Secondary texts for Plato

[Anonymous No.11630878]

I'm a brainlet and I am having trouble understanding Plato.

Are there any good secondary texts/companion guides to his works that will help me understand them better?

[Anonymous No.11631012]

>>11630878
>I'm a brainlet and I am having trouble understanding Plato.

Which dialogues are giving you trouble?

[Anonymous No.11631310]

>>11630878
The only one I remember that could give anyone difficulty was Parmenides. There's the one where he has the slave do geometry but that's oretty easy if you just draw along. The easiest Aristotle is like the hardest Plato so you're gonna have to try harder mate

[Anonymous No.11631322]

>>11630878
Read Jacob Sherman's opening essay in the Participatory Turn. Should be up on libgen. Forget what it was called but it's the first essay right after the introduction.

Not supposed to introduce you to Plato but he does a good job of communicating Plato's ideas compellingly

[Anonymous No.11631348]

>>11630878
Plato's thought by Grube

[Anonymous No.11631425]

Socrates: A Very Short Introduction
Plato: A Very Short Introduction

[Anonymous No.11631440]

>>11631310
This. Underrated post for sure.

That being said, there is a subtelty to Plato’s dialogues that are kissed by the person trying to glean the basics of what he is saying overall.

The subtelty I’m referring to is basically that allegorical nature of the city for the person that Plato and Hobbes use so well. But it’s also a bit more than that, whereas sometimes he says it outright like in the ending of The Republic, there are other times where this metaphorical nature isn’t expressly stated. Like in Statesman, or how the existential meaning of some of the death of Socrates dialogues are not stated directly either.

So I will say this: Plato’s works are superficially easy but interpretively complex, whereas Aristotle’s works are superficially complex without any layers

[Anonymous No.11631442]

>>11631440
Kissed should be missed

[Anonymous No.11631460]

>>11631425

>Socrates: A Very Short Introduction
A little advanced, but very good.

>Plato: A Very Short Introduction
Not that great.

Consider the book in my image. It is very good.

[Anonymous No.11631461]

>>11631440
To expand I think the metaphor in the Statesman is how weaving a garment is very similar to creating a state

[Anonymous No.11631471]

>>11631460
If you're going to read the Ancient Philosophies series you should check out the Neoplatonism volume too.

[Anonymous No.11631485]

Fucking hell nigga how the fuck do yoy not understand Plato? Like his dialogues are literally about Socrates proving and explaining things to troglodyte-tier brainlets. U dumber than Euthyphro nigga

[Anonymous No.11631489]

>>11631485
Plato doesn't explain shit. That's the thing. It's all aporetic. Raises questions instead of giving answers. Elenchus yourself if you think there's a clear meaning.

[Anonymous No.11631507]

>>11631489
Yes Plato doesn't provide many conclusions. That doesn't mean the text isnt piss easy to understand

[Anonymous No.11631518]

>>11631489
Explains more than Aristotle

[Anonymous No.11631556]

>>11631507
Yeah. True that. But a lot of people on /lit/ are teens with no serious reading experience and /pol/tards and adults who are trying to get into the hobby without prior experience outside school. Be gentle, as Socrates was to the slave boy he taught geometry (not Parmenides btw).

[Anonymous No.11632224]

>>11630878
Which ones are you having trouble to understand? Some of Plato's dialogues are very simple but, on the other hand, some are indeed difficult and carry much more than what is on the surface.

[Anonymous No.11632258]

>>11630878
Try "Socrates: Ironist and Moral Philosopher" by Vlastos. It clears up a lot of difficulties about the relationship of Plato to the historical Socrates, and also serves as a great guide to a lot of Plato's thought. It is very well written too.

[Anonymous No.11632311]

>>11631310
>There's the one where he has the slave do geometry
Meno. It's where he introduces his theory of recollection and the distinction of true belief vs knowledge too.

[Anonymous No.11633615]

>>11632224
>Which ones are you having trouble to understand?
>>11631012
>Which dialogues are giving you trouble?

Sorry, maybe I should have worded this better:
I am not having trouble comprehending Plato as I read him, the issue is more that once I finish his writings, I don't recollect it very well after much time, I am having trouble retaining the details of the content, which makes me feel like it was almost pointless to read it in the first place, because it isn't just fiction.

>>11631322
>>11631348
>>11631425
>>11632258
Thank you.

[Anonymous No.11633637]

on e related note, is reading "mythology" really "essential" to understand the greeks? if it is necessary to read a summary of greek mythology, is there a better book written by a man i can read instead?

[Anonymous No.11633716]

>>11631442
Actually, I think it makes sense to use the word "kissed", if you meant it as "brushed past through". Kissing is superficial contact. It leaves no permanent marks, and just gives off the appearance of something deeper.
>>11633637
Hesiod's Theogony/Works and Days, Ovid's Metamorphoses, and Apollodorus' Library.
Hesiod is the first Greek writer to deal with the origin of the universe, and heavily inspired speculations made by some of the earliest Greek philosophers on the arche (the matter with which the universe was created) and the stages of Man's history. Ovid's Metamorphoses is a compilation of myths in poetic form which heavily influenced later writers and artists for its beautiful, heavily romantic handling of these stories. Apollodus' Library has just about every single important, and many lesser relevant Greek myths that are otherwise left sparsely documented, or heavily spread around many other literary sources.

[Anonymous No.11633827]

>>11633716
thanks senpai. so is it best to just jump into the old texts and not read anything written about them from a modern perspective?

[Anonymous No.11633870]

>>11633615
Make notes on what you read. Think of the most important stuff you read, and put it down on paper.

[Anonymous No.11633941]

>>11633827
It's not necessary. At most, you might want to get a map of Ancient Greece/the Roman Empire, and know some key dates (like knowing that the Ancient Olympic Games were first celebrated in 776 BC, Rome was founded in 753 BC, the Battle of Marathon was fought in 490 BC, Alexander the Great died in 323 BC at the age of 32, the Roman Empire was founded in 27 BC, Jesus lived between the year 1 AD/4 BCE and the year 34 AD/29 CE, Christianity was made the official religion of the Roman Empire in 393 AD, Rome was sacked by the Visigoths in 410 AD, and the Western Roman Empire fell in 473 AD).

[Anonymous No.11634333]

>>11633637
>a better book written by a man
nice to see another redpilled gentleman around here

[Anonymous No.11635224]

>>11633637
No.
Also, if you ever come across this whole meme of "read Y before X" again, ignore it. Most books can stand on their own, and if they don't, the author usually makes it patently obvious that he's commenting on or responding to an earlier work.

[kinggucci69 !!36GpOxAcrVH No.11635239]

>>11631485
u r le leddit phamus now m8

https://www.reddit.com/r/4chan/comments/97vzo0/anon_is_still_in_the_cave/

[Anonymous No.11635250]

>>11630878
>read an overview of early Greek phil
>freshen up high school math
>read out loud
>write a summary of each dialogue where you highlight the different arguments made and strenghts/weaknesses of each one

[Anonymous No.11635251]

>>11633615

The content is secondary on your first reads. It’s Plato, you’re gonna come back to a lot of these over the proceeding decades of your life.

The important thing is to think critically about everything. The initial gains from reading Plato are following the dialectical motions of the dialogue. It teaches you how to think. Apply this to your daily musings.

Find the lit Phil google doc for reading list. Taking Notes is recommended ofc but again the details are not the primary concern.

On your second but more likely third pass through the material you will start to sift through everything with a fine toothed comb and you’ll see there is no end to the depth of his writings.

I don’t want to spoil anything. But how serious Is Socrates, really? Look at his character during these initial readings. Think about him, what he’s saying, doing, the overall structure of the arguments and the conversation as a whole. Cross examine his argumentation, there is something very curious going on with him that is not sitting on the surface.

These first readings are something pure for a young soul to encounter. I can’t recommend a secondary source. I’d say stick with the early dialogues and then go through the republic with blooms xlate and essay. Then maybe look into secondary essays on Plato’s thought in general, and after your second or third Pass, start getting into scholarship.

Taking a class on this material is also recommended. It /can/ be fun to argue with a Phil PhD about interpreting plato. It can also be a waste of time.

[Anonymous No.11635261]

>>11631485
t. literally too dumb for dialectics

[Anonymous No.11635263]

>>11635239

[Anonymous No.11635271]

>>11635251
>But how serious Is Socrates, really?
Coming from someone who has read him very often, 100% serious.

You aren’t that dumbass that thinks the Republic is satirical. Listen and listen well: when Socrates is standing there endlessly praising people like ‘wow you are very intelligent and such a wise man as yourself would sure do *insert verb here*’ he is being serious.

You may not understand this, but back in those times people had a little bit of respect for each other and that was how conversations were had

[Anonymous No.11635278]

>>11633637
Yes and no, it does help expound on greek culture and world feeling. Though personally, I think that reading the tragedies are a far better point of entry than fragments of mythology.

[Anonymous No.11635283]

>>11633637
>Sophokles more essential than Aiskhulos

[Anonymous No.11635299]

>>11635251

instead of secondary sources specific to plato, look into greek history. thucydides and herodotus. the various poets, homer. there is a lot of interplay between the greek philosophers and their poets, and this has continued throughout the history of thought.

understanding the greeks, who they were, how they operated, what they thought, etc, will deepen your appreciation for plato much more than any scholarship detailing the logical motions of the arguments or various historical curiosities will, especially during the, what im assuming are, early stages of developing your philosophical cognition.

regarding the order of reading phil, it does matter, but not so much as the memers here make u think. so long as you do a fairly decent job of hitting the major thinkers, the order in which you read them will do very little to influence your overall development over the period of say a decade of initial contact with philosophical thought.

enjoy these early moments, they are pure. you will be turned to fire time and time again with every new work you encounter that speaks to your soul.

also, read the birth of tragedy at some point before you leave the greeks.

[Anonymous No.11635312]

>>11630878
>ctrl f sadler
>ctrl f minotaur of milvaukee
You watch his core concept series you dumb brainlet
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4gvlOxpKKIjwnfPgqLkLJ7cHXAqDHfBA

[Anonymous No.11635368]

>>11635271

maybe serious was the wrong word. hes been known to party several nights in a row, so he isnt 100% serious. what attracted him to cephalus's house in the first place? food and a festivities, not conversation.

lets try honest, or fair. i think he uses dubious argumentation to sway an audience, and there are reasons for this. but a virtuous philosopher such as socrates doesnt care about the opinions of the masses, does he? bk1 of the republic is an example.

in addition to that, did he deserve to be executed? seriously think about that, look into the history, blooms lectures touch base with this. socrates the man who lived is not plato's socrates, and plato's socrates is not the man most readers think he is. this is a serious point of debate in contemporary scholarship.

on the surface hes a paragon of virtue. but i dont think hes quite the virtuous man he is being presented as. all you have to do is pick apart the argumentation. imnot going to spoil all the fun for you.

and the republic is satire. you need only to ask yourself how successful the ideal state would be. would the citizens be happy? would they lead meaningful lives worth living? i think the conclusion was no, thus, the book, if taken as unit, is a work of satire. the ideal state is impossible, just as is the ideal man. we dont get the luxury of perfection in this life, anon. we get cycles of suffering leading to institutional degeneration followed by periods of eudamonia. look i crossed the metaphors.

the surface (plot) is satirical. what awaits the subtle reader beneath the veneer is not satire.

[Anonymous No.11635400]

>>11635271
>Coming from someone who has read him very often, 100% serious.
>You aren’t that dumbass that thinks the Republic is satirical
The Republic isn't his only dialogue. It's obvious in Protagoras that Socrates is having fun and is intentionally engaging in bad arguments as a sort of a well humored joke against his opponent in what is a jovial and friendly debate.

[Anonymous No.11635409]

>>11635400

yeah, and in the republic he employs bad arguments in a very serious way to bury thrysamachus in front of half a dozen drunks

[Anonymous No.11635499]

>>11635409
... So we are agreeing then that Socrates isn't always serious?

[Anonymous No.11635506]

>>11635499
he was only pretending to be retarded!

[Anonymous No.11635541]

>>11635506
I.e., socratic irony

[Anonymous No.11635572]

>>11633870
Even something as simple as underlining key points to come back to later will greatly improve your comprehension and memory imo. I'm kind of ashamed of it, but I've only just now started to do this and it's been night and day with the kind of shit I recall.

[Anonymous No.11635623]

>>11635541

the term "irony" doesnt even begin to cover the half of it. hes a fuckin snake.