The Lost Socratic Dialogue -- Ilioloustos

Historian's note: This obscure dialogue remained unknown for centuries due to the odd way in which it progressed, and its unexpected ending. Unlike all other known Socratic dialogues, this one stands out in a few ways: It is not a discussion of morality or philosophy, but of visual representations of information, namely one that was of interest during a plague in Athens, concerning the visualization of how the plague had affected different areas of the city; Its primary character standing opposite Socrates is a woman, a rarity in ancient philosophy, although not unheard of in Plato's works; and the dialogue is cut short by this character's refusal to engage not only in Socratic reasoning, but in any discussion at all, making the work seemingly devoid of philosophical substance or insight. The Socratic method only works when individuals are willing to cooperate in a discourse and dialectic. Here, Plato shows us what to expect when one party isn't willing to participate, although this is perhaps the more familiar scenario for modern thinkers. A popular sentiment about this dialogue is that due to its unusual characteristics many doubt whether the work was written by Plato at all. For these reasons, and maybe others, it has often been overlooked and left out of literary or philosophical discussions. It is presented here only out of historical interest.

THE LOST SOCRATIC DIALOGUE -- ILIOLOUSTOS

ILIOLOUSTOS (addressing her colleagues on the steps of the atrium, unrolling a map and holding it above her): Look at this map of Athens, friends, and tell me its presentation of the plague as it affects each region is not the worst map you have laid eyes on. See its colors? See the numbers? How is one to read such a map?

CORMBAL: Aye! Yes, Ilioloustous, I saw this map just yesterday and my eyes, they wanted to vomit. This is a map that begs for its creators to be executed.

ILIOLOUSTOS: I agree, Cormbal. This map pains me to such a degree that I am sure it could only have been created by a tortured mind. How am I to learn anything from its colors, tinted all some sort of red as they are? If I want to know how many cases of plague have hit the remote corridors of Athens, I have to read a number on the map! A number! Why can I not just look at the color and learn this information from color? You see, I want to know why this region is dark red and this region is lighter red, but there is no key telling me precisely what each color represents. 

DUVIDE: Oh, Gods, Ilioloustos, this map, it is a sin for it to be so close to us. Please, close it, put it away, burn it. I cannot look. (Duvide looks away, then looks at the map once more.) I see it is not defining the shade of color in each region with nearly enough difference between the shades. You see!?

ILIOLOUSTOS : Indeed! Why does a region with zero cases have the same shade of red as a region with 1 or 6 cases? This is foolish! I cannot figure it out! And can you believe that such a large number is printed in each region? What good does this do me? I need colors! It is in supremely poor design to have so few shades of red on this map, and to have so many numbers. I cannot figure anything out from looking at it!

FRUMPS: I know nothing of maps, but I know this is a bad map, without a doubt! This map maker should be revealed to us and mocked.

(Shouts of agreement and exasperation resonate through the atrium, growing louder)

ILIOLOUSTOS: I know maps, and I know how to make a good one. Someone ought to show this blind map-maker what a proper map looks like, such that it will freely communicate the right information to all people interested in maps. What foolish, colorblind, feeble monster would create such a thing?

TANTRAN: Ilioloustos, you speak with terrific clarity and mindfulness, I do not doubt your masterful grasp of maps and that your superior abilities will let you create a better map.

FRUMPS: I second what Tantran said, and always enjoy Ilioloustos’s expert analysis of maps. This map has me feeling sick, and I think I will not eat tonight.

CORMBAL: I have seen terrible maps, but this is the worst map. It is a failure of a map.

ILIOLOUSTOS: Thank you, friends. Cormbal, you are correct.

DUVIDE: Ilioloustos, you have stated the problem as eloquently as anyone could. I would love to see what a real master of maps is able to do, after seeing this burning heap of intolerable garbage that its authors, in their feverish stupor, thought to try to pass off as an informative map.

(Cheers erupt from those standing or sitting on the steps)

(An old man passing by has heard the commotion and has listened to the conversation. He approaches Ilioloustos and her colleagues at the atrium.)

SOCRATES: This map is not such a bad map. If you are looking to this map to learn about the relative danger of infection in each region of Athens, as it seems was its purpose, you can quickly get that information without ambiguity. There is no ambiguity in this map. You see, it is not the colors one should focus on, but the numbers. The colors define a range of cases, with 0 to 13 cases being the lowest or least dangerous example, thus having a shared color shade. And the worst case, 158 in the center of Athens, this is so exceptionally high a value that it appears to be in a league of its own, having its own shade of red. But other values appear to follow the trend, that a single shade of red designates a range of about 13 or 15 cases, meaning it is perfectly sensible for a region with 0 cases to share the same shade as regions with 1 or 2 cases. One can understand this from looking at the map for 5 seconds, without any explanation.

ILIOLOUSTOS: Nice try, Socrates. You are wrong. The map is an awful map.

SOCRATES: You have not effectively argued this case. You disliking the map is not the same thing as the map being awful. You are conflating personal feelings with objective fact. How instead should the map be laid out? You see, any information you want to gather from the map can be quickly gathered. How many cases of plague have appeared in, say, this region? (Socrates points to a random point on the map).

SOCRATES: Well, you see! My finger has landed on the region, and also on the number. Because each region has this number printed boldly over it, there is no room for confusion. There are 32 cases in that region. The number tells me so. I have no need for colors or shades, I have the numbers. I have more precise information than color could give me! If you had only color without a number, you would have uncertainty. You would shade that region, perhaps, blue, and the key would say that blue represents 20-35 cases. Well then, what now? I point to a region that is blue, and I know it could have as little as 20 cases, or as many as 35. Color is a bad guide when there are so few regions. If we had thousands of regions, color might make sense. But a hundred? Those can easily be shown with numbers. You see, the map communicates exactly what it was intended to: How many cases of plague have appeared in each region. You are criticizing the map for failing at purposes it was not designed for, like criticizing a fish for lacking flight.

(Ilioloustos and her colleagues say nothing, and disperse. Socrates stands around for a little while longer, then goes about his way.)

(The next day, Ilioloustos and her colleagues reconvene on the stairs of the atrium.)

ILIOLOUSTOS (presenting a large roll of papyrus that extends down to her feet, with three maps on it): Behold! I have produced a work superior to the horrendous waste that I showed you yesterday! This is how a map should be!

ILIOLOUSTOS: This first map shows the regions of Athens and how they are afflicted by the plague, corrected for number of people in each region. This tells us how many people per thousand are infected. I have removed the numbers, and replaced them with a much cleaner and less ambiguous shading scheme! You see here, this light green indicates 0 cases. This less light shade indicates 1 to 25 cases per thousand people, the darker shade indicates 26 to 75 cases per thousand people, the one after that indicates 76 to 200 cases per thousand people, and the darkest shade indicates anything above 200 cases per thousand people! 

ILIOLOUSTOS: The next map is the same information, but corrected for land area of the region, and with a similar color scheme...

TANTRAN: Wow! This is the work of a true master of the craft!

(There is immediate applause and commotion from the colleagues on the stairs. Socrates has heard the entire presentation, and approaches)

SOCRATES: These are some nicely colored maps you've got here. And since we are on the topic of critiquing maps, as you were so fond of doing yesterday, I will extend the same courtesy to the maps I see before me. This first map, let us discover how useful it is in guiding its viewer to learning how many cases of plague are in any given region. Let us try the same experiment. (Socrates points to a random location on the map).

SOCRATES: Hmm. I've landed in this grass-colored region. The key at the bottom of the map says this shade corresponds to 76 to 200 cases per thousand people. So what have I learned? I have learned there could be as few as 76 cases per thousand people in this neighborhood, or as many as 200 per thousand people living there. That is quite a spread, isn't it? It is not very precise or informative. The map you so energetically criticized yesterday does not have this same weakness. It immediately tells me how many cases of the plague are in this region, without ambiguity. I point to a region, that region has a number, I know the number. That is more useful information, is it not? And the purpose of these maps is to convey useful information, not to act as an art project.

SOCRATES: And this map below it. It is pretty, just as the first one. But does it serve its basic purpose, which is to convey to the reader how many cases are in each region? Like the first map, the ranges of case numbers corresponding to each color are uneven. In your first map, you have one color representing 0. Fine, that is sensible, for this white color indicates safety. But your next shade represents a range of 25 possible values. The next shade corresponds to 50 possible values -- that's twice as many! And the third shade corresponds to more than 100 possible values! Your shades are all uneven. Why does this seem to you the best way to present the information? If you were to try to represent this exact information in a histogram, you would find that your bin sizes are all uneven, making such a picture, which seems to be a reasonable picture to make given the kind of information you are trying to convey, it makes such a picture useless and hard to look at. I say it would be much harder to decipher than the map we saw yesterday. How do you justify this kind of design? How is it better than yesterday's map?

(A hush once more falls over the crowd. Before any voice can speak up, Ilioloustos calls a nearby lawman over to have Socrates removed. He is carried away without objection.)

(Later that evening, Ilioloustos finds Socrates by himself wandering around the city. She confronts him.)

ILIOLOUSTOS: Socrates! Did you get some thorny stick stuck up your inflamed asshole?

SOCRATES (taken by surprise): What do you mean? Those were appropriate questions, given the subject being discussed, were they not? You seemed rather interested in the topic, since you were the one who started its discussion.

ILIOLOUSTOS: You were just being a pathetic troll trying to exercise some sense of superiority to lick your own insecure wounds. Get a fucking life.

(Ilioloustos calls another lawman over to her, and has Socrates forcibly removed. She later files a restraining order against him.)

THE END

Historian's Second note: The reader can pick up on the strange tone of this dialogue. It begins with the usual structure of the genre, with the titular character making bold, confident assertions that extend beyond reason, introducing a few points of contention that Socrates proceeds to challenge. But as soon as this challenge is presented, where a regular Socratic dialogue takes us on an intellectually and philosophically interesting journey through careful, rational discussion and an artful back and forth between those thinking seriously about the topic, this dialogue quickly devolves into a frenzied mess of what some historians characterize as a more realistic and accurate depiction of the sort of individuals who engage in the boastful and arrogant behavior depicted. Plato typically presents Socrates's opponents as possessing a modicum of intellectual honesty and humility, as well as a genuine curiosity and interest in discussing the very points they themselves have brought to light. In Ilioloustos, however, Plato seems to diverge from this formula. After Socrates presents a challenge to an idea that was moments earlier declared confidently, Ilioloustos does not answer his questions or acknowledge his critiques of her thoughts. At no point does she attempt to defend her reasoning or understand the alternate point of view, which are such critical elements of a Socratic dialogue. In a puzzling inversion of the typical format, she avoids confrontation entirely when it comes to the substance of her ideas, waiting instead to confront Socrates in private, calling him names, and having the law intervene to make sure Socrates cannot challenge her again. It's not clear what Plato was trying to say with Ilioloustos, if anything. Reading too deeply into the text may prove fruitless, but might also shed light on Plato's, or the unknown author's, lived experience. 

Or, perhaps tired of the rigors of philosophy, Plato wished to write a piece on realistic psychology, but without any deeper insights, satisfied with writing what was at the time maybe the most realistic representation of the human being, instead of an idealized and unbelievable version of a human being capable of rational discussion.