The author uses Plato's rarely-invoked "Theaetetus" to set up a distinction between philosophers and lawyers with relation to time. Specifically, the lawyer's work is such that he is trapped in time (eg. deadlines, time is money, etc.), while the philosopher is able to "take his time" in philosophizing. The consequence is that the lawyer is "small in his soul and shrewd and a shyster." I read the dialogue myself after reading this article, and while I think the author stretches the degree of opposition placed in the text between lawyers and philosophers, the opposition is there.

My own opinion is, first, that time has become such a pervasive feature of society today that even present-day philosophers would be constrained by it (eg. professors at universities who feel pressure to keep producing articles and books lest they lose their relevancy, like Martha Nussbaum or even Slavoj Zizek). It also seems that Plato's idea of the lawyer as ruled by time has become more obvious (eg. hourly billing, court scheduling, SOL). As for the consequence-- that is, that the lawyer is "small in his soul" and a "shyster," I don't know. I personally have met many lawyers who fit that description. The real debate is over whether this is necessarily true of all lawyers given the lawyer's dependence on time.

From Plato's further description of the soul in the "Phaedo," being "small" in one's soul is ultimately about not being able to rise above daily, corporeal matters. The lawyer's job, however, requires immersion in corporeal, transient facts. Nonetheless, it appears to me that the most celebrated lawyers (eg. Holmes) have been able to keep both feet on the ground while still looking up to philosophical ideals like "freedom," "good," etc. In short, I would say that basing the distinction between lawyers and philosophers in the concept of time is incorrect. Better understanding might be found in looking at what is motivating or guiding the behavior of a particular lawyer or philosopher.

-- KalliopeKefallinos - 17 May 2010