What do you think?
Rate this book
The Collected Dialogues of Plato
All the writings of Plato generally considered to be authentic are here presented in the only complete one-volume Plato available in English. The editors set out to choose the contents of this collected edition from the work of the best British and American translators of the last 100 years, ranging from Jowett (1871) to scholars of the present day. The volume contains prefatory notes to each dialogue, by Edith Hamilton; an introductory essay on Plato's philosophy and writings, by Huntington Cairns; and a comprehensive index which seeks, by means of cross references, to assist the reader with the philosophical vocabulary of the different translators.
1770 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 381
95 people are currently reading
1779 people want to read
About the author
Plato
4,525Ìýbooks8,234ÌýfollowersPlato (Greek: ΠλάτӬν), born Aristocles (c.â€�427 â€� 348 BC), was an ancient Greek philosopher of the Classical period who is considered a foundational thinker in Western philosophy and an innovator of the written dialogue and dialectic forms. He raised problems for what became all the major areas of both theoretical philosophy and practical philosophy, and was the founder of the Platonic Academy, a philosophical school in Athens where Plato taught the doctrines that would later become known as Platonism.
Plato's most famous contribution is the theory of forms (or ideas), which has been interpreted as advancing a solution to what is now known as the problem of universals. He was decisively influenced by the pre-Socratic thinkers Pythagoras, Heraclitus, and Parmenides, although much of what is known about them is derived from Plato himself.
Along with his teacher Socrates, and Aristotle, his student, Plato is a central figure in the history of philosophy. Plato's entire body of work is believed to have survived intact for over 2,400 years—unlike that of nearly all of his contemporaries. Although their popularity has fluctuated, they have consistently been read and studied through the ages. Through Neoplatonism, he also greatly influenced both Christian and Islamic philosophy. In modern times, Alfred North Whitehead famously said: "the safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato."
Plato's most famous contribution is the theory of forms (or ideas), which has been interpreted as advancing a solution to what is now known as the problem of universals. He was decisively influenced by the pre-Socratic thinkers Pythagoras, Heraclitus, and Parmenides, although much of what is known about them is derived from Plato himself.
Along with his teacher Socrates, and Aristotle, his student, Plato is a central figure in the history of philosophy. Plato's entire body of work is believed to have survived intact for over 2,400 years—unlike that of nearly all of his contemporaries. Although their popularity has fluctuated, they have consistently been read and studied through the ages. Through Neoplatonism, he also greatly influenced both Christian and Islamic philosophy. In modern times, Alfred North Whitehead famously said: "the safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 40 reviews
January 17, 2019
NEW BIT
A lot of general info on the Dialogues (eg Wiki, other commentators) define three different periods (Early, Middle, Late) into which they shove sets of dialogues. It would certainly make sense, if it appealed to a reader, to go through them in this sort of order. Even so, the list I've come up with below could be used to highlight the most important dialogues within a period, and also to perhaps indicate (by absence or low rank) dialogues in the period which might be skipped.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Just saw that I'd never rated this book. I've had it for decades, and read quite a few the the dialogues in it, including the Republic. Even though I've probably read well less than half its 1600 pages, I've no hesitation in rating it as I have.
This activity of mine came about when I decided that I needed a plan to reread some of these, and read for the first time some others.
How to decide which ones to read, and in what order?
Here's what I spent an hour or so doing.
1) Put everything in the volume of Plato's collected works in a spreadsheet.
2) Googled each one of them, and noted the number of refs (in 1000s)
3) Went through the index of my Encyclopedia of Philosophy looking up each of them, and noting the number of refs
So 2) seems to me to be a general measure of the significance of each item spread across academia, social media, etc etc etc in the contemporary world ...
Whereas 3) is (hopefully) a measure of how significant each item is specifically in the field of philosophy.
4) Then combined these two ways of rating the items.
Before I present the results:
By 2), the most significant is Laws (surprised me), followed by Republic.
and the least significant: Lesser Hypias
By 3), the most significant is Republic, followed by Timaeus, then Theaetetus.
Least significant: many of the dialogues have no entry in the Encyclopedia's index.
Here's the list of dialogues in the (combined) order that I guess I'd like to approach them.
1. Republic
2. Laws
[Note. These two are by far the longest. Close to 600 pages combined. So starting of with some of the shorter dialogues could be worthwhile.]
3. Timaeus
4. Meno
5. Phaedo
6. Apology (Socrates' Defense)
7. Symposium
8. Sophist
9. Parmenides
10. Theaetetus
11. Gorgias
12. Protagoras
13. Crito
14. Phaedrus
15. Cratylus
16. Euthyphro
17. Letters
18. Philebus
19. Ion
20. Critias
21. Statesman
[The last 8 are pretty much all in a heap at the bottom.]
Final bit of info.
The three whose "philosophical" rank were most higher than their Google rank?
- Theaetetus
- Philebus
- Sophist
And the three whose Google rank outshone their philosophy rank by the most:
- Letters
- Ion
- Statesman
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Previous review: The Brothers K
Next review: The God of Small Things
Earlier review: Forty Days of Musa Dagh original (first) review
Previous library review: Consciousness VSI
Next library review: Introduction to Aristotle
A lot of general info on the Dialogues (eg Wiki, other commentators) define three different periods (Early, Middle, Late) into which they shove sets of dialogues. It would certainly make sense, if it appealed to a reader, to go through them in this sort of order. Even so, the list I've come up with below could be used to highlight the most important dialogues within a period, and also to perhaps indicate (by absence or low rank) dialogues in the period which might be skipped.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Just saw that I'd never rated this book. I've had it for decades, and read quite a few the the dialogues in it, including the Republic. Even though I've probably read well less than half its 1600 pages, I've no hesitation in rating it as I have.
This activity of mine came about when I decided that I needed a plan to reread some of these, and read for the first time some others.
How to decide which ones to read, and in what order?
Here's what I spent an hour or so doing.
1) Put everything in the volume of Plato's collected works in a spreadsheet.
2) Googled each one of them, and noted the number of refs (in 1000s)
3) Went through the index of my Encyclopedia of Philosophy looking up each of them, and noting the number of refs
So 2) seems to me to be a general measure of the significance of each item spread across academia, social media, etc etc etc in the contemporary world ...
Whereas 3) is (hopefully) a measure of how significant each item is specifically in the field of philosophy.
4) Then combined these two ways of rating the items.
Before I present the results:
By 2), the most significant is Laws (surprised me), followed by Republic.
and the least significant: Lesser Hypias
By 3), the most significant is Republic, followed by Timaeus, then Theaetetus.
Least significant: many of the dialogues have no entry in the Encyclopedia's index.
Here's the list of dialogues in the (combined) order that I guess I'd like to approach them.
1. Republic
2. Laws
[Note. These two are by far the longest. Close to 600 pages combined. So starting of with some of the shorter dialogues could be worthwhile.]
3. Timaeus
4. Meno
5. Phaedo
6. Apology (Socrates' Defense)
7. Symposium
8. Sophist
9. Parmenides
10. Theaetetus
11. Gorgias
12. Protagoras
13. Crito
14. Phaedrus
15. Cratylus
16. Euthyphro
17. Letters
18. Philebus
19. Ion
20. Critias
21. Statesman
[The last 8 are pretty much all in a heap at the bottom.]
Final bit of info.
The three whose "philosophical" rank were most higher than their Google rank?
- Theaetetus
- Philebus
- Sophist
And the three whose Google rank outshone their philosophy rank by the most:
- Letters
- Ion
- Statesman
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Previous review: The Brothers K
Next review: The God of Small Things
Earlier review: Forty Days of Musa Dagh original (first) review
Previous library review: Consciousness VSI
Next library review: Introduction to Aristotle
October 5, 2015
I took Leo Sweeney's Plato course during my first semester at Loyola University Chicago. Early on he asked for research proposals. I said I wanted to read all the material and write comprehensively about Plato's theology. He accepted that and I proceeded to take extensive notes while pouring through the texts.
Meanwhile, Sweeney taught the course focusing only on a few dialogs focusing on epistemology. While what he said plausibly connected to the texts he specifically addressed, much of it was apparently contradicted or substantially qualified by the texts not so covered. This led to arguments.
I wasn't the only person arguing. Jesuit collegians were apparently required to take the course and there were several of them. They picked up on the theme of Socratic pederasty and Athenian sexual practices of the period, Sweeney adamantly opposing any suggestion that Socrates or Plato practiced man-boy love despite the evidence of the texts themselves as well as other historical records.
The class was not a happy one and Sweeney was not a very good teacher. When called to my penultimate meeting with him prior to submitting the research paper, he denied that he had allowed the topic I had suggested and he had approved months earlier. He told me to write instead about only the dialogs he had discussed in class on some epistemological theme. Not being prepared for this, having finished all of Plato with an eye to an entirely different theme, I resisted, but again he was adamant and I had to surrender.
I still have hundreds of note cards recording every instance of a theological reference in the Platonic corpus.
Meanwhile, Sweeney taught the course focusing only on a few dialogs focusing on epistemology. While what he said plausibly connected to the texts he specifically addressed, much of it was apparently contradicted or substantially qualified by the texts not so covered. This led to arguments.
I wasn't the only person arguing. Jesuit collegians were apparently required to take the course and there were several of them. They picked up on the theme of Socratic pederasty and Athenian sexual practices of the period, Sweeney adamantly opposing any suggestion that Socrates or Plato practiced man-boy love despite the evidence of the texts themselves as well as other historical records.
The class was not a happy one and Sweeney was not a very good teacher. When called to my penultimate meeting with him prior to submitting the research paper, he denied that he had allowed the topic I had suggested and he had approved months earlier. He told me to write instead about only the dialogs he had discussed in class on some epistemological theme. Not being prepared for this, having finished all of Plato with an eye to an entirely different theme, I resisted, but again he was adamant and I had to surrender.
I still have hundreds of note cards recording every instance of a theological reference in the Platonic corpus.
March 4, 2014
This Hamilton-Cairns collection is by far the best one-volume Plato in English, though even here one must realize that some of the translations chosen (especially those of some of the early, aporetic dialogues) are not always the best.
Jowett is worthless, more a Victorian era paraphrase than a translation, and Cooper contains a lot of "updated" translations by people with a heavily 'analytic' background that are not terribly good, though Grube's excellent Republic is in it. Still, nothing compares to Shorey's Republic, which Hamilton prints.
If you need a one-volume Plato, then, use Hamilton-Cairns
Jowett is worthless, more a Victorian era paraphrase than a translation, and Cooper contains a lot of "updated" translations by people with a heavily 'analytic' background that are not terribly good, though Grube's excellent Republic is in it. Still, nothing compares to Shorey's Republic, which Hamilton prints.
If you need a one-volume Plato, then, use Hamilton-Cairns
August 2, 2022
Plato has many things to teach a person � how to investigate the nature of virtue, justice, and politics; how to teach and persuade with the use of rhetorical questions; how to not accept facile beliefs gained from the media � but I believe that his important lesson is gained from the dialogic form itself. This lesson, Plato's great teaching, is the proper use of dialectic.
Dialectic features many antinomies of reason and passion that train the individual learner holistically: a contentiousness of debate, yet a humbleness to accept when one's argument is illogical; a passionate fire of argument, yet a basis upon logical reasons and observable facts; a great battle of ideas, yet an ending that can bring both parties closer to the truth.
One must have great courage to throw one's self into dialectic, for one's ideas may be obliterated in its great intellectual testing ground. It further requires that one's ideas are already thought out � for without proper backing, they will surely falter. One must also have a passion for truth, a fire inside of one's self that incites a long, arduous search for the light of understanding. Socrates had that passion. Humble yet steadfast, self-deprecating yet always challenging others' ideas, he provides the perfect example of the truth-searcher.
Most of us moderns are not that way. Trained in a Pavlovian manner by the media, most respond to contrary ideas with an instinctual reaction of anger. Thoughtless and meaningless epithets are shouted. One always hears the line, "I prefer not to discuss/debate that" very often as well. People are so fragile, so attached to their weak ideas, that they cannot afford to lose in debate. Another common response is "to each their own" in relation to controversial subjects. Reason, thought, and evidence are thrown away for the deified individual's "right" to hold their own belief.
Socrates teaches us that this type of reaction is infantile. It is covering one's eyes so that one does not hear logic, see evidence, or listen to a most reasonable position. It is deserting the army before the battle has even been fought � and hoping that one's side wins.
But arguments' truth is not decided by social approval. All could deny that 2 + 2 = 4 except me, but if I can continually show its truth through logic and example, then I have a justified belief. Socrates was that man proclaiming 2 + 2 = 4, and what was the result? He was sentenced to death. Sound similar to dissident thinkers today?
Plato's dialogues, written in the great voices of Socrates and his fellow Athenians, give us a dialectical confidence. They give us the confidence to investigate the roots of our ideas about man, society, and world. No matter the foreign morals implanted in our hearts by our media masters, Socrates encourages us to break free of them and pursue truth. He encourages us to combine reason and passion, and to put our ideas to the test in debate. Complacency may be easy, but a life lived in falsehood will turn out much worse than one lived in truth.
Dialectic features many antinomies of reason and passion that train the individual learner holistically: a contentiousness of debate, yet a humbleness to accept when one's argument is illogical; a passionate fire of argument, yet a basis upon logical reasons and observable facts; a great battle of ideas, yet an ending that can bring both parties closer to the truth.
One must have great courage to throw one's self into dialectic, for one's ideas may be obliterated in its great intellectual testing ground. It further requires that one's ideas are already thought out � for without proper backing, they will surely falter. One must also have a passion for truth, a fire inside of one's self that incites a long, arduous search for the light of understanding. Socrates had that passion. Humble yet steadfast, self-deprecating yet always challenging others' ideas, he provides the perfect example of the truth-searcher.
Most of us moderns are not that way. Trained in a Pavlovian manner by the media, most respond to contrary ideas with an instinctual reaction of anger. Thoughtless and meaningless epithets are shouted. One always hears the line, "I prefer not to discuss/debate that" very often as well. People are so fragile, so attached to their weak ideas, that they cannot afford to lose in debate. Another common response is "to each their own" in relation to controversial subjects. Reason, thought, and evidence are thrown away for the deified individual's "right" to hold their own belief.
Socrates teaches us that this type of reaction is infantile. It is covering one's eyes so that one does not hear logic, see evidence, or listen to a most reasonable position. It is deserting the army before the battle has even been fought � and hoping that one's side wins.
But arguments' truth is not decided by social approval. All could deny that 2 + 2 = 4 except me, but if I can continually show its truth through logic and example, then I have a justified belief. Socrates was that man proclaiming 2 + 2 = 4, and what was the result? He was sentenced to death. Sound similar to dissident thinkers today?
Plato's dialogues, written in the great voices of Socrates and his fellow Athenians, give us a dialectical confidence. They give us the confidence to investigate the roots of our ideas about man, society, and world. No matter the foreign morals implanted in our hearts by our media masters, Socrates encourages us to break free of them and pursue truth. He encourages us to combine reason and passion, and to put our ideas to the test in debate. Complacency may be easy, but a life lived in falsehood will turn out much worse than one lived in truth.
April 28, 2010
Plato and Aristotle between them not only laid the foundations for Western philosophy, many would argue they divided it neatly between them: Plato the one who with his "Allegory of the Cave" gave birth to the idea of an existence beyond our senses, giving a rational gloss to mysticism. Aristotle, the father of logic and a scientist, with a this-world orientation. There's a famous fresco by Raphael, "The School of Athens," where that's illustrated, where the figure meant to be Plato points to the sky--the heavens--while Aristotle points to the ground--to this Earth. If you're going to ask me which school I belong to--at least as so categorized, Aristotle wins, hands down. Yet if you ask me which philosopher I found a joy to read, which a slog--well, Plato wins.
Unfortunately, much of Aristotle's works were lost, and what remains I've seen described as not his polished material, but "lecture notes." In the case of Plato, though, what we have are largely "dialogues." These are like little plays, with characters arguing back and forth. Even if, as the "Socratic method" many a law student has endured suggests, much of it often consists of Socrates asking questions and others answering things such as "It would seem so, Socrates."
Not in the Symposium though, where various characters (including the comic playwright Aristophanes) meet for a dinner party where all contribute to a conversation on the meaning of love--and I think even those derisive or fearful of something labeled "philosophy" would find themselves engaged--even charmed. Plato's Republic though, is likely the most famous of his works--even perhaps the most controversial. It has so many famous aspects--the question of whether one could be virtuous if you owned an invisibility ring and could cloak your crimes, and especially the "Allegory of the Cave," perhaps the most famous metaphor in all of philosophy. The Republic has taken heat for being the paradigm of the totalitarian state, as it posits an ideal state modeled after Sparta, where children are taken away from their parents to be raised communally and all aspects of the lives of citizens controlled.
Karl Popper has a fascinating critique of Plato along these lines in the first volume of his The Open Society. But he notes a contradiction looking at Plato's works as a whole. The Gorgias, for instance, which I studied in college, reads as a great defense of freedom of speech and expression. It's also not consistent with the three dialogues that tell of Socrates trial and death, The Apology, The Crito and The Phaedo. In the first Socrates defends himself as a gadfly--as someone that stings the lazy horse of the state awake--and who should be rewarded, not swatted. It's a spirited defense of the role of the dissenter. Popper attributes the inconsistencies to the differences between Socrates and Plato, as well as a change in Plato over time. In the earlier dialogues, particularly the more biographical ones about Socrates' trial and death, we get the genuine article. But more and more, Popper would argue, Plato put words into Socrates mouth that didn't accord with his democratic and libertarian beliefs, particularly as Plato grew more aristocratic and authoritarian. It is interesting in that regard, that in what is purported to be Plato's last dialogue, The Laws, Socrates disappears as a character altogether.
In any case, I'd strongly recommend becoming familiar with Plato--he's just as important to Western Civilization as The Bible, whether you're sympathetic to his arguments or not. (Indeed, much Christian theology is a amalgam of the New Testament and Greek philosophy.) At least try The Republic, The Symposium, and The Apology. And truly, reading the dialogues isn't arduous as is true of many philosophical tracts. The ideas can sometimes be difficult and sophisticated, but it's often a surprisingly lively read.
Unfortunately, much of Aristotle's works were lost, and what remains I've seen described as not his polished material, but "lecture notes." In the case of Plato, though, what we have are largely "dialogues." These are like little plays, with characters arguing back and forth. Even if, as the "Socratic method" many a law student has endured suggests, much of it often consists of Socrates asking questions and others answering things such as "It would seem so, Socrates."
Not in the Symposium though, where various characters (including the comic playwright Aristophanes) meet for a dinner party where all contribute to a conversation on the meaning of love--and I think even those derisive or fearful of something labeled "philosophy" would find themselves engaged--even charmed. Plato's Republic though, is likely the most famous of his works--even perhaps the most controversial. It has so many famous aspects--the question of whether one could be virtuous if you owned an invisibility ring and could cloak your crimes, and especially the "Allegory of the Cave," perhaps the most famous metaphor in all of philosophy. The Republic has taken heat for being the paradigm of the totalitarian state, as it posits an ideal state modeled after Sparta, where children are taken away from their parents to be raised communally and all aspects of the lives of citizens controlled.
Karl Popper has a fascinating critique of Plato along these lines in the first volume of his The Open Society. But he notes a contradiction looking at Plato's works as a whole. The Gorgias, for instance, which I studied in college, reads as a great defense of freedom of speech and expression. It's also not consistent with the three dialogues that tell of Socrates trial and death, The Apology, The Crito and The Phaedo. In the first Socrates defends himself as a gadfly--as someone that stings the lazy horse of the state awake--and who should be rewarded, not swatted. It's a spirited defense of the role of the dissenter. Popper attributes the inconsistencies to the differences between Socrates and Plato, as well as a change in Plato over time. In the earlier dialogues, particularly the more biographical ones about Socrates' trial and death, we get the genuine article. But more and more, Popper would argue, Plato put words into Socrates mouth that didn't accord with his democratic and libertarian beliefs, particularly as Plato grew more aristocratic and authoritarian. It is interesting in that regard, that in what is purported to be Plato's last dialogue, The Laws, Socrates disappears as a character altogether.
In any case, I'd strongly recommend becoming familiar with Plato--he's just as important to Western Civilization as The Bible, whether you're sympathetic to his arguments or not. (Indeed, much Christian theology is a amalgam of the New Testament and Greek philosophy.) At least try The Republic, The Symposium, and The Apology. And truly, reading the dialogues isn't arduous as is true of many philosophical tracts. The ideas can sometimes be difficult and sophisticated, but it's often a surprisingly lively read.
October 9, 2011
This book is my bible. I first read it for a college class as an undergrad. One of the first books I remember reading was the Symposium. I ended up dropping that first philosophy class for various reasons. When I came back to school at a different university, I decided to try philosophy again. Synchronicity must have been at work in my choice of professors, as the one I chose became my mentor and my friend. It was in his class that I delved back into Plato and fell in love with them. It would be a massive undertaking, and one I am not prepared to do, to summarize the contents of this book. Instead I will point out notable books, and perhaps a few the general or beginning reader should tackle first.
It would be a very goo idea to start with the Apology. It will give you a sense of who Socrates is, what Athenian society is like at the time, and for the feel of Plato's style. I strongly recommend that readers stick with these translators: Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns. Their translations is lively and captures Socrates' wit and sometimes subtle humour. After the Apology, the Laches would be a good place to go, as it's centered around the single question of courage, and will give readers a feel for the structure and style of his argument. In general, there are six parts and then the release or conclusion. One interesting thing I've noticed is the importance of the middle section of any given book. This is especially noticeable in the Euthydemus and the Phaedrus. However, I would not recommend trying these two books until you have made it through several of his others. The Symposium is a beautiful book and pairs nicely with the Phaedrus. The Republic is fairly standard reading for many schools, but there is much to be discovered in this lengthy text besides what he says about philosopher kings. The Republic offers a fairly concise presentation of the Forms, or the eidos that are the central tenant of Plato's philosophy. Many people, including the other father of western philosophy, Aristotle, have mistakenly believed that Plato desired to separate the mind and the body, the ideal from the sensual. In the context of the Symposium and the Phaedo, I do not think this is the case at all. I will not however, try to tell you what to think. All I ask (if I can do such a thing) is that you read mindfully, carefully, and critically.
The Euthydemus is perhaps one of my favorite books; it is also the most demanding and existentially terrifying. When reading this book, one must be very aware of language and the meaning of words, for the brother's arguments often turn on a single word. It is also in this text that you can find much of, if not all of the ideas presented in the later dialogues. Perhaps the most difficult book of all however, is the Phaedo because it is in this book that Socrates attempts to describe most directly his concept of the Good--what it is, how we reach it--and a proof for the Forms. This is where we find the argument that "each is in all, and always all." This was one of the last books we covered and it made me feel as if I had lost all the understanding I previously thought I had. It really brought home the other oft quoted piece of wisdom: "wisdom is knowledge of one's own ignorance."
I would highly recommend the dialogues for people who are searching for answers to questions they don't know how to ask. The beautiful thing about Plato's philosophy is that it truly is a philosophy for living. While other philosophies or religions will tell you what steps to take at each and every turn on the path, Plato instead shows you the goal, the ultimate Good, and lets you find your own way there. For those who may think that eastern and western philosophies only and always oppose each other, I'd encourage you to consider Plato in light of Buddhism, and visa versa.
It would be a very goo idea to start with the Apology. It will give you a sense of who Socrates is, what Athenian society is like at the time, and for the feel of Plato's style. I strongly recommend that readers stick with these translators: Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns. Their translations is lively and captures Socrates' wit and sometimes subtle humour. After the Apology, the Laches would be a good place to go, as it's centered around the single question of courage, and will give readers a feel for the structure and style of his argument. In general, there are six parts and then the release or conclusion. One interesting thing I've noticed is the importance of the middle section of any given book. This is especially noticeable in the Euthydemus and the Phaedrus. However, I would not recommend trying these two books until you have made it through several of his others. The Symposium is a beautiful book and pairs nicely with the Phaedrus. The Republic is fairly standard reading for many schools, but there is much to be discovered in this lengthy text besides what he says about philosopher kings. The Republic offers a fairly concise presentation of the Forms, or the eidos that are the central tenant of Plato's philosophy. Many people, including the other father of western philosophy, Aristotle, have mistakenly believed that Plato desired to separate the mind and the body, the ideal from the sensual. In the context of the Symposium and the Phaedo, I do not think this is the case at all. I will not however, try to tell you what to think. All I ask (if I can do such a thing) is that you read mindfully, carefully, and critically.
The Euthydemus is perhaps one of my favorite books; it is also the most demanding and existentially terrifying. When reading this book, one must be very aware of language and the meaning of words, for the brother's arguments often turn on a single word. It is also in this text that you can find much of, if not all of the ideas presented in the later dialogues. Perhaps the most difficult book of all however, is the Phaedo because it is in this book that Socrates attempts to describe most directly his concept of the Good--what it is, how we reach it--and a proof for the Forms. This is where we find the argument that "each is in all, and always all." This was one of the last books we covered and it made me feel as if I had lost all the understanding I previously thought I had. It really brought home the other oft quoted piece of wisdom: "wisdom is knowledge of one's own ignorance."
I would highly recommend the dialogues for people who are searching for answers to questions they don't know how to ask. The beautiful thing about Plato's philosophy is that it truly is a philosophy for living. While other philosophies or religions will tell you what steps to take at each and every turn on the path, Plato instead shows you the goal, the ultimate Good, and lets you find your own way there. For those who may think that eastern and western philosophies only and always oppose each other, I'd encourage you to consider Plato in light of Buddhism, and visa versa.
December 18, 2018
last words of ornery codger recorded faithfully by ambitious immaterialist.
February 11, 2016
While I do not always agree with Plato, the beauty of his prose and its poetic quality bring me back to his dialogues again and again. This is the edition I acquired for my class in Plato & Aristotle in college and it is still a standard one volume text. It includes all the dialogues attributed to Plato plus the letters. This is one of the few books that I have read and reread over the last forty years. The result has been a growing appreciation for both Plato's project and his image of Socrates, a better understanding of myself, and a standard by which to evaluate other philosophical treatises. Plato is one of the most poetic and literary of the great Philosophers. He is worth reading in conjunction with Aristotle, or as suggested by Bertrand Russell, as a footnote to the rest of philosophy.
February 1, 2021
I fulfilled an ambition by reading every page in the order given. Now I can move on with greater confidence to the footnotes (ie the whole of Western philosophy).
Actually, A.N Whitehead made a good point about this and I'll quote it: “The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato. I do not mean the systematic scheme of thought which scholars have doubtfully extracted from his writings. I allude to the wealth of general ideas scattered through them�. There are two parts to this.
Firstly, it is absurd to try and construct an internally consistent philosophical system from these dialogues. I don't think they are internally consistent to start with. For example, early dialogues put great store by his theory of forms, but Parmenides seems to discredit this idea and reduce it to absurdity and, based on the sequence in this collection, he does not try to resurrect that theory in his later writing; it disappears. I never knew this until I read the dialogues for myself but now that I have done I will need some persuading if you think that I am mistaken. In another notable example, it seems to me that any conclusions about his views on same sex attraction and the relations of adult men with teenage boys need to be deferred until his comments in the Laws are included. In any case, I really don't think we will be resurrecting his ideas about the souls of planets or the abstruse number systems that he deploys to such confusing effect from time to time. I don't think there is anybody left who would claim that the ancient Greeks solved the mysteries of the material universe. What they did achieve was to introduce a fascinating way to ask and explore questions.
Secondly, it is indeed the case that the dialogues throw up all sorts of epiphanies. Sometimes, the thing that strikes me is simply his humanity - the discovery that I can relate to him as a person across not centuries but millennia: for example, he clearly did have children and take an interest in them.
ATHENIAN: We may take it as the ABC of the matter ... that it is universally beneficial for infants, particularly very young infants, to have the process of bodily and mental nursing continued without intermission, all day and all night long. If it were possible, it would be desirable for them to have spent all their time, so to say, at sea, and as it is, we should come as near to that ideal as we can with the newborn baby." [Laws VII 790 c] Today, it is a common practice for new parents to take their infant out in the car, as the only successful way to get them to settle and sleep.
"ATHENIAN: Then -to state the conviction which I share - while spoiling of children makes their tempers fretful, peevish and easily upset by mere trifles, the contrary treatment, the severe and unqualified tyranny which makes its victims spiritless, servile and sullen, renders them unfit for the intercourse of civic and public life." [Laws VII 791 d]
His ideas about childcare are not crazy; compared to many ideas of the 20th Century on this subject, he is positively enlightened. He argues that infants cry when they are fearful or in pain and it is not beneficial to leave them in such a state; they need us to identify any actual problem (nappy, sore skin, drink, feed, wind - is anything really different?) and then to be soothed; physical motion may be the best way to achieve this (tireless pacing up and down; a ship is no bad idea!).
Similarly, when one expects his thoughts on girls or women to be regressive, he turns out to be a second wave feminist; Plato repeatedly argues that they should participate fully in education and every aspect of the life of his ideal city, including military training and warfare. He is scornful of the image of women fleeing in terror to temples and shrines as invaders take their city (by no means a rare event) rather than knowing how to join with the male defenders and use weapons with skill. He has no time for the misogynist gender stereotypes that blighted the Greek cities of his time and continue to sour women's lives in the 21st Century.
"It is pure folly that men and women do not unite to follow the same pursuits with all their energies. In fact, almost every one of our cities on our present system is, and finds itself to be, only the half of what it might be at the same cost in expenditure and trouble. And yet, what an amazing oversight in a legislator!" [Laws VII 808 b]
It would be an entertaining exercise (perhaps someone would give me a certificate?) to collate comments in these dialogues alongside present day controversies and the impact of Plato's arguments would not be trivial. For example, the following might well have a bearing on a contentious case in the UK courts at the present time, which questions the capacity of children to consent to life changing treatments with long term harmful effects, even though they may clamour for this.
"My trial will be like that of a doctor prosecuted by a cook before a jury of children. Just consider what kind of defense such a man could offer... children of the jury, this fellow has done all of you abundant harm, ... giving you bitter draughts and compelling you to hunger and thirst, whereas I used to feast you with plenty of sweetmeats of every kind. What do you think a doctor could find to say in such a desperate situation? If he spoke the truth and said, All this I did, children, in the interests of health, what a shout do you think such a jury would utter? Would it not be a loud one?" [Gorgias 522 a]
Plato is dismissive of the very idea that it is the task of any doctor to be kind, and yet these very words are on the lips of present day politicians and the nibs of our commentators in an age where rational thought is under siege.
The writing style is often informal and highly accessible. It can become laboured and Plato has some hobby horses that provoke a groan, but it's often an affectionate one. This is an antidote to the appalling turgidity of the postmodern turn, the insufferable jargon of present day political discourse. Yes I know Plato can do jargon and talk technobabble with the best and when he does he becomes dull, but as a general rule he writes to be read and even to be enjoyed. He even gives us portraits of his ideal readers, in the characters and the relaxed, informal settings of his dialogues. After some 2,500 years his writing remains topical, relevant, readable and worth engaging with, even worth arguing and disagreeing with. It is at least worth checking, for any debate, if Plato has already spoken on the topic. He's not always right (though he can be) - he's just good.
Actually, A.N Whitehead made a good point about this and I'll quote it: “The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato. I do not mean the systematic scheme of thought which scholars have doubtfully extracted from his writings. I allude to the wealth of general ideas scattered through them�. There are two parts to this.
Firstly, it is absurd to try and construct an internally consistent philosophical system from these dialogues. I don't think they are internally consistent to start with. For example, early dialogues put great store by his theory of forms, but Parmenides seems to discredit this idea and reduce it to absurdity and, based on the sequence in this collection, he does not try to resurrect that theory in his later writing; it disappears. I never knew this until I read the dialogues for myself but now that I have done I will need some persuading if you think that I am mistaken. In another notable example, it seems to me that any conclusions about his views on same sex attraction and the relations of adult men with teenage boys need to be deferred until his comments in the Laws are included. In any case, I really don't think we will be resurrecting his ideas about the souls of planets or the abstruse number systems that he deploys to such confusing effect from time to time. I don't think there is anybody left who would claim that the ancient Greeks solved the mysteries of the material universe. What they did achieve was to introduce a fascinating way to ask and explore questions.
Secondly, it is indeed the case that the dialogues throw up all sorts of epiphanies. Sometimes, the thing that strikes me is simply his humanity - the discovery that I can relate to him as a person across not centuries but millennia: for example, he clearly did have children and take an interest in them.
ATHENIAN: We may take it as the ABC of the matter ... that it is universally beneficial for infants, particularly very young infants, to have the process of bodily and mental nursing continued without intermission, all day and all night long. If it were possible, it would be desirable for them to have spent all their time, so to say, at sea, and as it is, we should come as near to that ideal as we can with the newborn baby." [Laws VII 790 c] Today, it is a common practice for new parents to take their infant out in the car, as the only successful way to get them to settle and sleep.
"ATHENIAN: Then -to state the conviction which I share - while spoiling of children makes their tempers fretful, peevish and easily upset by mere trifles, the contrary treatment, the severe and unqualified tyranny which makes its victims spiritless, servile and sullen, renders them unfit for the intercourse of civic and public life." [Laws VII 791 d]
His ideas about childcare are not crazy; compared to many ideas of the 20th Century on this subject, he is positively enlightened. He argues that infants cry when they are fearful or in pain and it is not beneficial to leave them in such a state; they need us to identify any actual problem (nappy, sore skin, drink, feed, wind - is anything really different?) and then to be soothed; physical motion may be the best way to achieve this (tireless pacing up and down; a ship is no bad idea!).
Similarly, when one expects his thoughts on girls or women to be regressive, he turns out to be a second wave feminist; Plato repeatedly argues that they should participate fully in education and every aspect of the life of his ideal city, including military training and warfare. He is scornful of the image of women fleeing in terror to temples and shrines as invaders take their city (by no means a rare event) rather than knowing how to join with the male defenders and use weapons with skill. He has no time for the misogynist gender stereotypes that blighted the Greek cities of his time and continue to sour women's lives in the 21st Century.
"It is pure folly that men and women do not unite to follow the same pursuits with all their energies. In fact, almost every one of our cities on our present system is, and finds itself to be, only the half of what it might be at the same cost in expenditure and trouble. And yet, what an amazing oversight in a legislator!" [Laws VII 808 b]
It would be an entertaining exercise (perhaps someone would give me a certificate?) to collate comments in these dialogues alongside present day controversies and the impact of Plato's arguments would not be trivial. For example, the following might well have a bearing on a contentious case in the UK courts at the present time, which questions the capacity of children to consent to life changing treatments with long term harmful effects, even though they may clamour for this.
"My trial will be like that of a doctor prosecuted by a cook before a jury of children. Just consider what kind of defense such a man could offer... children of the jury, this fellow has done all of you abundant harm, ... giving you bitter draughts and compelling you to hunger and thirst, whereas I used to feast you with plenty of sweetmeats of every kind. What do you think a doctor could find to say in such a desperate situation? If he spoke the truth and said, All this I did, children, in the interests of health, what a shout do you think such a jury would utter? Would it not be a loud one?" [Gorgias 522 a]
Plato is dismissive of the very idea that it is the task of any doctor to be kind, and yet these very words are on the lips of present day politicians and the nibs of our commentators in an age where rational thought is under siege.
The writing style is often informal and highly accessible. It can become laboured and Plato has some hobby horses that provoke a groan, but it's often an affectionate one. This is an antidote to the appalling turgidity of the postmodern turn, the insufferable jargon of present day political discourse. Yes I know Plato can do jargon and talk technobabble with the best and when he does he becomes dull, but as a general rule he writes to be read and even to be enjoyed. He even gives us portraits of his ideal readers, in the characters and the relaxed, informal settings of his dialogues. After some 2,500 years his writing remains topical, relevant, readable and worth engaging with, even worth arguing and disagreeing with. It is at least worth checking, for any debate, if Plato has already spoken on the topic. He's not always right (though he can be) - he's just good.
January 12, 2023
Excellent collection
January 11, 2019
Plato's dialogues are 2nd only to the Bible in their importance to Western Civilization and their relevance have not seemed to age with time. Read the dialogues. All of them. Worth your time (even if it takes years).
Read
March 1, 2011Found this classic while digging through my garage looking for a bug zapper last night. I'm going to re-read it over the next few months. Such an amazing collection in a single publication.
April 7, 2022
Some of these dialogues are as important as the better parts of the Bible, but I am giving the overall book four stars because some of them were extremely difficult to get through. (Cratylus and Laws were especially annoying at times.) Despite the difficulties, I feel like I have accomplished an important feat in life just for finishing all 1,606 pages, especially since I was not reading it for any sort of class. I was instead reading it for personal enlightenment and now honestly feel as if my wisdom has deepened a little as a result of the completed task. Someone should throw me a party!
June 2, 2023
The Collected Dialogues are a wonderfully put together window into a world that was taking place thousands of years ago. Plato is undoubtedly one of the most interesting minds the world has ever seen, and having all of his written texts ever found in one place is one of the most wonderful feats humanity has ever performed. Anyone interested in history, philosophy or similar subjects would be sure to enjoy every line of text collected in this book.
May 19, 2023
A colleague just informed me that Princeton U. Press is still trying to sell the Big Green Plato - for money - in 2023. This seems a bit shameless. You wouldn't cite Jowett's translations in a scholarly context, and you wouldn't want 'students' to be misled by them either. Instead of milking the last profits, how about....a voluntary recall! Make academic history!
Currently reading
March 18, 2024Not sure how to deal with this one, as I will never finish reading it, yet the insights flow out in truly astonishing inexplicable ways.
Or in other words, Socrates & Plato now live rent free in my head.
Dr. Michael Sugrue's podcast & youtube are also welcome companions - both high yield returning investments of time.
Or in other words, Socrates & Plato now live rent free in my head.
Dr. Michael Sugrue's podcast & youtube are also welcome companions - both high yield returning investments of time.
July 7, 2022
The only book I’ve ever read with the Parmenides dialogue in its original form. A very heavy and dry read digging into the forms and the ontological ramifications of such discussions. But if you’re a fan of the Socratic format, it’s a great refresher.
Read
January 9, 2020*didn't read the entire thing <3
December 20, 2023
I love how reading this constantly is a requirement as a classics major.
May 8, 2014
Used this book twice for classes, once in 1982 for Greek philosophy and for Plato in particular, 2014. My printing is the 9th from 1978. Hardbound, the construction is sound with individual sections woven into the backing. I suspect the book may outlast me.
The reason I give it a mere 3 stars is because I am suspect of the translations, some of which go way back. More contemporary translations may more accurately portray Plato and the Greek culture in general.
Yet, through this book I came to understand The Republic as a truly elegant undertaking.
The reason I give it a mere 3 stars is because I am suspect of the translations, some of which go way back. More contemporary translations may more accurately portray Plato and the Greek culture in general.
Yet, through this book I came to understand The Republic as a truly elegant undertaking.
May 24, 2009
I only read Socrates' Defense/Apology, the first 25 pages of this book. To see how Socrates answered his accusers and went to his death during this week, when how Jesus did the same is the focus of so many services, is particularly interesting. I had forgotten that Socrates felt he was following a divine mandate. I loved that when Socrates was condemned and asked to suggest his own punishment, he replied that upkeep by the state, which he was constantly working to improve, seemed appropriate.
August 14, 2013
Still reading this but I think I'm going to need some help from some philosophy experts on this one. Not that Plato's ideas are difficult to understand--they aren't, at all--but because I'm having a hard time figuring out why this mass of logic-chopping and strange cultural assumptions forms one of the bedrock texts of Western thought. That's right, I just bagged on Plato! Try to stop me!
September 6, 2013
Putting this in the "read" shelf is not quite accurate since I have not read every last dialogue. But the ones I did read - e.g. Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Timaeus, Gorgias, Theaetetus, Symposium - were beautifully translated. I like the fact that the book weighs a ton, as well: heavy book for some surprisingly ethereal reading.
February 11, 2008
These translations burn my soul, but I got the book for free and it's still goddamn Plato, so I can't very well complain too loudly.
Reading this as part of MIT's survey course in western philosophy.
Reading this as part of MIT's survey course in western philosophy.
Read
November 9, 2008I like dialogue in real life a lot, but in this book it seems unimportant. 98% of the time, when Socrates asks a question, the other speaker just agrees with him. In real life, people can disagree freely.
June 6, 2009
Where do I start with Plato? The man made a foundation for though, a charter for truth, a map for philosophers. If he is not the flourish or the crown, he is the foundation and cheif cornerstone of my thinking.
November 20, 2016
The person of Socrates is engaging. His aristocratic politics not so much. And while much of his ethical and psychological analysis is useful, his most notable practice -- reifying conceptual categories into objective, eternal entities -- was a dead end for philosophy.
August 21, 2008
One of the most essential works to mankind, and the definitive version.
February 18, 2009
Plato's Socratic dialog is simply the best form of philosophy. A must read.
November 10, 2008
i love it but small text makes my eyes hurt. hahaha
Displaying 1 - 30 of 40 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.