In the second part of Republic, Book 1, Socrates agrees with Thrasymachus that in the precise sense of the word "ruler," a ruler never makes mistakes. But he points out that in the precise sense, a ruler also rules for the benefit of others not for his own benefit. The argument shifts to the question whether it is more profitable to be unjust than just, with Thrasymachus defending the former and Socrates arguing for the latter. Although Socrates appears to win the argument, Thrasymachus leaves the room and Socrates admits that he knows no more about the concept of justice than he did at the beginning of the discussion.

It is in Book 1 of Plato's dialogue Republic that political philosophy begins. The character Socrates begins by asking a pivotal question "What is justice?" He receives and disposes of two weak definitions but is quickly confronted by Thrasymachus who ties the concept of justice to whatever is to the advantage of the ruler. Socrates attempts to refute this definition but believes that his refutation is weak. He says, at the end of the chapter, that "the result of the discussion, as far as I am concerned, is that I know nothing [about justice]."

This episode is about the death of Socrates. The reading is from the last pages of Phaedo, the final book in the Socratic dialogues, without commentary by the reader. The interlocutor is Phaedo, a friend of Socrates who is telling another man who was not there that day what Socrates said to his visitors during the final hours before he drank the poison.

Socrates believes he has solved Meno's Paradox by denying that a person can never know that they have found what they are inquiring about. Socrates theorizes that if inquiring about what one does not know is a process of recollecting what one has already learned, then it is possible to inquire about what one does not know. Socrates assumes that recollection is the only way to explain how it is that the ignorant child (Meno's slaveboy) is able to correctly answer Socrates' questions about the properties of a geometrical shape. Did the boy learn these answers in a previous life? Are his answers innate? Or does Socrates' example prove only that the boy has the ability to reason?

Meno suggests that there will never be a solution to the question "What is virtue?" because one either knows what virtue is or one does not know this. If one knows what virtue is, then there is no point in raising the question. If one does not know what virtue is, then one will not know whether one has found the correct answer. Socrates solves the paradox by suggesting that all learning is a process of recollecting what we already know (but had forgotten) in a previous life. He proves this by asking an ignorant boy a series of questions about the properties of a geometrical shape. The boy answers the questions successfully without ever having been told the answer.

The scene of this episode is a discussion between Socrates and a young aristocrat named Meno. The first part of the discussion is not unlike an earlier discussion between Socrates and Euthyphro. Socrates wants a clear definition of an important concept, although, in Meno, the concept is "virtue," not "piety." A second discussion is about a paradox raised by Meno and a solution promoted by Socrates, now referred to as "the theory of recollection."

This 4 minute episode has a short summary of the previous episode, emphasizing Socrates' passionate claim that the duty to obey the law is always superior to individual desires. But this still leaves the listener or reader with questions about "moral knowledge." Is there such a thing as objective knowledge about what is and what is not "morally right"?

Crito is the title of the third dialogue in Plato's series of Socratic dialogues about the events before and after Socrates' execution. In this dialogue, the character Crito attempts to convince Socrates that he should escape from jail. Socrates rejects all of Crito's arguments and puts forth two counter arguments. First, that it is always wrong to do harm to others even if they have done harm to you. Second, that citizens who have willingly resided in Athens and enjoyed the benefits of the city, have a reciprocal obligation to obey the laws of Athens, even if these laws require execution of those who have been found guilty of breaking the law.

This episode is about the final speech of Socrates at his trial after he has been convicted and sentenced to death. He tells the jury that no one should fear death (because to fear death falsely implies that one knows what happens after death). Socrates also argues that it is not he but they (the jury) who will be made worse by his execution. The other themes to listen for are about Socrates claim that the unexamined life is not worth living, and the claim that he has served Athens well by being a "gadfly" who constantly insists that they back up their theories and ideas with reasoning and evidence.

Reading from chapter 3 of his book Understanding Plato, Professor Laurence Houlgate explains how Plato's dialogue Apology is best understood by breaking it down into four parts. Each part is discussed in detail, showing how some of Socrates' defenses are inductive and others are deductive, each argument challenges his accusers to think critically about the charges they have brought against him. Readers who want to follow along can acquire a copy by going to the website -- www.houlgatebooks.com -- and click on the book cover that will take you to the Amazon.com purchase page ($4.99 for the eBook version).