Where do I begin?

[Anonymous No.19941007]

I want to read and fully appreciate the Republic, while at the same time getting an idea of Plato's thought as a whole. I'd like to read the dialogues in such an order where they will build upon each other, but I have no interest in reading them all right now. Anyone have a roadmap?

[Anonymous No.19941020]

>>19941007
if you can bear a little schizoposting, I just finished this guy's reading order and really liked it:

https://www.plato-dialogues.org/tetralog.htm#tetramap

though for actual commentary, all of the "introductions and analyses" I read were incredibly helpful:

https://platoindepth.wordpress.com/vol-1/charmides-introduction-analysis/

good luck!

[Anonymous No.19941026]

>>19941007
Just read the whole thing from start to finish you scum bag, I love you. Just read the first sentence and the last sentence that way you've read from start to finish.

[Anonymous No.19941080]

>>19941020
Great material, much appreciated. Do you think commentary is essential for understanding the dialogues?

[Anonymous No.19941098]

>>19941020
The tetralogy thing is pretty good but I would change a few things. First I would group the dialogues differently. The tetralogy mostly follows chronological order but I would want this to be more explicit so the student knows explicitly why some of the dialogues he's reading are repetitive (because they are from the same early period and some of them are either redundant or are student exercises at the Academy that were so good that they became generally accepted as dialogues and people forgot Plato didn't actually write them, like possibly the Hippiases and maybe Lysis or something). So make it explicit what the basic chronological order is, so you can track your progress and not feel lost.

First I would have him read at least one of the standard sophistical refutation dialogues like Charmides, Lysis, Hippias, just to get a sense for the elenchic method and what Plato's critique of the sophistic/eristic method actually is.

Then I would get him to read the major early-middle dialogues known to be interesting and "easy" early on, to maintain motivation and increase interest. Meno is a good babby's first Plato dialogue, and then the cycle Euthyphro Apology Crito Phaedo (often packaged together) is good because they maintain the narrative of the trial (pre-trial, trial, condemnation, death) which also maintains motivation, while ALSO having some of the most famous platonic philosophical questions/paradoxes (Euthyphro dilemma, Crito paradox about obeying unjust laws), AND an introduction to Plato's mystical/unwritten doctrines side (Phaedo and immortality of the soul; Socrates talking about his daemon). Then I would probably get him to read the Symposium, because everybody likes it and it's fun, then Phaedrus, since it has explicitly mystical content and if he's interested in that it will whet his appetite for the later metaphysical dialogues. Now he's seen at least a foretaste of everything Plato might have to offer him.

Then I would clean up the rest of the early dialogues he hadn't read yet (Charmides, Laches, Lysis, Hippiases, Alcibiades) if he has patience for it since they're short. Maybe force him to tolerate Ion and Menexenus since they're weird and peripheral, again depending on patience.

Then I would tell him to strap in because now it's time to read the pre-Republic middle anti-sophist dialogues, Gorgias, Protagoras, Euthydemus. This is going to take a while but they're the logical conclusions of the shorter anti-eristic dialogues.

Then reading the Republic.

Then the major metaphysical/mystical dialogues of the late period in any order he prefers, other than putting Laws dead last.

[Anonymous No.19941116]

>>19941080
It helps but is not vitally necessary. If you read in something like the order basically in my post here >>19941098, i.e. more or less chronologically, the only commentary you will (probably) need is allocating some extra thought or research time to the sophistic style of argumentation in the 5th century BC and how Socrates' and Plato's dialogical (elenchic) method constitutes a break with it. If you understand that decently well, you will just be watching it unfold yourself.

Aside from that, commentaries in the early-middle dialogues are most helpful for giving structure and picking out things for you to focus on. It's always helpful to google the Euthyphro dilemma or the Crito dilemma and see a shorter, summarised version of it if you're having trouble. Or to do the same for even the shorter dialogues if you're having trouble extricating Socrates' argument from the complex dialogue form.

You'll probably naturally seek out commentary for the Republic and the later treatises since they're much more multifaceted and ambitious and don't revolve around single paradoxes or lemmas like, say, Euthyphro or Crito do.

[Anonymous No.19941161]

>>19941116
Can't thank you enough for this information. I'll take your advice and begin with a sophistical refutation dialogue, because I'm generally aware of the conflict between Socrates and the sophists.

[Anonymous No.19941169]

>>19941116
this isn't me, but just follow everything this guy says; I finished Plato last month and should have done it like he recommends. I will say though that the commentaries were nice for review, so if you're not note-taking (honestly a huge mistake I regret making) it's pretty important to have a better grasp. not going to lie though, there are a couple dialogues that I know I missed everything of substance in: Cratylus, for example, and Parmenides. Can't wait to have some more Platofags on here; you can't reject his truth once you've read it

[Anonymous No.19941246]

>>19941007
Start with the trial and death of socrates then go to the republic.

[Anonymous No.19941252]

>>19941169
Good to see some consensus in here. I'm a good (compulsive) note taker, but I often miss the forest for the trees, or focus on inconsequential semantics and miss the important things, so I can see why commentary could be helpful. Maybe I'll read a brief bullet point summary for each dialogue beforehand, so I'll know what to look for. I'm just always paranoid that doing so will give me tunnel vision and keep me from truly grasping the ideas, or will give me a false sense of comprehension.

[Anonymous No.19941267]

>>19941080
I don't think so. I read an introduction to Socrates followed by Plato and I find that I would have arrived at similar conclusions by just reading Plato by myself. I suggest to just read Plato first and commentary afterwards.

[Anonymous No.19941288]

>>19941252
absolutely possible, though I think it's the "forest for the trees" worry that makes overarching summaries so helpful for comprehension of interdialogue themes as well as Socratic irony (though that becomes much easier to pick up). also, you mentioned the "explicitly mystical content" of the Phaedrus: have you read anything else like it (outside of Plato)?

one more tip for op: read the 7th letter, maybe even first. then, once you finish, read Guthrie's chapter on Esoteric Platonism.

[Anonymous No.19941358]

>>19941288
Good recs, also recommending Gerson on ur-platonism, "Aristotle and other Platonists," plus Dillon's book on the Middle Platonists. And I can't remember if it's Gerson or Dillon who wrote the book on the Academy after Plato's death.

Also reading the first chapter or two of Rist's Mind of Aristotle is nice for a little picture of what the Academy was like while Plato was alive. Makes it feel much more real and human. You can also look up the ruins of what they think was the Academy btw, they have unearthed some reliefs that were probably literally what Plato himself saw every morning when he went in to "work."

I also like Findlay's Written and Unwritten Doctrines but that's harder to get into and long

[Anonymous No.19941411]

>>19941358
incredibly helpful; i didn't know we had people this into Plato. thanks again!

[Anonymous No.19941520]

>>19941288
You're replying to op...sorry, should've made that more clear. Are these letters included in the complete Plato, and when should they be read?

[Anonymous No.19942163]

>>19941520
ah, alright. a professor explained that most of his letters are considered spurious, but the 7th is "if not written by Plato himself, intimately familiar with Platonic doctrine." Should be in the complete