende a pensar que un concepto universal puede ser utilizado en un momento sí, y en otro no; en otras palabras "Cuando a mí me guste sí, cuando a mí no me guste no". Esta es la lógica moderna, impulsada por la crisis ideológica y de búsqueda de razonamiento propio (lo que Sócrates quería, que buscáramos la verdad por nosotros mismos, no que se nos enseñe o se nos adoctrine, ejemplo: es así porque yo te lo estoy diciendo).
Hay muchos razonamientos en el diálogo, pero yo me quedo específicamente con dos:
1. “La ciencia tiene un carácter universal y absoluto, no es una para las cosas pasadas y otra para las cosas del porvenir”.
2. “El valor, es una parte de la virtud entera”.
Lo que más aprendí de estas afirmaciones es que Sócrates tiene un compromiso con la verdad única y objetiva, dejando en claro que la esencia de una cosa (en este caso la de valor, por lo que vemos que ese era su propósito con el diálogo, encontrar una definición para la esencia de valor, lo cual vemos que no logra ni por Nicias, ni por Laques) tiene carácter absoluto y universal, no es una para el pasado y otra para el futuro. En la actualidad se tiende a pensar que un concepto universal puede ser utilizado en un momento sí, y en otro no; en otras palabras "Cuando a mí me guste sí, cuando a mí no me guste no". Esta es la lógica moderna, impulsada por la crisis ideológica y de búsqueda de razonamiento propio (lo que Sócrates quería, que buscáramos la verdad por nosotros mismos, no que se nos enseñe o se nos adoctrine, ejemplo: es así porque yo te lo estoy diciendo).
April 18, 2017
I love how Socrates picks common concepts that basically everyone thinks they know, and makes them realize they know nothing about it.
it is specially frustrating and embarassing for the other characters in the dialogue, Nycias and Laches, since they're army generals.
it is specially frustrating and embarassing for the other characters in the dialogue, Nycias and Laches, since they're army generals.
April 26, 2014
سر کلاس خواندیمش، و فارسی ش را مسلما :دی
اما چون نمیدانم که اسم کتاب چه بود، همین انگلیسی اش را ادد میکنم :دی
اما چون نمیدانم که اسم کتاب چه بود، همین انگلیسی اش را ادد میکنم :دی
June 14, 2020
Plato suggests the virtues require wisdom and are interconnected. Courage is not rash fearlessness. Perhaps it must be for a good cause.
April 28, 2025
What is courage?
We as individuals are surrounded by courage every day---we see courageous acts; we hear courageous words. But rarely have we ever stopped to pause and think about what one trait makes all of these things we see actually "courageous." We find ourselves preoccupied enough with living, thriving, triumphantly burgeoning---that we fail to consider the very foundations that develop into what we know as our character.
Plato's Laches is underscored by this theme; a pursuit of knowledge about the building blocks that surround every action of our lives. In Laches, Plato's Socrates explores the concept of courage alongside multiple military generals. The book can be split into two parts: Part I, where more military strategy-like ideas are discussed, and Part II, where Socrates challenges his peers to pursue the definition of bravery. I will discuss mainly Part II.
To start off, I first find it ironic (yet expected) that Plato places Socrates with military generals to discuss bravery. Perhaps this is a touch to the Socratic struggle mentioned most notably in Apology, where experts and artisan men of Ancient Athens were often overly confident about their knowledge---that is, until they were questioned beyond a surface-level understanding by Socrates and made to look like fools.
The discussion is typically Socratic, and doesn't devolve much from other Plato texts; the generals propose definitions of courage, only to be shot down by Socrates on fallacies and inaccuracies in their calculations. Once again, perhaps a general of the mighty Athens would know best what bravery and courage looked like; especially after a tenured decades worth of experience, and generations to fall before them. Yet here, they seem to know the same about bravery as you and I; despite their many battles on the frontlines.
Perhaps one of the most interesting definitions to me comes towards the end however: where Nicias, one of the generals, suggests courage is knowledge of all future good and evil. But to Socrates, this would mean courage was not only knowledge of future elements, but also good and evil in the past---and knowledge of both good and evil, present and future, would simply be virtue---knowledge of what is good and bad. Yet courage is a virtue, so this would be a contradiction and therefore not be the accurate definition. Perhaps we just defined virtue though---maybe something we should've had before looking for courage (like in the Republic where we seek to find justice in the City before we find it in the Individual). The text then goes on to end in aporia, a state of confusion and no answer---much like other Socratic discussions.
Laches challenges the reader to think more about true, essential defintions of traits---whether it be courage, justice, or temperance. But something Laches lacked to me was length. Especially in ancient Greece, the title of bravery acted similar to a crown; it was beloved and blessed. Tales of ancient battles reigned generations; and ancestors became legends. The Iliad, Odyssey, Argonautica (just to name a few) were mere literary proof of this near obsession. Although anti-Socratic in nature, tales of bravery by the generals in this story would've added to the discussion an element of seasoned experience; and perhaps one that could help us achieve our pursuit of the definition. A fan of the short, back and forth style 99% of the time, this is the 1% of the time I would want more story, as the concept of bravery truly is no easy feat. Per chance it can only come through your own eyes.
Laches to me will remain still an underrated Plato text; one which should be read by all to see what ideals we too truly do not understand.
We as individuals are surrounded by courage every day---we see courageous acts; we hear courageous words. But rarely have we ever stopped to pause and think about what one trait makes all of these things we see actually "courageous." We find ourselves preoccupied enough with living, thriving, triumphantly burgeoning---that we fail to consider the very foundations that develop into what we know as our character.
Plato's Laches is underscored by this theme; a pursuit of knowledge about the building blocks that surround every action of our lives. In Laches, Plato's Socrates explores the concept of courage alongside multiple military generals. The book can be split into two parts: Part I, where more military strategy-like ideas are discussed, and Part II, where Socrates challenges his peers to pursue the definition of bravery. I will discuss mainly Part II.
To start off, I first find it ironic (yet expected) that Plato places Socrates with military generals to discuss bravery. Perhaps this is a touch to the Socratic struggle mentioned most notably in Apology, where experts and artisan men of Ancient Athens were often overly confident about their knowledge---that is, until they were questioned beyond a surface-level understanding by Socrates and made to look like fools.
The discussion is typically Socratic, and doesn't devolve much from other Plato texts; the generals propose definitions of courage, only to be shot down by Socrates on fallacies and inaccuracies in their calculations. Once again, perhaps a general of the mighty Athens would know best what bravery and courage looked like; especially after a tenured decades worth of experience, and generations to fall before them. Yet here, they seem to know the same about bravery as you and I; despite their many battles on the frontlines.
Perhaps one of the most interesting definitions to me comes towards the end however: where Nicias, one of the generals, suggests courage is knowledge of all future good and evil. But to Socrates, this would mean courage was not only knowledge of future elements, but also good and evil in the past---and knowledge of both good and evil, present and future, would simply be virtue---knowledge of what is good and bad. Yet courage is a virtue, so this would be a contradiction and therefore not be the accurate definition. Perhaps we just defined virtue though---maybe something we should've had before looking for courage (like in the Republic where we seek to find justice in the City before we find it in the Individual). The text then goes on to end in aporia, a state of confusion and no answer---much like other Socratic discussions.
Laches challenges the reader to think more about true, essential defintions of traits---whether it be courage, justice, or temperance. But something Laches lacked to me was length. Especially in ancient Greece, the title of bravery acted similar to a crown; it was beloved and blessed. Tales of ancient battles reigned generations; and ancestors became legends. The Iliad, Odyssey, Argonautica (just to name a few) were mere literary proof of this near obsession. Although anti-Socratic in nature, tales of bravery by the generals in this story would've added to the discussion an element of seasoned experience; and perhaps one that could help us achieve our pursuit of the definition. A fan of the short, back and forth style 99% of the time, this is the 1% of the time I would want more story, as the concept of bravery truly is no easy feat. Per chance it can only come through your own eyes.
Laches to me will remain still an underrated Plato text; one which should be read by all to see what ideals we too truly do not understand.
October 2, 2022
“Ó Lisímaco, mas seria terrível uma coisas dessas – não aceder em colaborar para tornar alguém melhor! Se, de facto, nas conversas anteriores eu me tivesse mostrado sabedor e estes dois não sabedores, seria justo chamar-me a mim de preferência para este trabalho. Mas, neste momento, estamos todos caídos em aporia. Como poderia alguém dar preferência a algum de nós? O que me parece a mim é que a nenhum. Mas já que assim é, ponderai que vos parece o meu conselho. O que eu afirmo, com efeito, meus amigos – e nem uma palavra saia daqui para fora – é que precisamos, em comum, nós todos, de procurar o melhor mestre que houver, mas para nós próprios, que bem precisamos, em primeiro lugar; em seguida, também para os rapazinhos, sem poupar dinheiro ou seja lá o que for. Deixarmo-nos ficar como agora estamos, é coisa que não aconselho. Se alguém zombar de nós por, em tal idade, julgarmos conveniente ir à escola, parece que teremos de nos escudar em Homero, o qual diz: ‘a vergonha não é uma coisa boa para um homem necessitado’. Também nós mandaremos passear quem disser alguma coisa, e em comum assumiremos a preparação de nós próprios e dos nossos rapazes.”
Mais um exemplo de um debate interessante que acaba por ter como objetivo definir o próprio conceito de coragem. Apesar de não se chegar a nenhuma conclusão é sempre engraçado ver Sócrates gerar um discurso e ver a interação dos intervenientes, neste caso Laques e Nícias, que acabam por ter visões opostas e se lançam num “conflito intelectual” sobre o tema, cheio de indiretas. Todo um drama que finaliza com a conclusão de Sócrates de que ninguém ali teria conhecimento suficiente sobre o assunto para poder realmente chegar a uma definição de coragem, só talvez de uma parte do seu significado, mas nunca do conceito completo, e de que para realmente conseguirem chegar ao conceito precisavam de investir tempo e recursos em si mesmos para se educarem nessa situação.
Fica aqui definida a coragem para aceitar de que nem sempre se sabe tudo, ou até mesmo de que nunca se sabe realmente nada, e a coragem para procurar suporte de quem sabe um pouco mais, não aceitando à partida o que é dito como certo, mas questionando sempre as suas origens. Ou seja, aplicar o método socrático de forma sensata e constante também pode por si só ser um exemplo de coragem interior, uma vez que admitir que estamos errados é algo por vezes contrário à natureza humana, como é demonstrado no conflito entre Nícias e Laques. Já Sócrates, mantendo-se como juiz do discurso acaba por possuir uma posição neutra que lhe permite observar as várias perspetivas do debate sem comprometer o seu objetivo de alcançar alguma sabedoria no assunto.
Como sempre, adoro ler estes episódios descritos por Platão que, apesar de por vezes serem discursos circulares com finais incertos, são muito estimulantes para quem queira desenvolver algum nível de retórica.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 20, 2018
Socrates discuses the virtue of courage with Laches and Nicias. I found some of Socrates reasoning rather poor. Nicias asserts that courage is the knowledge of that which is threatening and that which reassuring.
Socrates fundamental argument against this is that both that which is threatening and reassuring are future bad and good respectively. Knowledge of a particular sphere includes both past, present and future, and therefore courage cannot be the knowledge of just future bad and future good. It must include knowledge of all instances of bad from past and present too. And if someone did have all this knowledge, they would be completely excellent in all respects. Courage is only a part of excellence, not the whole, so courage cannot be the knowledge of that which is threatening and reassuring.
Socrates offers no alternative after this "debunking".
Socrates fundamental argument against this is that both that which is threatening and reassuring are future bad and good respectively. Knowledge of a particular sphere includes both past, present and future, and therefore courage cannot be the knowledge of just future bad and future good. It must include knowledge of all instances of bad from past and present too. And if someone did have all this knowledge, they would be completely excellent in all respects. Courage is only a part of excellence, not the whole, so courage cannot be the knowledge of that which is threatening and reassuring.
Socrates offers no alternative after this "debunking".
October 16, 2022
Para mí no resulta nada insólito ni desagradable exponerme a las pruebas de Sócrates, sino que desde hace tiempo sabía que, estando presente Sócrates, la charla no sería sobre los muchachos sino sobre nosotros mismos.---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recomendada por @Ignacio tras su charlita sobre la ironía en Sócrates. Está gracioso el beef entre Nicias y Laques, la verdad. Y cómo me gusta leerme libros (cortos) en un día del tirón; lo disfruto mucho.
De los diálogos tempranos solo me queda por leer Protágoras. Se aceptan otras recomendaciones :p
July 20, 2024
Plato's early dialog Laches is an attempt to define courage so that two of the participants can decide whether to have their sons trained to be hoplites (foot soldiers). In this as in some of the other early dialogs, Plato does not have Socrates come to a conclusion so much as to clarify some of the terms od the dispute. Here, Socrates sees courage as just another form of excellence, but he does not take it far enough.
February 2, 2022
Cəsarətin nə olduğu haqda heç bir nəticəyə gələ bilmədilər. Laxeslə Nikias bir-birilərinə söz atdılar.
Maraqlı gələn tək hissəsi burada idi:
“NICIAS: Why, Laches, I do not call animals or any other things which have no fear of dangers, because they are ignorant of them, courageous, but only fearless and senseless. Do you imagine that I should call little children courageous, which fear no dangers because they know none? There is a difference, to my way of thinking, between fearlessness and courage. I am of opinion that thoughtful courage is a quality possessed by very few, but that rashness and boldness, and fearlessness, which has no forethought, are very common qualities possessed by many men, many women, many children, many animals. And you, and men in general, call by the term 'courageous' actions which I call rash;—my courageous actions are wise actions.”
Maraqlı gələn tək hissəsi burada idi:
“NICIAS: Why, Laches, I do not call animals or any other things which have no fear of dangers, because they are ignorant of them, courageous, but only fearless and senseless. Do you imagine that I should call little children courageous, which fear no dangers because they know none? There is a difference, to my way of thinking, between fearlessness and courage. I am of opinion that thoughtful courage is a quality possessed by very few, but that rashness and boldness, and fearlessness, which has no forethought, are very common qualities possessed by many men, many women, many children, many animals. And you, and men in general, call by the term 'courageous' actions which I call rash;—my courageous actions are wise actions.”
July 18, 2020
screaming at my book, absolutely begging socrates to let me provide my definition of courage and bravery
June 7, 2023
Lo picaos que estaban en este diálogo
May 28, 2025
No gay stuff in this one. Highly recommend reading if you’re just getting into Plato and new to the Socratic method.
June 16, 2018
Socrates asks some really big ass questions and uses such persuasive argumentative techniques. Fun!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 146 reviews