/lit/ - Literature

>>21239688
A classic

Reading Plato, I found, was something like sailing down a placid river—scenery and sun coalesced to make it a thoroughly pleasant experience—and having read nigh every dialogue, I encountered neither rapid nor waterfall until I had the misfortune of reading Parmenides. I understand the profundity of many of Parmenides' deductions; yet, I cannot help but feel as if his framework for analyzing the world of forms is fundamentally wrong. The cascade of analogies that buttresses his logic seems discontinuous, and, comparing the structure of Parmenides to every other dialogue, it occasionally reads more like a comedy. It is obvious that this waterfall empties into a swamp, and I would prefer not to get too bogged down. Unfortunately, I am not familiar with any secondary literature so I must ask:

Will Theaetetus and Sophist serve as an adequate conclusion to Plato (and specifically Parmenides) or should I seek out alternative explanations?