 The discussion of the Symposium ends with Aristophanes and Agathon falling asleep while Socrates is trying to prove that “the skilful tragic dramatist should also be a comic poet” (223d). Plato himself seems to be such an author, as some of his dialogues read like tragedies (e.g. the Phaedo), while others mix arguments with irony and humour (e.g. the Euthydemus, Lesser Hippias, or Ion). For the link between drama and philosophy in Plato’s dialogues see Puchner (2010), Folch (2015), Zimmermann (2018), and Fossheim, Songe-Møller and Ågotnes (2019); for the importance of comedy and laughter in the dialogues see Tanner (2017) and Naas (2018b); and for the theory and practice of narrative in Plato see Halliwell (2009). And now to go back to Kahn’s claim (see the above paragraph) that in Plato “myth provides the necessary literary distancing that permits Plato to articulate his out–of–place vision of meaning and truth.” This may well be the case. But we have to keep in mind that Plato’s dialogues are a mix of various literary genres (philosophy, comedy, tragedy, poetry, mythology, rhetoric), and that this mix is also (to use Kahn’s expression) out-of-place. In other words, both the content and the form of Plato’s dialogues were, and still are, rather extraordinary—and that, I reckon, was meant to free his readers from conventions and encourage them to think for themselves about the issues that, he, Plato, discusses in his dialogues.