Starting with Plato

[Anonymous No.9400892]

Greeting /lit/ I realize this is a slow board so I'll be patient, but as a avid /his/ browser, I have bare bones understanding of philosophy (I'm more informed than normies on it.) and I know my philosophers pretty well from studying history. I've started with the Greeks from a historical and literary standpoint but not philosophical.

I have a decent knowledge of the Socratic method, Socratic and Platonic dialogues, and I think it's better time spent If i skip the pre-socratics and go straight to Plato. Is this recommended? And if it is can anyone give me a quick Plato rundown and what I should expect?

[Anonymous No.9400927]

You can do it. The presocratics are interesting but barely anything from them survives, so you can really only get the gist of their ideas. There are some books that give you context and all of their writings and it totals to only about 270 pages.

[Anonymous No.9400939]

Yes.

[Anonymous No.9401143]

>>9400892
Perhaps you'd like to start with Heraclitus and Parmenides. Their works are short.

[Anonymous No.9401196]

>I have a decent knowledge of the Socratic method, Socratic and Platonic dialogues, and I think it's better time spent If i skip the pre-socratics and go straight to Plato.
>better time spent
Cut the video games and watching tele not the presocratics.

>>9400892
No you absolutely need to cover:
Parmenides, Heraclitus, Anaxagoras, Pythagoras and the Sophists. (And my personal favorite Zeno)

In other words pick up the Oxford or the Penguin on the PreSocratics, its a fun quick read and will pay off a thousand fold when reading Plato.

The Iliad, Odyssey, Theogony & Works and Days are also mandatory prerequisites.

Everything here is referenced by Plato and is required to even remotely understand his works.

[Anonymous No.9401396]

Bump

[Anonymous No.9401401]

>>9401196
If you can't understand Plato without reading Theogony, you're a literal brainlet. Everything necessary to understanding the dialogues is in the dialogues (the references are explained through conversational context).

I'm not saying Theogony isn't worth reading, though.

[Anonymous No.9401410]

>>9401401
Of course.

But now try understanding the issues of the Parmenides without actually reading/knowing Parmenides.

[Anonymous No.9401443]

>>9400892
>I think it's better time spent If i skip the pre-socratics
NOOOOOOO

[Anonymous No.9401476]

Just start with the Republic. Unless you want to understand every single reference to Greek mythology or culture.

[Anonymous No.9401575]

>>9401401
>Assuming OP has required Mythological knowledge
>Not just considering Theogony & Works and Day as a singular work
>Telling OP to skip an 800 line read
nice

> Everything necessary to understanding the dialogues is in the dialogues (the references are explained through conversational context)
just wrong

[Anonymous No.9401607]

>>9401476
Fuck right off, cunt. He should start with the Trial of Socrates, they are the groundwork of Platonic philosophy and are simpler for a newcomer.

[Anonymous No.9401639]

>>9401607
The Republic isn't hard to read for newcomers either unless you have ADHD

[Anonymous No.9401649]

>>9401575
OP here.

I have all of the required mythological information considering I'm a practitioner of Greco-Roman paganism, and I've read the Iliad multiple times along with Theogony and the Aeneid. From here, you can assume I have cultural and religious information down and understood well.

[Anonymous No.9401672]

>>9401639
But you will be lost if you're unaware of Socrates method. Read at least Euthyphro and Apology.

[Anonymous No.9401688]

>>9401639
It's not hard to read, but it's incredibly hard to understand properly.
This is pretty much the basic problem with Plato: he looks simple but is really hard to understand while guys like Kant look really complicated but are easily understandable.

[Anonymous No.9401693]

>>9401649
mine 9401196
not mine, but correct >>9401410
>considering I'm a practitioner of Greco-Roman paganism
questionable
Also you didn't mention the Odyssey which is worrying.

[Anonymous No.9401783]

>>9401693
Just didn't pop up in my head right away lel. If you're asking if I read it, the answer is yes.

[Anonymous No.9402049]

>>9400892
I would read a few detailed overview of philosophy books before I get into actually reading any primary material, but once you do that then you can completely skip reading the pre-Socratics, they are unnecessary. If you want some detail on them, however, I recommend the History of Philosophy without any gaps podcast to fill you in.

[Anonymous No.9402065]

>>9401196
I disagree, you may need to have some idea of the pre-socratics, and you definitely need to know general Greek mythology/culture/history, but you do not need to specifically read any of the things listed. The Illiad/Odyssey will improve the experience, but everything else is better covered in a secondary source.

[Anonymous No.9402071]

>>9401607
I agree, the trial dialogues are necessary reading and should probably come prior to the Republic.

[Anonymous No.9403692]

Bumpity.

[Anonymous No.9403701]

>>9401401
>he thinks Plato doesn't lie
oh anonkun :3

[Anonymous No.9403743]

Read waterfield's "first philosophers"
Read iliad/odyssey

If you want to get to Plato ASAP, that's all you need beforehand. Familiarity with greek history and drama will add a tiny bit to your experience, but not really, and any reference to any other poetry (including drama) will be a quote explicitly stating where it's from.

As for Plato just start reading. Start with the euthyphro/apology/crito/phaedo but after that just do whatever. Don't read Republic first, read Laws last if at all. Take notes if you want a better chance at understanding and remembering. Read some companion(s) after you're done with whatever Plato you plan to read.

Continuum companion is a real quick and dirty overview of Plato as a man, his background, the history involved, brief overviews of his dialogues, and short (<1 page) essays on his major topics and the techniques he employs to address them; final 50 pages (of 300) are about the study of Plato since Plato's own time, and are a great starting point for exploring more modern interpretations.

Copleston's section on Plato isn't comprehensive but hits the main points. Definitely recommend. (~150 pages)

AE Taylor's "Plato the man and his work" is the only book-length commentary on each dialogue one by one that I know of. A bit dated (early 1900s) but still respected. Buy used or the dover edition for like $5.

Cambridge companion to Plato and the one to Plato's republic are good but I would read them last if at all. They start getting nitty gritty and often approach the boundary of what a casual reader will understand or even care about. Some just aren't very good.

[Anonymous No.9403753]

>>9403743
>Some just aren't very good.
Should clarify that I mean that the two cambridge companions are compilations of about 15 essays each. Some essays are great, some are okay, a few were really dull. There's no way to tell until you've read them, so it's a bit hit or miss.

[Anonymous No.9403764]

>>9400892
>I have a decent knowledge of the Socratic method

*chortle*

[Anonymous No.9403793]

>>9400892
>I think it's better time spent If i skip the pre-socratics and go straight to Plato
what the fuck? no, read the fragments of the presocratics, there's not even that many