Colloquium 3: Commentary on Irani

Abstract In his original and illuminating essay, Tushar Irani offers a re-reading of Adeimantus’s and Glaucon’s challenges to Socrates in book 2 of Plato’s Republic . If correct, his interpretation has far-reaching implications for how we are to understand the dialogue as a whole. At the core of this re-reading is an attempt to rehabilitate Adeimantus’s reputation by demonstrating his central role in determining the trajectory of the dialogue’s argument. In my response I question Irani’s suggestion that Adeimantus’s challenge to Socrates is as distinct from Glaucon’s as Irani suggests it is and, even if so, whether it is distinct in the precise way he suggests it is. Furthermore, I raise possible objections to his claim that large parts of the Republic —and, especially, its political project—are intended to meet Adeimantus’s challenge, not Glaucon’s.