PURPOSE OF PLATO. 453 independent view of the appropriate evidence. And amidst all the variety and divergence of particulars which we find enforced in the language of Sokrates, the end, towards which all of them point, is one and the same, emphatically signified, the good and happiness of social man. It is not, then, to multiply proselytes, or to procure authoritative assent, but to create earnest seekers, analytical intellects, foreknow- ing and consistent agents, capable of forming conclusions for them- selves and of teaching others, as well as to force them into that path of inductive generalization whereby alone trustworthy con- clusions can be formed, that the Sokratic method aspires. In many of the Platonic dialogues, wherein Sokrates is brought forward as the principal disputant, we read a series of discussions and arguments, distinct, though having reference to the same sub- jfct. but terminating either in a result purely negative, or without any definite result at all. The commentators often attempt, but in my judgment with little success, either by arranging the dia- logues in a supposed sequence or by various other hypotheses, to as.-iirn some positive doctrinal conclusion as having been indirectly contemplated by the author. But if Plato had aimed at any sub- stantive demonstration of this sort, we cannot well imagine that he would have left his purpose thus in the dark, visible only by the microscope of a critic. The didactic value of these dialogues that wherein the genuine Sokratic spirit stands most manifest consists, not in the positive conclusion proved, but in the argu- mentative process itself, coupled with the general importance of the subject, upon which evidence negative and affirmative is brought to bear. This connects itself with that which I remarked in the pre- ceding chapter, when mentioning Zeno and the first manifestations of dialectics, respecting the large sweep, the many-sided argu- mentation, and the strength as well as forwardness of the nega- tive arm, in Grecian speculative philosophy. Through Sokrates, this amplitude of dialectic range was transmitted from Zeno, first to Plato and next to Aristotle. It was a proceeding natural to men who were not merely interested in establishing, or refuting Borne given particular conclusion, but who also like expert mathematicians in their own science loved, esteemed, and sought to improve the dialectic process itself, with the means of
