RyanS2

Just an interesting thing to throw into the historical Jesus debate. Fans of Bertrand Russell books will note that he makes statements similar to, (not directly quoting him): "We are unsure of how much of Socrates is Socrates and how much of it is Plato as he wanted to see Socrates." I was recommended to read Gregory Vlastos' book: "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0801497876/mareview-20" target="_blank">Socrates: Ironist and Moral Philosopher".</a> I haven't yet reviewed it, but basically, Vlastos takes all the Socratic texts and breaks them down into ten theses over three time periods. The earliest Socrates is in disagreement with the later Socrates, (middle and late), and Vlastos comes to the conclusion that Socrates is really just a dramatic persona which Plato is using to bolster his ideas. Vlastos writes that:

"As Plato changes, the philosophical persona of his Socrates is made to change, absorbing the writer's new convictions, arguing for them with the same zest with which the Socrates of the previous dialogues had argued for the views the writer shared with the original of that figure earlier on."

Now, this is important because Socrates is a historical personage. However, he was never mythologized. Yet, even what he said and did changed based upon what his pupil WANTED him to be rather than what he was. It also has a better time-line case than any other historical/mythological figure. Has anyone here read this book or have any comments on it?