1G0xxeB

2 2 4 I n t e r p r e t a t i o n Volume 41 / Issue 3the reductionist reading correct, however, it is odd that Socrates would notdo more to establish it. Doing so would serve to make Kallipolis more attractive,and it would reinforce his overall argument that everyone is better offbeing just than unjust, since everyone would be better off in the society whereeveryone is just (at least in the conventional sense). The lack of support forreductionism verges on a rejection of it. But, as already noted, the issue couldnot be decisively resolved until we know more about the human good.These conclusions lead to a final reflection about how to read the Republic.The various reductionist arguments have in common that they read theRepublic as though it were a philosophic treatise rendered in dramatic form.Socrates is taken to be saying everywhere what he believes, and the argumentshe gives for his claims are taken as always genuine arguments. Interpretationsare constructed in ways intended to salvage as much as possible Socrates’sclaims on a literal level. The failure of the reductionist arguments illustrateswith particular clarity the weakness of this kind of literal approach wheninterpreting the Republic. Scholars who read the work in this manner are ledto implausible interpretations of the text, sometimes running counter to themost obvious meaning; as a result, they fail to notice or to give due weightto the persistence of ambiguity and, thus, fail to address the possibility thatSocrates is being deliberately ambiguous and deliberately fails to resolve theissue. Persistent ambiguity and deliberate failure would certainly make forbad argumentation in a treatise; on the other hand, if we read the Republicas a dramatic dialogue—one in which characterization, for example, hasimplications for the substance of the argument and not merely for its presentation—thenwe can make some sense of Socrates’s ambiguity, for it serves atleast two definite purposes.First, it serves at crucial points to keep the conversation going in thedirection that Socrates wants to take it. With regard to the first passage, Glauconis clearly convinced in book 3 that the guardians in Kallipolis live a mostchoiceworthy life. 49 Socrates must find a way of responding to Adeimantusthat neither begs the Republic’s larger question about the value of justice (bysaying outright that the citizens are happy) nor dampens Glaucon’s enthusiasm(thereby harming the case for justice Socrates is building). Socratestherefore responds ambiguously, mentioning the possibility that the guard-49This is especially evident at 401b–402d, coupled with his statements at 407a, 412a, and 416b. It isalso clear, subsequent to Adeimantus’s objection, that Glaucon believes the education given the guardiansproduces justice in the soul and, therefore, happiness (441d–442b, 445a–b).