Companion to Plato

socrates

Hegel's lectures on the history of philosophy.

>>9257421
I'd keep an eye on this.
Anyway... I will just read Guithre.

>>9257390
If you want a general companiom, then try the "Anonymous Prolegomena to Platonic Philosophy" or the "Didaskalikos" by Alcinous. They are both ancient treatises on Plato, detailing their own interpretations of Plato. Just note that there are about as many interpretations of Plato as there are schools of philosophy due to how he writes. I prefer older interpretations as most interpretations written in English are either shit or too scholarly (constant references to this paper blocked by a paywall or that out-of-print book).

If you want more modern stuff, you'd be hard to find one targeted at beginners. Instead, I'd say go for individual commentaries of the dialogue you are currently reading and pick a good translation to go along with it.

If you want my tip, just know that not every argument espoused by Socrates or whoever is meant to be taken as what Plato believes as true. Platonic dialogues are not just philosophical treatises after all, they are also literary works like your favorite novel or written play. Literal readings of Plato is what kills all possible appreciation for him.

>>9259008
>Literal readings of Plato is what kills all possible appreciation for him.
I'm agree with you, the problem is the way in which he treat the topics, when he is rigorous (most of the time) he bore me, but I remember a part of Phaedo, maybe 5 pages that I consider top tier not only in ideas but also in prose.

>>9257390
Tenedor, Cuchillo, the list goes on

>>9257397
Proclus' commentaries on Plato's Timaeus and Parmenides are great, but you're probably better just reading him desu.

>>9259715
Gotta agree with this. At least for the first time, try to reduce the amount of interpretations or things that influence your interpretation as much as possible (this includes translations, your own historical biases, others interpretations, etc.).

>>9259560
The weirdly abstract and theoretical portion are usually a bore for me as well. I usually just try and plough through them, however. I do notice that on further readings I manage to relate their place and content with future events. For example, the Phaedo begins with a discussion of pleasure and pain and somehow moves into a discussion of the soul. I found it as Plato suggesting a connection between the opposition of pleasure and pain and the idea of philosophy as the practice of dying. I also noticed how the cast of the dialogue exactly match up with the Myth of Theseus. What is mean by these things and how they cohere, I am not sure, but figuring it out is the fun of it. Admittedly, I am hampered though by my piss poor ability with Ancient Greek.

>>9259569
hehehe

>>9257397
don't worry anon, I chuckled

you will have a hard time with philosophy if you find Plato boring. he's one of a small handful who could write well

File: Slavoj-Z-iz-ek-at-his-hom-008.jpg (33KB, 460x276px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 460x276px

>>9257397

>>9259569
jaja it's incredible, my first language is spanish and I didn't notice this.
>>9259845
I enjoyed about 100 pages that I read of Kant, obviously I had no bases to read him, I have a little of hope.

I'm the other way around, I started reading The First Philosophers and just finished the presocratics section, but I find the whole thing boring as fuck and instead of trudge through the sophists section I'm eager to just jump right into Plato. Should I do this, lads?

>>9260709
Just make sure you've read the bits about Pythagoras, Parmenides, Heraclitus and Zeno of Elea. These guys all influential on Plato.

>>9260748
I hate the context argument. Be sure you read ____ before you read ____. Start with the Greeks, but be sure you read _____ before you start!

>>9260809
It's not an argument. It's just advice.

Start with Plato if you want m8, I don't care.

>>9260748
Of course, they're all part of the presocratics. It's just kind of confusing since there are guides that claim the sophists were much more influential to plato and serve as a more appropriate stepping stone to his work.

>>9260809
>>9260835

Interesting stuff. I hate that kind of advice too, especially whend irected at someone who just wants to "start with..." or has little background. But obviously I have to admit that it's perfectly legit.

I guess it's just two different approaches towards an author. They also exist among scholars - in France we have these guys like Guéroult, who studied and explained a philosophical system from its inside, essentially building a logical synthesis from the works of an author. And we have (actually had* - dunno if the distinction is still relevant nowadays) another kind of academic studies, trying to relate an author to the ones that precede him, aiming at some kind of genealogy of the philosophical system itself. Maybe it's two general attitudes towards an author - history of philosophy, or plain philosophy.

Both are probably equally relevant. Now, when it comes to "starting" with an author (like, how do I into Descartes ?), it could depend on each reader's or student's personal taste ; as far as I'm concerned I'm more into the first method (the one that doesn't bother providing historical background, like Hume before Kant, Parmenides before Plato etc.) - but I wouldn't be able to prove that it's "better" than the other. Probably just personal taste or state of mind. Depends on your own expectations regarding philosophy.

>>9259569
Lol'd

>>9260897
Well the guy was already reading "The First Philosophers" so I thought I'd recommend him the essentials in that book when it comes to Plato, but Plato by himself is perfectly fine.

Honestly when it comes to philosophy, I usually recommend Plato's Euthyphro first for most people. Introduces Socrates and the general Socratic method rather well.

>>9261007
Oh yep I wasn't criticizing, had not even realized that he was already reading some presocratics.

By the way, do you know why Euthyphro in particular is so famous in the English-speaking world ? I mean, we read and study it here too, but I never realized or heard any specific reason why it had such a privilege, compared to Laches or both Hippias or anything. I just heard that some important analytic philosophers had written about this passage with "loved-by-gods" and "pious", but I find other socratic dialogues as interesting. It's actually a good introduction, though.

>>9261070
The "Euthyphro Dilemma" is often used as a "response" against theism, particularly Christian kind. Modern-day anglo analytics tend to be secular (almost aggresively so) and this argument is typically brought up in introductory courses as "destroying" some sort of Divine Command Theory and by extension theism. Of course the great theist philosophers knew of this objection, but analytics dont read them.

>>9259569
lmaoed'ed