First and foremost, note that Plato always wrote dialogues, and never attempted to produce a theoretical or scientific treatise. This is a big clue for me. From beginning to end, Plato was aware of the limits of theoretical and technical reasoning, and his dialogues are a massive exploration.

If you want to understand what it means to be afraid, what fear as experienced by human beings is, then your focus must shift. No longer will you be satisfied with mechanical, physiological, neurological accounts. For this inquiry will require you to observe closely what human beings feel, sing, think, write and say to one another.

It may well seem that Plato does suggest techne is the best model for moral knowledge. In other words, it may seem that his goal is to establish an expert or authority in the field of the good-bad, just-unjust.

The earth is, of course, not the geometric center of the universe. But it is certainly the center of our lives.

Even before Plato, techne was conceived as knowledge of a determinate field that could be mastered by the expert. Such a person becomes an authority to whom laypersons should, in their dealings with that field, defer. Techne typically results in a useful result.

Postmodernism - and is that term used much any more? - is simply a reiteration of the sophistic or the rhetorical worldview.

In our lives a dog is a dog rather than a former wolf, and it surely is not a cat, a difference that means an enormous amount to some people.