What I found intriguing when reading Book Seven was the discovery of the word dialectic. In the past I have always incorporated the word dialect to mean variance within one language. Through reading Book Seven I thought that dialectic was the same thing except applied to an individual, meaning an adjective. It was not until later on in the book did I realize it meant something completely different.

I continue to enjoy the way Socrates uses theoretical scenarios that he creates in his head. The man in the cave that cannot look in any direction has to use his imagination to establish a world, not knowing that he is completely misguided until he finally sees what lies outside. At first I was not sure what he was getting at with his example, until he brought up the point of sciences.

To fully be aware of the real world, one must follow certain sciences. The Socratic method makes sense in this case because Socrates manages to find examples within him to prove his point. He talks about why astronomy cannot be one of the sciences to bring about dialectic in a man, because astronomy is only concerned with illusion, one cannot fully know astronomy as they do not possess the tools to do so. Anyone who studies astronomy will get nowhere because it does not represent the fundamentals such as arithmetic or geometry. Bringing up the point of soldiers and combat, arithmetic help in the case of war, astronomy does not.

So what I understood, even though there was no mention of “happiness” in this book, I feel it can be linked to the notion of deciding reality from falsity. For one to be happy, one must first have ground on what is real and what he is dealing with. The example of the adopted child that Socrates brought up is one that proves my interpretation. The child is happy until he discovers that the whole time he has been unhappy.

– Olgi Qendro