With The New Adventures of Socrates - An Extravagance, Manny Rayer lights a fire for bold seekers of Beauty, Truth and Virture by reinvigorating Plato's dialogues with interlocutors such as Isaac Asimov, Kurt Gödel, Richard Dawkins, John Cleese, Willy Wonka, Madonna and George W. Bush.

Here's the framework: each chapter offers a snatch of reworked Platonic dialogue hitting a theme or two or three featuring a number of those new interlocutors - Bertrand Russell, Hugh Hefner, David Hume and other well-knowns. Then Manny steps back and shares a quick “But seriously” paragraph, observing how we as readers might question the line of reasoning presented in the dialogue. Twenty-two of Plato's dialogues are handled thusly within three main branches of Western Philosophy: 1) Beauty: Ion, Charmides, Lysis, Phaedrus, The Symposium 2) Truth: Euthydemus, Cratylus, Theaetetus, Timaeus, Critias, Parmenides, Sophist 3) Virtue: Laches, Protagoras, Meno, Euthyphro, Gorgias, The Republic, Philebus, Statesman, Apology, Laws. Also sprinkled throughout the pages are a batch of amusing illustrations created by a first-rate artist who has chosen to remain anonymous. Drats! I wish I had this insightful little book back when I was in college studying philosophy. Such a perfect resource to accompany Plato's actual words.

Turning to the individual dialogues, let’s take a look at Ion, the first of Plato's works covered in the book. Here we have a short piece where Socrates probes the nature of the arts by asking a reciter of Homer if his skill derives from sound knowledge based on reason or if it is more a matter of divine possession. The young rhapsode flounders from beginning to end and admits to Socrates he doesn’t really have a clue about the subjects covered by Homer and his love of the poet is a kind of madness.

Manny’s Ion is round two where the rhapsode revisits the subject after speaking with an expert of the novels written by J. K. Rowling. He tells Socrates his knowledge of Homer, like his friend’s knowledge of Harry Potter, is within the realm of fiction and has nothing to do with the actual nuts-and-bolts of things like shipbuilding or weaponry or battle strategy, topics contained within Homer’s poetry.

Manny expands on this point, how Plato’s position in the short dialogue speaks of his general distrust of poets and artists since the foundation of their knowledge refuses to be boiled down into clear categories of logic and reason. Thus, as elaborated in both the Republic and Laws, Plato wants the arts, especially things like poetry and tragedy, to be tightly controlled. Considering, for example, all the ultra-violent films churned out in an ultra-violent country like the United States, questions of control and censorship of the arts are as alive today as they were back in ancient Greece.

With The Symposium (translated into English as the drinking party), we are treated to an Oprah show when she invites Socrates and Jesus along with five panelists to vote on the most spiritual book of all time, either Plato’s famous dialogue or The Sermon on the Mount. Among the panelists are Paul McCartney (All You Need is Love), Richard Dawkins (love is the concrete expression of a negative feedback loop) and Sarah Palin making about as much sense a Sarah usually makes. As per Manny:

“PALIN: Well Oprah. I’m afraid I’m not as imaginative as Richard. I’m just a regular small-town girl with regular small town values, and I was brought up readin’ the Sermon on the Mount. Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, blessed are ye when men shall revile, you, smaller government, lower taxes, support Israel, no to-
OPRAH: Is that all in the Sermon on the Mount, Sarah?
PALIN: Maybe not in those exact words. But it’s there. And you can bet your boots I’m not votin’ for a liberal type who hangs around with a bunch of guys what’re openly tryin’ to get into his--"

Manny’s version follows the same format as The Symposium, different participants sit around and share their views on the nature of love, but alas, those ancient Greeks didn’t have the advantage of someone like Sarah Palin since, as a first step to serious philosophizing, they sent all the women off to play flutes. Incidentally, I see absolutely no common ground between Sarah's piffling poopstickery and Diotima's graceful observations on the nature of love.

As Manny points out, Timaeus was the most influential of Plato’s texts all through the medieval period. Unlike other Platonic dialogues where Socrates interrupts speakers to ask questions, Timaeus is, in effect, an extended lecture by the mathematician Timaeus on the structure of the universe. Perhaps predictably, since Timaeus based his knowledge not on scientific observation (information from our senses is unreliable) but on abstract reasoning, nearly everything he says has turned out to be wrong.

But have no fear – in Manny’s reworked dialogue the ancient mathematician presents the updated, second edition of his mapping out the structure of the universe after conversing with experts in the philosophy of science. Timaeus appears on TED talk with none other than Leonard Susskind, a prominent American physicist at the forefront of string theory. Now Timaeus, still confident in the superiority of abstract reasoning over the examination of actual physical evidence, maintains perfection is not to be found in the sphere as he once thought, but in “Nothing.” He goes on to cite how Leonard Susskind and other string theorists agree the eye of the mind has it all over the messy evidence of the senses. Do you sense a little Manny Rayner irony here?

Manny’s rendition of Laches, the Platonic dialogue addressing the nature of courage features Socrates discussing this important subject with none other than that Yale educated Texas intellectual George W. Bush. Each exchange is laugh-out-loud funny, considering how W. assumes as both a Texan and former commander-in-chief he is, by definition, always 100% right. And a non-Texan who would stuff his head with a lowly subject like philosophy can only be a dunce, miles away from Texas truth.

But seriously, Manny leans on his experience as a seasoned chess player that what might be judged a courageous action is not necessarily all that clear cut. There are times when boldly forging ahead, launching an attack or counterattack is exactly the wrong thing to do. Such is the complexity of both life and chess – just ask the many intermediate chess players lured into attacking only to find the master has set a trap resulting in a quick checkmate.

I’ve touched on only a few dialogue to give readers a brief glimpse of what gems they will uncover here. Again, Manny’s little book would be the perfect companion for students taking their first philosophy course or those folks with a bit more background in the subject. Either way, an enlightening, engaging and entertaining read.


Manny Rayner, Born 1958