Works of Plato

>>9619968
Read it all. Good luck.

>>9619968
Im on the same level of reading as you OP and desu ima ganne read it all as i found some nice gems in smaller dialogues. Every single one is pretty worth reading.

>>9620176
I will continue my trek then then. Cheers, anon.

>>9619968

I feel that when it comes to Charmides, the dialogue became purposefully obscure. The subject is Temperance before it switches to more generally Wisdom and Epistemology. I think we're meant to identify with the figure of Critias who eventually goes on to betray the city of Athens in real time history. At just the point of the text where he's afraid of seeming like a fool, the text is the most difficult to understand, so we're meant to identify with the guy who thinks he gets what this stuff is about. The real historical result of critias is a warning to this sort of rushed, unrestrained (and un'temperamental') behavior

>>9620344
I like your interpretation, for I certainly did feel like a fool for not grasping what Socrates was saying at that point. I'm not sure how long I spent scratching my head in utter confusion trying to grasp the meaning of his words. I don't feel so bad now, and appreciate the text that much more. Cheers and thanks for the feedback, anon.

Theaetetus, Sophist, Parmenides, Timaeus

>>9620176
>>9620224
I'm also around you guys' point in reading Plato, but I have gone chronologically in reading his works, and you can make decisions which sections of a work to skip once you start one and can clearly see what line of reasoning he is going to explore for the next ~10 pg.s or so. I have saved tons of time this method, scanning pages to make sure he hadn't begun a different line of though. So, I don't think it's worth reading through every little bit of everything he wrote as some logical arguments are bread and butter for us, but you should not skip any of them outright.

>>9620430
When it comes to stuff like philosophy you can't just scan the material to decide what's important and what's not. Assume it's all important and that everything was put in the texts intentionally by a person who is much smarter than any of us. How are you so sure that you know what you don't know?

>>9620430
You might as well skip them if you aren't going to actually read it.
If you think you can skim it because you guessed an argument then you are seriously missing the point.
And If your time is that important, get off 4chan.

>>9619968

You're doing better than two-thirds of /lit/ anon for having identified and actually read several of the more important/relevant works already. Good job.

Meno is worth a read, try that while you're at it.

>>9619968
I just started the Republic, and am really enjoying it.
I've read Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, and Symposium.
Didn't enjoy the Symposium as much as I thought I would, but it was still pretty good. Probably just got overhyped.

I think this my favourite quote from all of the dialogues because it explains Plato's works perfectly, from 'Statesman':
>STRANGER: And is our enquiry about the Statesman intended only to improve our knowledge of politics, or our power of reasoning generally?
>YOUNG SOCRATES: Clearly, as in the former example, the purpose is general.
>STRANGER: Still less would any rational man seek to analyse the notion of weaving for its own sake. But people seem to forget that some things have sensible images, which are readily known, and can be easily pointed out when any one desires to answer an enquirer without any trouble or argument; whereas the greatest and highest truths have no outward image of themselves visible to man, which he who wishes to satisfy the soul of the enquirer can adapt to the eye of sense (compare Phaedr.), and therefore we ought to train ourselves to give and accept a rational account of them; for immaterial things, which are the noblest and greatest, are shown only in thought and idea, and in no other way, and all that we are now saying is said for the sake of them. Moreover, there is always less difficulty in fixing the mind on small matters than on great.
(Jowett translation as I don't have my hackett copy with me)
This is why all the dialogues are worth studying.

>>9620911
Thanks, anon.

Think of Plato, and others of his ilk, as projects. Binging it would be a bit dumb, it's not a narrative story, it's a series of thought provoking dialogues. You can spend years reading the dialogues and keep finding something new in them

File: 1495169984231.png (396KB, 700x652px) Image search: [Google]

396KB, 700x652px

I'm planning on reading Plato's works. Is there a specific/recommended order in which you`re supposed to read them?

>>9619968
Can one of you fags post that guide made by a Greek scholar who used to dick around on here? Unfortunately I did not save it.

>>9622204

This. Works like Plato, Nietzsche, Hume, Hegel, etc. are not narrated with a specific beginning and end to any particular story or even any particular, single argument. You are supposed to read along other activities in your life and ponder about them as a very long term goal. You're looking into years ahead of you where you should be going back to these dialogues and ruminating on them. You will get the most out of Plato inside of your own head, would be a waste to read once and set it aside.

>>9622257

That's an eternal debate. Look up a brief summary (like few sentences) and then start with what sounds most interesting. they range from affairs of state, to the nature of love.

>>9622295
hmm will do, thanks anon!

>>9622680
>Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaeto, and then Republic would work just fine for now.

Honestly with Plato you'll get way more out of secondary sources unless youre trying to become a scholar or something

>>9621375
I really enjoyed the first Alcibiades on how mutch its foreshadows plato, especially this part and the later part on the soul

SOCRATES: But should we ever have known what art makes a shoe better, if we did not know a shoe?
ALCIBIADES: Impossible.
SOCRATES: Nor should we know what art makes a ring better, if we did not know a ring?
ALCIBIADES: That is true.
SOCRATES: And can we ever know what art makes a man better, if we do not know what we are ourselves?
ALCIBIADES: Impossible.
SOCRATES: And is self-knowledge such an easy thing, and was he to be lightly esteemed who inscribed the text on the temple at Delphi? Or is self-knowledge a difficult thing, which few are able to attain?
ALCIBIADES: At times I fancy, Socrates, that anybody can know himself; at other times the task appears to be very difficult.
SOCRATES: But whether easy or difficult, Alcibiades, still there is no other way; knowing what we are, we shall know how to take care of ourselves, and if we are ignorant we shall not know.
ALCIBIADES: That is true.
SOCRATES: Well, then, let us see in what way the self-existent can be discovered by us; that will give us a chance of discovering our own existence, which otherwise we can never know.

File: 1453046679686.png (513KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

513KB, 800x600px

>>9622913
muh analogy

>>9623442
Plato is always right, that, or he's surrounded by yes men.

>>9622693

Very much this, a casual reader will guaranteed miss most of whats going on in Plato.

>>9622693
This is the dumbest thing I have ever read. You can't understand Plato's thought unless you engage with the particulars of it. The dialogues teach you a method of thinking that can only be learned by reading them yourself.

>>9625464
I think he's saying that you should read secondary lit along with reading the actual texts. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with that. Plato is a tricky bastard, so why not read secondary material, or watch a Youtube lecture to go along with it.

>>9625890
I've never found Plato that hard, I suppose some thinkers just click for some people, the interesting thing about Plato is what is not said in the dialogues but what is alluded to or what goes unsaid from what is said. Leo Strauss is great when getting into Plato I suppose.

OP I'd read them all. Even the minor stuff is usually pretty good, and the worse stuff (the spurious works) are so short that even though they're not "great works" they're still worth the time IMO.

>>9620430
>I have gone chronologically in reading his works

That's interesting, because scholars have literally never been able to decide the chronological order of his works.

>I have saved tons of time this method, scanning pages to make sure he hadn't begun a different line of though.

Literally some of the most iconic and certainly some of the most important parts of the dialogues are a mere page or even less. Meno's paradox is a paragraph that's easy to gloss over even if you read the dialogue start to finish, the allegory of the cave is literally like 2.5 pages, the divided line is similarly brief, and so on. If you're going to read it, read it; if you're going to skim and skip 10 pages at a time, don't bother, because you're not "reading" Plato.

>>9620450
>>9620893
This.

>>9622693
Read both. You'll get more out of Plato if you add on secondary sources, but you miss the experience and the fun if you just read a synopsis of his ideas. He's not like Aristotle; Plato is dramatic and literary and entertaining, if undeniably more difficult than simple fiction.

>>9625920
Yeah I didn't find Plato "hard" but when reading secondary stuff I realized that there were a lot of directions/implications I hadn't considered, and that people have spent their whole lives digging into deeper meanings. IMO you "finish" with Plato whenever you decide to finish, as there's no hard endpoint; you could literally spend the rest of your life studying nothing else. I spent like 4 months reading commentaries on him before deciding I was "done" for the time being. If you're not going to become a scholar on the subject, at some point you just move on (but can, of course, revisit things).

>>9621375
Plato's a badass.

>>9626677
>you could literally spend the rest of your life studying nothing else

This, in fact Plato is the perfect antidote to the completist manian that seems to sweep this board. Its treating culture like videogames, where you set yourself to advance only if you don't miss anything in the stage you find yourself. Its impossible.
There's a reason why the Library of Babel exists only in fiction.

>>9628286
That's a good way to think of it, anon.

>>9625890

>Plato is a tricky bastard

Plato is literally the easiest philosopher in the canon. It's simple conversations with normal people. If you can follow a television show you can follow Plato.

>>9628348
And I'm sure that you have a complete understanding of all his works. You've no doubt, read the Republic at least several dozen times. Perhaps you even lecture on him... Fuck off pseud.

>>9622693
Surely no book which discusses another book can ever say more than the original book under discussion.

Read a dialogue from Plato, watch lectures (Sadler is great)/read secondary sources. Then go to the next dialogue. That's all really. Also make sure to take notes while reading and make your own comments on the text then come back to them after the lectures and secondary reading. This will help you to develop.

>>9619968
as long as you find it fun to read imo. I mean I love Plato, read him twice. But at least read Thaeatetus, Symposium, Phaedrus, Laws, and Republic

So whats youre favourite dialogue?

Mine would be the Sophist.

>>9628760
Of the five I've read so far (Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, and Ion) I'll go with Apology. I've enjoyed them all though.

>>9628760
I really enjoyed The Republic.

>>9628760
Theaetetus

>>9630298
my nigga

>>9619968

Phaedrus

>>9622693
Reading plato with secondary sources is the best way.