im seeking help

[Anonymous No.16571996]

i have read:-
>euthyphro
>meno
>crito
>apology
>phaedo
>theaetetus
what should i read next before starting the republic?

[Anonymous No.16572073]

Phaedrus and Gorgias.

[Anonymous No.16572216]

>>16571996
Symposium
Gorgias

[Anonymous No.16572346]

>>16571996
cratylus
gorgias
parmenides
symposium
phaedrus
>after republic
timaeus
laws
epinomis

[Anonymous No.16572365]

>>16572346
>recommending a dialogue longer than the republic

nice.

[Anonymous No.16572376]

>>16571996
please tell me you read homer, hesiod, apollodorus, and all of the presocratics first. if not you will have to start Plato all over

[Anonymous No.16572394]

>>16572073
>>16572216
>>16572346
3 for Gorgias (will read first)
2 Phaedrus ans Symposium (after Gorgias)
the rest..
>>16572365
its ok anon i have enough time
>>16572376
no i have not anon, might read them in the future but why would i start plato all over if im understanding what the dialogues are meaning to show? i see no point in that

[Anonymous No.16572545]

>>16572073
>>16572216
>>16572346
Give your reasoning

[Anonymous No.16572672]

>>16572545
Largely this is for chronology and interplay of common key ideas of the Republic and how they are developed prior and after.
Cratylus, Parmenides are key for understanding the forms.
Cratylus and Phaedrus are key for philosophy of language
Symposium is a cornerstone of Platonism regardless.
Gorgias gives a prelude as to the nature of Socrates's dectractors in the Republic.
Timaeus is key on the developments of the understanding of the soul elaborated in the phaedo but also serves as a political allegory.
Laws and Epinomis are the successors of the Republic, Laws more so.

[Anonymous No.16572730]

>>16572545
Gorgias is basically the proto-Republic

[Anonymous No.16572733]

>>16572545
The discussion with Polus and Callicles in Gorgias prefaces the discussion of Justice with Thrasymachus in book I of Republic. The tripartite theory of the soul presented in Phaedrus is linked with the tripartite division of the city in Republic and contextualises the idea of the city as allegory for the soul. OP has already read Meno, Phaedo, and Theaetetus which should have adequately prepared him for the metaphysical and epistemological discussion in the allegory of the cave, divided line, and sun. While I would usually recommend reading a lot of the minor ethical dialogues like laches, protagoras, ion, etc. just to get a better acquaintance with the socratic method, I don’t think they’re essential. Same goes with dialogues like Symposium, which is well worth reading but has little bearing on Republic.

[Anonymous No.16572752]

>>16572733
Tell me satsuki poster, are you actually a fascist or just like being stepped on

[Anonymous No.16572991]

infinite jest

[Anonymous No.16573260]

>>16571996
Nice apu.

[Anonymous No.16573272]

>>16572376
>presocrates
what a meme
Can you name a single one other than Epicurus and his doctrines? What about the name of an actual text? Seriously, if you list me some of these 'presocratic' texts, I'll read em

[Anonymous No.16573283]

>>16573272
Epicurus isn't a Presocratic. Heraclitus and Parmenides are the most important ones.

[Anonymous No.16573287]

>>16573283
and? Name one noteworthy text by them that isn't retroactively covered conceptually by Plato's dialogues or by Aristotle

[Anonymous No.16573303]

>>16571996

I would say the Phaedrus, but read the Republic first. The Phaedrus is esoteric Socrates.

[Anonymous No.16573342]

>>16573283
>>16573287
I'm not even shitposting by the way, if you can tell me where I can find any writings by Heraclitus, I'd love to read them. Even Parmenides "Reality" I'd love to find, but as I understand it people are just writing on what those two believed based on what was written after them about them

[Anonymous No.16573468]

>>16572672
>>16572730
>>16572733
Thank (you).

[Anonymous No.16573925]

>>16573342
You can find it on libgen

[Anonymous No.16574003]

>>16573925
based, thank you

[Anonymous No.16574075]

>>16572752
Well, I'm not a Fascist...

[Anonymous No.16574347]

>>16571996
Statesman

[Anonymous No.16574364]

>>16572346
>epinomis
Isn't that dialogue spurious?

[Anonymous No.16574586]

>>16573303
What is esoteric about Phaedrus?

[Anonymous No.16574908]

>>16573303
Op here
So anon phaedrus is after the republic? Can you explain to me why some anons wrote it before because I'm a bit confused rn

[Anonymous No.16574930]

>>16571996
Apu uses Hug
It's very effective
You feel loved

thank you for reading my poem

[Anonymous No.16575103]

>The average enjoyer of the same idea over and over and over again purely just for imaginary internet points
congrats you've put yourself in an echo chamber where it's only you and you alone.

[Anonymous No.16575104]

>>16574930

[Anonymous No.16575107]

>>16574364
correct but its useful, especially in light of Marsilio Ficino's commentary on it

[Anonymous No.16575140]

>>16574364
It was, at worst, written by someone in the Old Academy.
At best it was written under Plato's direct supervision.

[Anonymous No.16575235]

>>16575103
What the actual fuck are you on?

[Anonymous No.16575286]

since you've read theaetetus, you should "obviously" read Rophist since it is the continuation, then Statesman.
But Sophist after Parmenides is the most intense dialogue. so you dun goofed having read Theaetetus so early. Should have read Gorgias and Cratylus before.

>Alcibiades I, Last Days, Halcyon, Charmides, Lysis, Hippias, Ion, even Halcyon and Clitophon, Meno, Menexenus, Laches, Hipparchus, Theages, and Euthydemus (reading this early is a good way to get Socrates' dislike for some Sophists, it also literally prefigures Sophist and Parmenides)—these are all "simpler" or intentionally introductory (what retard "scholars" confuse as "early" dialogues), although Lysis has to be read carefully, and it might even be best to read it after Symposium/Republic. Apart from First Alcibiades (which you read first or as soon as possible) you can read these in any order whenever you want in-between any of these:
>Phaedrus, Gorgias, Symposium, Cratylus, and Protagoras, are all intermediate dialogues.
>Theaetetus-Sophist (+Statesman), Philebus, Parmenides, and Timaeus-Critias, are all advanced "end game" dialogues.
(Not talking about shitty developmentalism idea here.)

Minos-Laws-Epinomis is the apex of Academic thought; I've begun to believe these should actually be the first ones you read after "the short ones'', and Last Days; or even the only ones SOME should read, because they are so extremely straight-forward.
Gorgias-Symposium-Phaedrus-Republic-Phaedo are all inter-related, should be read close together (Republic completes the arguments begun in the others).
Epinomis, Phaedo, Critias, and Phaedrus, are all "end" dialogues, in their own way, I believe the dramatic aspect should be taken into account when making a guide of Plato. Critias feels most like the true end, leaving it all open ended (also reflecting his statement in Philebus that Discourse/dialectics will never end); Phaedrus is Autobiographical for Plato, and reading Phaedo after having read all the other dialogues makes it the most beautiful "tragedy" of antiquity. However, one should have Phaedo in the middle, such that, after Phaedo, the dialogues where Socrates take the back-seat, or don't even appear at all, are read after those where Socrates is the . With the exception of Philebus (since it 'completes' the Theaetetus-Sophist-Statesman-Parmenides dialogues about 'the One and the Many').
First Alcibiades and Halcyon and Ion (all by Plato) are 'perspective changing' dialogues, read them very early; read Clitophon just as you start getting tired by Socrates' antics for 'some reason', same with Protagoras.

[Anonymous No.16575333]

>>16575286
>are read after those where Socrates is the main speaker*
Also "Phaedrus, Gorgias, Symposium, Cratylus, and Protagoras" is not the order to read them, just pointing out their more advanced level.
TL;DR:
As long as you read Alcibiades first/early, Republic after Gorgias, Theaetetus-Sophist-Statesman together with Philebus after them, and then Parmenides and Timaeus-Critias last—then you can read all the others interspersed "whenever".
Usually people read Symposium and Charmides early and from them get the idea that Plato promoted faggot pederasty (not being familiar that most dialogues end in refutation of the claims/acts made earlier), which is why I have before recommended Laws early, or Symposium after Republic and Phaedrus. Phaedrus is a mini-Republic; and one does get the impression that half the Republic is a filter (something similar in Gorgias, and even all the more advanced Dialogues, although Timaeus does this is in reverse order), and this would then make it necessary to read Phaedrus after Republic.

[Anonymous No.16575378]

>>16575286
>>16575333
Thank you alot anon for your time and information! Very based post

[Anonymous No.16575487]

>>16575286
>Halcyon
>Clitophon
>Hipparchus
>Theages
Why?

[Anonymous No.16575681]

>>16575333
>and this would then make it necessary to read Phaedrus after Republic.
I don't see the reasoning here.
>(not being familiar that most dialogues end in refutation of the claims/acts made earlier)
I don't recall any of the more homoerotic dialogues ending that way. Most dialogues end on open questions without any clear answer.
Many of your comments are strange, like calling all scholars of plato retards and your bizarre adamancy to read later dialogues early for the sole reason of knowing Plato's position on homosexuality. Plus recommending a bunch of dialogues of questionable authenticity.
You come off as a weird christian neoplatonist.

[Anonymous No.16576031]

>>16571996
Statesman

[Anonymous No.16576224]

>>16575681
>I don't see the reasoning here.
What Republic reveals after 200 pages Phaedrus reveals after 20.
>>16575487
Halcyon questions all your presuppositions, readying you for all of Plato. Clitophon contradicts the low brow "I agree Socrates" interpretation, and is pretty funny. Hipparchus—why not? Theages (like Gorgias) prefigures Republic, like a prologue.

[Anonymous No.16576228]

>>16575286
>these are all "simpler" or intentionally introductory (what retard "scholars" confuse as "early" dialogues
What is your dismissal of the chronological theory based on?

[Anonymous No.16576351]

>>16571996
If you read and grasped the content from these, you can just move on to the Republic if you want. It is honestly pretty accesible

[Anonymous No.16576381]

>>16572376
LOL what is one important thing the presocratics wrote about that you need to understand Plato??

[Anonymous No.16576440]

>>16575681
>I don't recall any of the more homoerotic dialogues ending that way.
The whole point of Charmides, temperance, about is not acing on your temptations.
In Symposium, Not-Socrates and Not-Diotima praises full on homosexuality, while Diotima praises same sex reproduction and that acts that do not beget something beautiful are dishonorable; it likewise explains Socrates actual reason for loving ""young boys"" (an inherently sexual statement in modern English that leads to misinterpretation) is because he wants to bring forth all their Potential into Actuality, which also reveals the importance of Theages since I believe that in Republic Theages has died, showing great sadness in Socrates because he failed as a midwife (Lover) in Theages' case. Symposium also ends with Socrates denying Alcibiades sexual advances even though after Alcibiades I he becomes his lover (there's another dialogue where he expresses similar disappointment towards Alcibiades); likewise, in I think Charmides, he claims to be Alcibiades 'Lover', yet he denies him sexually in Symposium, clearly showing how being a 'lover' has nothing to with sex, something Phaedrus and Republic also clearly affirm that it doesn't.
Phaedrus literally ends claiming that Philosophical Lovers, teacher and student in the mysteries of Eros, who fail at Temperance (Charmides) are 'doomed' to the Lowest heaven, without the wings to ascend that all philosophers gain and have to regrow what they were meant to grow in this life, because they indulged in depravity yet they are saved from Tartarus by their still somewhat virtuous lives (they didn't become full-on hedonistic degenerates). This is also a glimpse of divine mercy in spite of moral error in Plato's theology.
Republic forbids any acts between two philosophical lovers that wouldn't also be acceptable for a Father and Son to do, you're meant to practice a sort of inter-personal 'no-fap' if you have homosexual tendencies. While in a marriage (not a christian one) between a Man and Woman you should practically do everything but have sexual temperance, according to Laws. This echoes Symposium's praising of childbearing physical and spiritual---gay sex births nothing beautiful, one can see how Plato thought if two men who loved each other (including sexually) but never acted on it, they would grow far more together than if they indulged in lust, if you wanna throw out that sex strengthens a relationship (which is true for men and women, but according to Plato, not between men and men). The lust and thought isn't sinful, the act is (yes this is Plato's language, nothing to do with Christianity which has corrupted brotherhood with their puritanism, this has also lead to these retarded homosexual projections onto Socrates because real physical non-sexual friendship between men is dead in modernity).


i seem to have been inspired, like Ion

[Anonymous No.16576534]

>>16575681
>questionable authenticity
>all scholars of plato
no
I meant all the scholars who postulated 150 years ago that some Dialogues, than none of the ancients rejected, aren't of Plato and has "questionable authenticity". Wikipedia is extremely outdated going by "scholarship" from the 19th century.
Likewise the scholars who follow Schleiermacher's Vacuum dialogues idea that contradicts itself.
I even doubt that the Letters are unauthentic, and still even if all of these dialogues and letters are not directly by Plato, pretty much all of them were written within the life time of Plato or closely after his death, which reflects the teachings of the Academy that HE established. >>16575140

[Anonymous No.16576560]

>jumping deep into the greeks without even consulting the mesopotamians
Never going to make it.

[Anonymous No.16576881]

>>16576560
>not reading the Sumerian debates
>not reading the Babylonian corpora of incantations
>not reading the Sumerian and Babylonian epics
>not reading the Babylonian wisdom literature
>not reading the Sumerian proverbs
>not reading the Sumerian riddles
>not reading Sumerian and Babylonian love poetry
N G M I

[Anonymous No.16577203]

>>16572991
this

[Anonymous No.16578632]

>>16576881
>Not starting with the Maltravieso