What are the philosophical and hermeneutic implications of the various ways of writing a philosophical text, in particular Plato's didactical and dialogical style versus Nietzsche's emphatic and "intimate" style?

Taking for granted the different emphases of the oeuvres, what are the major differences in style between the works, and what are the philosophical implication of these differences? In particular how does each participate or not in social analysis and/or the construction of a theoretical framework?

Could one of these styles possibly be considered more critically "rigorous" or "robust" than the other? What are some major criticisms (and terms of criticism) of both?

  • Okay I changed the question. Is it possible for you to unclose it? Thanks! Jul 6, 2011 at 0:03
  • 1
    Okay I see - thanks for the welcome! I just edited it again to make it more focused. Jul 6, 2011 at 0:40
  • 1
    Hrm... "Advantages/disadvantages" is sort of a weird criteria to use. Advantages and disadvantages in terms of what? What types of answers are you looking for here? Jul 6, 2011 at 9:17
  • Hm, in terms of learning insightful things about the world, especially human psychology and the social sciences Jul 6, 2011 at 16:56
  • 1
    I have performed a major reformulation of the question in the hopes of clarifying and getting it some attention -- I wanted to let you know so that you could rollback if you must, but I would encourage you to try to keep it this specific at least, and improve and clarify it further if you can.
    – Joseph Weissman
    Jul 6, 2011 at 20:31

2 Answers 2


To reformulate the question bit in more familiar terms:

"Which type of argument is more robust to error: deductive or inductive?"

(I'm not overly familiar with Nietzsche's work so I'm going to cheat and assume that since he stands against holding ideas a priori, he tends to reason from an inductive stance. I assume that's what you mean by "social analysis". Plato's Republic also does what I'd call "social analysis", but as you imply he tends to rely on first principles.)

To answer: it depends. I disagree, for instance that the inductionist's "entire analysis doesn't collapse if he's wrong". Afterall, empirical evidence suggested that atoms were the smallest possible unit of matter (hence the name) until further evidence showed that smaller entities existed. As time goes on, the Atomist Theory becomes increasingly incorrect as more data is gathered.

Meanwhile, many of the practical conclusions of Plato have been shown to be wrong in the sense of accuracy, but his works are still very relevant today despite being built on assumptions that are no longer commonly held. Many of his ideas can be recast into contemporary terms without disrupting his reasoning process drastically. His theories of social stratification don't have much traction today, but his idea that society ought to be governed by rational principles holds up very well.

Perhaps a better criteria for robustness is that general claims tend to be more robust in the face of error than specific claims, but specific claims tend to be more useful when correct. "Diamonds are hard" is a general claim likely to survive any new information, but "diamonds are the hardest material" is a more specific (and useful) claim that may not survive new information. Note that both these claims are inductive based on observation and not a priori assumptions.

Not at all an answer to your question, but a personal opinion: Nietzsche (like Tolstoy and Pascal) seems far more a product of his time than Plato. He seems like a niche philosopher who appeals to specific personalities and cultures more than to others. His way of looking at the world doesn't appeal to me and therefore I have a difficult time following his lines of reasoning. Pascal is the opposite for me: I get where he's coming from although I know many other people don't. Meanwhile, both Plato and Aristotle, who come from opposite sides of the deductive/inductive spectrum, seem to hold up well from many people. I have no direct evidence for this assertion, however.

  • 5
    I strongly disagree with this characterization of Nietzsche; just because you don't find it appealing or find it difficult doesn't mean it lacks broad appeal or is "niche." Nietzsche's work is some of the most popular and widely read of any philosopher and I find it difficult to swallow the claim that he "belongs" only to some select group of people (that is to say, he is widely read even among laymen.)
    – Joseph Weissman
    Jul 6, 2011 at 19:17
  • The rest of the answer is great, though :)
    – Joseph Weissman
    Jul 6, 2011 at 19:18
  • @Joseph: I concur with your disagreement. I wish I knew how to express my vague feeling that Nietzsche is more specific (and thus less robust) than Plato. Tolstoy would be another example: he's still widely read, but not because lots of people agree with his philosophy. I wonder if part of why Nietzsche is widely read is that he's interesting in the extreme positions he took. But I'm just digging my hole of ignorance and unsupported assertions deeper, so I'll stop. Jul 6, 2011 at 19:28
  • 1
    I appreciate the Nietzsche - niche duality there. Clever. I also think this is a great answer. Jul 6, 2011 at 20:36
  • Great last para.
    – boehj
    Jul 7, 2011 at 1:36

Not correct to compare the master creator with a follower - even if the follower is a dear admirer. The whole works of Nietzsche comment, compare, reply to Plato (e.g. Zarathustra's opening, the descend from the cave etc. etc.)

In addition, Plato lived his era to the extreme; having been expelled three times by despots and democrates, chased from three city-states, constantly on the run, he was hardly a secluded theoritician/professor, as Nietzsche was.

These my two-pence, no further knowledge-alas.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .