I sympathise with many of Gerhard Seel's claims in his chapter, particularly about the practical significance of the Good and about how it can have effects in the sensible world; and I am attracted by his view of what sort of thing the Form of the Good is; so my response will be largely concerned with some points of detail. I want to raise a number of questions about the steps by which Seel reaches his conclusion.

THE METHOD OF DIALECTIC

Seel says (p. 178) that most scholars agree that the method of dialectic discussed in the Republic is the same as the method of collection and division expounded in the Phaedrus and other dialogues, which constructs a system of genera and species, and aims at definition of each item, by locating it within this structure. However, there is a long tradition among Anglo-American scholars of rejecting this identification. This tradition was initiated by Richard Robinson, who points out that the discussion in the Republic makes no mention of genera and species, while conversely the discussions in the Phaedrus and elsewhere make no mention of hypotheses and the search for a first principle. Indeed, it is often held that the method of collection and division is introduced for the first time in the Phaedrus, which is standardly dated later than the Republic, and that it is meant in some way to replace the method discussed there; and sometimes that it depends on a view of communion of Forms which is not present in the Republic.