 Second, Scudéry’s dialogical form of philosophy can make it difficult to discern which philosophical position Scudéry actually supports. In the typical “conversation,” multiple speakers defend contrasting views on a given theoretical topic. In this open-ended dialogue, each speaker’s position usually contains certain merits and defects; theories are corrected, altered, or abandoned as the exchange progresses. Certain dialogues, such as Of Lying, end on an inconclusive note; the disputants cannot agree as to whether lying is a universally evil act. In most dialogues, however, the speakers clearly concur on a certain philosophical issue or one of the positions defended by a particular disputant is clearly more convincing than the positions defended by others. Unlike the philosophical essay, with its mono-authorial voice, the multiple voices of the philosophical dialogue make the determination of the author’s actual philosophical position a complicated enterprise. The irony employed in many Scudéry dialogues renders this determination of philosophical position even more delicate. 