Los diálogos de Platón

by Plato

The Greek philosopher Socrates lived by the tenet that the path to truth was built on questions. When conversing with his students and followers he sought to reach the foundations of their views, asking questions until he found contradictions that exposed faults in their logic. This process became known as the Socratic Method.

An enigmatic figure in history, Socrates left no writings. Much of what we know about his life and work comes from the accounts of his disciple Plato. Plato described Socrates as the ultimate teacher as well as the creator of modern argument and rhetoric. The Socratic Dialogues contain Plato's most important writings on Socrates, including commentaries on the virtues of friendship, courage, and temperance that display the Socratic Method at its highest degree. Plato's account of Socrates' stunning self-defense during his trial for corrupting the minds of his followers is also included.

Genres: Philosophy, Classics, Nonfiction, History, Politics, Literature, Ancient History

Unknown Binding

First published January 1, 381

About the author

Plato (Greek: Πλάτων), born Aristocles (c. 427 – 348 BC), was an ancient Greek philosopher of the Classical period who is considered a foundational thinker in Western philosophy and an innovator of the written dialogue and dialectic forms. He raised problems for what became all the major areas of both theoretical philosophy and practical philosophy, and was the founder of the Platonic Academy, a philosophical school in Athens where Plato taught the doctrines that would later become known as Platonism.
Plato's most famous contribution is the theory of forms (or ideas), which has been interpreted as advancing a solution to what is now known as the problem of universals. He was decisively influenced by the pre-Socratic thinkers Pythagoras, Heraclitus, and Parmenides, although much of what is known about them is derived from Plato himself.
Along with his teacher Socrates, and Aristotle, his student, Plato is a central figure in the history of philosophy. Plato's entire body of work is believed to have survived intact for over 2,400 years—unlike that of nearly all of his contemporaries. Although their popularity has fluctuated, they have consistently been read and studied through the ages. Through Neoplatonism, he also greatly influenced both Christian and Islamic philosophy. In modern times, Alfred North Whitehead famously said: "the safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato."

Reviews

[Manny · Rating 5 out of 5]

I couldn't possibly write a review of this. Even a short book would not do it justice.
________________________

Proust quite frequently refers to Plato. I particularly liked this passage, which I just noticed in A l'ombre des jeunes filles en fleurs:

Et Françoise, nous transmettant les commissions de la marquise: «Elle a dit: «Vous leur donnerez bien le bonjour», contrefaisait la voix de Mme de Villeparisis de laquelle elle croyait citer textuellement les paroles, tout en ne les déformant pas moins que Platon celles de Socrate ou saint Jean celles de Jésus.

Scott Moncrieff's translation:

And Françoise, when transmitting to us the Marquise's message: "She said to me, 'You'll be sure and bid them good day,' she said," counterfeited the voice of Mme. de Villeparisis, whose exact words she imagined herself to be quoting textually, whereas she was really corrupting them no less than Plato corrupts the words of Socrates or Saint John the words of Jesus.

[Mark · Rating 1 out of 5]

Socrates says "The unexamined life is not worth living." Yet this book actually shows that an examined dialogue is not worth believing. The general format of the Socratic dialogues is:
Socrates: Incorrect fact #1.
Friend: Obviously, Socrates.
Socrates: Correct fact #2.
Friend: Of course, Socrates.
Socrates: 1 + 2 = 3. And a half.
Friend: You are so wise Socrates.

Since the arguments are so blatantly made up, it is hard to give any credence to the conclusions. Which is a shame because he espouses some noble sentiments. Maybe the book would be more successful if it showed Socrates living his principles rather than blathering on about them. As it is, the book is really only useful for a discussion of different types of logical fallacies. Suggested new title: "How to Lie with Rhetoric".

[JP · Rating 5 out of 5]

Contains Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Protagoras, Meno, Symposium, and Gorgias. In general, these are considered the primary component of Plato's early works, in which he expounds that learned from his teacher Socrates. The arguments seem somewhat simplistic by today's standards, but the style and logic clearly represent the timeless fame rendered to Socrates. In Apology, Socrates willingly accepts indictment and makes his argument. True to his spirit, he makes adequate defense against both classes of charges but is still found guilty. In arguing his case, he brings out the idea that he is "wise" because he knows he is not and questions every principle proposed to him. In Crito, he also expresses that he wishes the mass could do bad for then they could also do good. Phaedo is moving in the way he willingly accepts his execution, explaining to his followers that a philosopher dedicates their entire life to separating body from soul. He considers it completely natural to follow what the law of society has ordained and does not fear his death but rather looks toward it. In Protogoras, Socrates debates with the former regarding why his young friend should follow Protogoras to learn Virtue. They explore exactly what that is and isn't and Socrates successfully impugns the self-proclaimed value of the Sophists' claim to profess teaching it. His analogy to merchants and their selling of wares without knowing what is good and bad for their customers makes one immediately think of so many modern "improvements." Hippocrates is also present at these debates. Meno involves constant debate regarding virtue. The final conclusion is that it comes from the Divine but must be defined before it can be better understood. In Symposium, Socrates joins in an after-dinner discussion to eulogize Eros. Several mythological concepts are introduced there: the belieft in two Aphrodite's (one being true love and one Pandium), the original human with twice as many of most parts (split by the gods to limit their arrogance and always searching for their pairs; the love is actually a search for immortality through reproduction, or a better society, et al). In Gorgias, Socrates debates the value of rhetoric. (Great phrase ascribed to Callicles: mad with eloquence, like a true politician). Judgment is portrayed as having originally (time of Cronos) been performed by "clothed" men on "clothed men, resulting in a superficial judgment as the dead were sent down one of two roads. To summarize the conclusions, rhetoric is in itself useless (or at least no more than any other skill) and an increase in power is also an increase in ability to sin. Socrates also compared trials of ideas to a trial of a doctor vs a candy maker with a jury composed of children.

[Rae · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have always been interested in philosophy...took a few classes in college and did a little of my own research just because it peaks my interest but I am by no means an expert whatsoever. That being said I feel slightly incapable of writing a review on such an "epic" book if you will. My reading comprehension skills are not top notch, but decent. For me this book was sometimes easy to understand and sometimes very difficult. During the difficult parts I would google cliff's notes so I could try to gain a better understanding. I believe when you read philosophy it is very important to focus and try to understand what the author was trying to get across as best as possible. That means researching the history, context, theme, etc. so it can be a little tedious.

Time spent reading and studying this book for me really paid off as I get a "rush" so to speak from wrapping my mind around different ideas, concepts, and schools of thought while attempting to sync them with other philosophical/religious theories as well as science theories. The Dialogues of Plato tell the stories of Socrates' thoughts and reflections in a way that is vivid, entertaining, and thought-provoking. Friendly conversation really does seem the best way to open minds, including your own.

Personally I think everyone should read this book, but I know many people would find it a little boring and uneventful if they are used to high-action, sexy novels. If you can dedicate the time and energy into it it will really open your mind, which is always a good thing! I am working to keep Philosophy alive in the best way I can!

[Erik Graff · Rating 4 out of 5]

Jowett's translations are to Plato as King James' committee was to the English bible, viz. as standards against which future efforts are judged.

The first time I actually sat down to read all of Plato, authentic and spurious, was for a course at Loyola University. That was the Hamilton edition. I had, however, read much of Jowett previously and, indeed, much of Jowett is to be found recycled in Hamilton.

The first serious exposure I had to Plato was through Jowett's voice and it occurred during the freshman year of high school, in the required World Civilizations course, a class which had an enormous influence on me as it was my first academic exposure to the fields of religion and comparative cultural anthropology as well as to philosophy.

Afterwards, throughout high school, college, professional and graduate schools, Plato came up again and again, often, if not usually, in the voice of Jowett, a copy of which I had obtained by at least the beginning of college.

[Marco Antonio · Rating 3 out of 5]

Es interesante leer las últimas palabras de Sócrates antes de morir, saber de qué forma percibían los griegos antiguos el mundo y darte cuenta de cómo esa sociedad realmente es la base de la cultura imperialista.

Hablando estrictamente desde el entretenimiento, puede llegar a ser extremadamente aburrido y repetitivo, pero es gratificante observar cómo los antiguos filósofos debatían hasta llegar a ciertas conclusiones sobre las cuestiones que tenían.

[Albi · Rating 4 out of 5]

VAYA GAYS ERAN ESTOY CHILLANDO

[R. Lanza]

Escribí el prólogo de esta edición.

[Luis · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Únicamente les pido: atormentad a mis hijos cuando sean mayores, como yo os he atormentado a vosotros, si os parece que se ocupan más de la riqueza que de la virtud, y si creen ser algo, no siendo nada; reñidles, como yo a vosotros, si se enorgullecen sin motivo. Si lo cumplís, me habréis honrado a mí y a mis hijos. Pero ya llegó el instante de partir: yo hacia la muerte y vosotros hacia la vida. Quién de nosotros parte hacia lo mejor, sólo el dios lo sabe."

[Álvaro Álvarez · Rating 4 out of 5]

“¡Oh, mi querido Sócrates!, continuó la extranjera de Mantinea, si alguna cosa da valor a esta vida es la contemplación de la belleza absoluta; y si llegas a contemplarla, ¡qué te parecerán después el oro y las joyas […]!”

Me ha resultado muy enriquecedor el enfoque metafísico de Platón. En ocasiones peca de silogismos imprecisos y saltos lógicos dudosos, aunque queda compensado por lo certero de su trasfondo. Lectura imprescindible para cualquier amante de la filosofía.

[Joo Yurchenko · Rating 4 out of 5]

*:ꔫ:*ДІАЛОГИ*:ꔫ:*
або чия ж це книга: Платона чи Сократа?

♡ Кожен знає вираз “Я знаю, що я нічого не знаю”. Не кожен згадає, кому ці слова належать. А сказав це Сократ (напевне😁).
Якби Платон намалював на краях сторінок сердечки, то я б сказала, що Платон просто дуже сильно вкрашився у Сократа, тому що кожен момент “Діалогів” просякнутий Сократом. Ця книга саме про нього. Його слова, його ситуації, його емоції. Тому, напевне, точніше книгу варто було б назвати “Діалоги” Сократ [записано Платоном].

♡ Перед початком прочитання я схрестила пальці, щоб не було таке ж, як у “Розмислах” Марка Аврелія, де говориться з абсолютною впевненістю якийсь максимально абсурдний, з точки зору сучасних досягнень розуму, погляд. Проте я була здивована. Сократ піддавав слова сумніву, роздумуючи над ними, а не просто стверджуючи.

♡ По-перше, “Діалоги” справді…діалоги. Це розмови між реальними (чи вигаданими?) філософами. Іноді вони заходять до когось у гості, іноді сідають під дерево. Книга на диву жива, як для “філософських роздумів”.

♡ По-друге, я більше була вражена не тим “ЩО” вони говорять, а ���ЯК”. Здивувала цивілізованість ведення розмови: Сократ перепитував, чи погоджуються з цим і чи можна піти далі, виводив логічно співрозмовника до свого висновку, слухав, дбав про комфорт того, як всім виходить висловлюватися, я навіть побачила, що була спроба дійти компромісу.

♡ Хоча…не варто очікувати, що “Діалоги” - це філософська антична спроба знайти відповідь на справді ВЕЛИКІ питання, які тривожать і до сьогодні. Іноді вони сперечаються по 30 сторінок про семантичну різницю між двома словами. І, звісно ж, попри спробу Сократа ментально “вирватись” із обмеженості свого часу, він залишився людиною, тому, очікувано, не позбавлений упереджень/прийнятих норм, які тоді існували.

༺♡༻ВИСНОВОК༺♡༻
Мені сподобались “Діалоги”, оскільки 1) їх було приємно і легко читати; 2) мені було цікаво спостерігати за способом мислення тих людей; 3) я і сама відмітила для себе моменти, що змусили закрити книгу і на кілька митей “заглючити” обробляючи інформацію. Я вважаю “Діалоги” вартою книгою для тих, хто або заглиблюється у філософію, або цінує античну літературу.

[Vadim · Rating 4 out of 5]

У своїх "Діалогах" Платон зачіпає досі актуальні теми взаємодії громадянина, держави і права, особливості та фундаментальні проблеми демократії (давньогрецької, але значною мірою і сучасної), ключові засади риторики, чи то пак, красномовства (а це психологія, зокрема суспільна, та, певною мірою, юриспруденція). Вони наочно показують, що з часів давньої Греції не так вже й багато змінилося у суспільній свідомості, і корисні для розуміння сьогодення.

Втім, частина діалогів присвячена менш практичним питанням, на кшталт кохання, безсмертя душі та аналізу поетичних текстів.

[Jorge Lince · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sin duda, lo mas dificil que he leido. ¿Leer esto es indispensable para la vida? No, pero definitivamente fue una montaña ruza intelectual. No es para cualquiera, porque cargar el vagón hasta la cima de la montaña ruza requiere de mucho esfuerzo, pero la caída es realmente emocionante. No lo recomiendo como primer libro de Platón, yo inciaría con La República.

[Milan Berghout · Rating 2 out of 5]

Socrates is an idealist. He believes that by method of conscious rationality truth can be found. He devalues the worldly instincts (the unconscious thought processes), by implying that they are irrational. We know today that these unconscious thought processes aren’t « irrational » purely by virtue of being unconscious.
Socrates idealist methods lead to rationalising as a coping mechanism.

[Javier Fernandez · Rating 5 out of 5]

5 estrellas porque los diálogos de Platón son, todavía, únicos y especiales. La narración es enrevesada, si; las situaciones representan una sociedad diferente, si; el extremo racionalismo sobre situaciones cotidianas es raro e infrecuente hoy en día, si; y con todo eso, la esencia de sus enseñanzas es más actual que nunca.

A través de los diálogos de Platón conocemos en profundidad el método Socrático, donde la búsqueda de la verdad, el racionalismo, y la ausencia de opiniones y emociones son sus bazas principales.

Hoy en día a Sócrates se le consideraría un “cuñao”, un amigo muy pesado o auténtico pesimista. Y es que, en nuestra supuesta inmensa racionalidad humana, sigue dominando lo emocional, lo perceptivo y lo coyuntural (grandes conclusiones con pocos datos). Te advierto, si profundizas en su método, comenzarás a hablar así tambien. Encontrarás que no te entienden, pero sabrás mejor lo que no sabes… y Sócrates habrá logrado su cometido.

Los diálogos son muchos y variados. Dependiendo de la compilación que encuentres aparecerán diferentes diálogos. Cada uno se enfoca en un punto concreto, por lo que pueden leerse sin orden ni contexto. No es una lectura fácil, pero si enriquecedora.

El más famoso tal vez es la “Apología de Sócrates”. También famosa es la frase “solo se que no se nada”, y ¿ a que no sabes? Dicha frase nunca aparece así en el diálogo, ni su significado es el que solemos darle en la cultura popular. Sócrates no es reduccionista, no dice “no se nada” para tirársela de intelectual con poco tiempo; todo lo contrario, no enseña que en mucho (si no todo) de lo que sabemos, ignoramos lo que no sabemos, y al ignorar lo que no sabemos, pasamos a ser más ignorantes sobre el problema. Su optimismo está en decir: siempre puedo saber más, y por tanto debo escuchar, aprender y revisar constantemente.

[Tuncay Özdemir · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sokrates'in Savunması, Gorgias, Menon, Kratylos, İon, Kriton, Kharmides, Lakhes, Lysis, Protagoras, Theaitetos ve Sofist diyaloglarından oluşuyor kitap. Üst üste 12 diyalog okumak ağır ve sıkıcı gelebilir ancak böyle olunca Sokrates'e ve onun tarzına daha bir alışıyor; onun can sıkıcı, hafif alaycı ve ısrarlı tavrının altında yatan şeyin bilgiye/doğruya ulaşmadaki taviz vermez talepkarlığı olduğunu daha net anlıyorsunuz. Birkaç diyalog sonra, o artık tanıdığınız biri haline geliyor ve farklı konulardaki "sınama"larını keyifle okuyorsunuz. Genel olarak diyaloglar Sokrates'e yakışır şekilde, kesin yargılara bağlanamıyor tabii ki. Zaten onun amacı "bu işin doğrusu budur" demekten ziyade karşısındakinin varsayımlarını ve ön kabullerini tekrar düşünmesini sağlayarak sarsmak ve mümkünse gerçeği birlikte aramak; tartışmayı kazanmak ya da karşısındakinden daha bilgili olduğunu ispatlamak değil. Kendi deyimiyle o bir atsineği:

"Gerçekten öldürtürseniz beni, ne denli gülünç de olsa bir benzetmeye izin verin, büyük ve yiğit ama büyüklüğünden dolayı ağır, yavaş olan ve dürtülmesi gereken bir atı andıran devleti yerinden oynatmak için tanrının tebelleş ettiği benim gibi bir atsineğini kolay kolay bulamazsınız. Ben tanrının devletin başına tebelleş ettiği bir atsineğiyim; her gün her yerde dürtüyor, uyarıyor, azarlıyorum, ardınızı bırakmıyorum. Benim gibi birini kolay kolay bulamayacaksınız, yargıçlar, onun için beni esirgemenizi, kendinizi benden yoksun bırakmamanızı salık veririm." (s.27)

Diyaloglar Platon'un da değişen fikirlerine ışık tutuyor. Örneğin, Protagoras diyalogunda sofistlere karşı saygılı bir tavır sergilenirken; Sofist diyalogunda -ki bu diyalog Platon'un yaşlılık diyaloglarındanmış- bu tavır değişikliğe uğramış.

[Karishma · Rating 3 out of 5]

“I thought to myself: I am wiser than this man; neither of us probably knows anything that is really good, but he thinks he has knowledge, when he has not, while I, having no knowledge, do not think I have”

as someone who is not at all familiar with western philosophy but is very intrigued, i thought this would be a good place to start. for something written in 399-387 bc, there’s a lot to admire even today. i think the bottom line that is relevant today is to question everything and not just make decisions based on your circumstance, although that is a privilege afforded by few. the apology to me was the standout, Socrates’ faith and his want for everyone to examine and question their life and their way of reasoning is unwavering but it is kind of sad how he comes around and accepts his execution. i guess in a time when science wasn’t the most progressive system of belief, the importance of “ideas” and “logic reasoning” was the best way to solve dilemmas. at Socrates’ defence however, i did find some of his opposing peers to be more open-minded than him, which made me question the flow of logic that Socrates had. this is where i started seeing the dialogues as an idealised image created by Plato of his master. i will be reading more dialogues because i’m very intrigued now to see what other things they were yapping about back in ancient greece, scholarly trip to greece anyone?!

p.s. stay away from hemlock

[shandy⚡️ · Rating 5 out of 5]

Socrates was a man like no other within this time period. He defied reality with his unusual answers to questions. He was a profound teacher who left a remarkable impact on those around. He believed within the highest form of life and he thought that lied in “virtue”. To Socrates, virtue was innately apart of human beings, that we all had the ability to attain. He believed in discipline and examining your life to reach a level of virtue. He believed in ultimate form of love that is accessible to all as well that had no boundary. Socrates and as a man of truth and he posited that question to those who ever thought they had it. He was a civil servant of his people and was willing to live his truth to them. It was nice to see Socrates deal with others and you can see the nature of his conversations within each one.

[Teri-K · Rating 2 out of 5]

This felt very, very outdated and over rated. It seemed to me that Socrates was very good at twisting debates by getting others to agree with him on a point that doesn't really relate to the original question and then making it look like that point solves the original dilemma completely. Not quite a straw man, perhaps, but pretty close.

Of course there are some sayings worth pondering in here. But if I'd been a judge listening to his argument on why he shouldn't be put to death, I'm afraid I wouldn't have been impressed. Not a lot that came after impressed me, either. And of course there are people who will understand this differently than I did and get a lot more out of it. But I can't speak for them, only for myself, and I found this profoundly disappointing.

[Briseida Alcalá · Rating 5 out of 5]

El amor es considerado una manifestación de sabiduría en la obra de Platón con diálogos que abordan temas esenciales como amistad, virtud y justicia. A través de Platón, Sócrates defiende sin disculpas su búsqueda de la virtud, convirtiéndose en un oráculo que invita a la reflexión y al cuestionamiento.

El amor es la sabiduría.

https://briseidaalcala.com/2024/01/20...

[Klaas · Rating 5 out of 5]

Vooral de phaidoon is echt goed. Het vliegt echt alle kanten op. Sokrates die rustig de onsterfelijkheid van de ziel probeert te bewijzen, vertelt over de rivieren van de onderwereld, mijmert over reïncarnatie en uiteindelijk rustig de gifbeker drinkt terwijl iedereen in tranen uitbarst. De 40 jaar oude onderstrepingen van m'n vader droegen ook bij aan de ambience. Zeer leeswaardig en bovendien eigenlijk maar een dun boekje.

[Danielius]

Balancing philosophical though rational reasoning with concepts of soul and divine forces felt quite controversial to me.

[Erdem · Rating 5 out of 5]

4.5+ had to read it for a class

[Ricardo · Rating 5 out of 5]

"No lloren por mi muerte, para que no hubiera lágrimas saqué a las mujeres de este lugar, así que ustedes mis fieles tengan más firmeza"









.

[Constantino Casasbuenas · Rating 5 out of 5]

X3 - Platón
La Apología de Sócrates
Patricio de Azcárate, 1871

Este es el tercer texto que leo dentro del “árbol” del existencialismo. Corresponde a la apología, escrita por Platón, durante y luego del juicio en que condenan a muerte a Sócrates.

Ha sido muy curioso esto de “irse unos 2400 años hacia el pasado” para encontrar esta raíz profunda del existencialismo, defendiéndose Sócrates a más de sus 70 años de edad, antes de que lo maten (acusación de Melito, Alito y Licon) por haber influido negativamente sobre la juventud y la sociedad en Atenas. Me impresionó el cuadro en que uno ve a su esposa Xantipa, echándole agua en el cuello.

Con Sócrates, estamos en una unión de pueblos que se convierten en ciudad, y en donde se logra un régimen democrático que dura unos 500 años. Luego llegará Roma. La economía rural ateniense se sustentaba en la granja familiar. Sócrates fue formado en música, literatura y gimnasia y se familiarizó con la dialéctica y la retórica de los sofistas. Evitaba la política. Era austero en comida y bebida. Era pobre.

Me llamó mucho la atención que Sócrates no escribió ningún libro. Lo que sigue son textos extraídos de “La Apología de Sócrates”, escrita por Platón, luego de que su maestro había muerto.

Sócrates responde a los adversarios. “Es un hombre peligroso, que intenta penetrar los misterios del cielo y de la tierra, que tiene la maña de hacer buena la peor causa, y que enseña públicamente el secreto”.3 Sócrates invoca a Apolo. “Se ha relacionado con los poetas , con los políticos , con los artistas y con los oradores; es decir, con los hombres que pasan por los más hábiles y los más sabios de todos”.4 Sócrates cuidaba menos su causa que el triunfo de sus doctrinas morales. Mantuvo una actitud altanera durante el juicio, lo cual influyó el voto de algunos de sus jueces en su contra.

Sócrates es consciente de su sabiduría y por eso se defiende él mismo. Siendo el sabio y sabe que no sabe nada. “Yo no he salido de una encina ó de una roca (Odisea. Lib. 19, v, 163).”

Votaron 556 jueces y resultaron 281 votos en contra y 275 en favor. “Es que hay trazas de que lo que me sucede es un gran bien, y nos engañamos todos sin duda, si creemos que la muerte es un mal.” “¿Entre vosotros y yo, quién lleva la mejor parte? Esto es lo que nadie sabe, excepto Dios”. 46

[Mauricio Rojas · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5

La colección contempla 3 diálogos: Gorgias, Fedón y El Banquete (o del Amor).

El primero de estos es sumamente interesante, se habla tanto del rol de la retórica, del sofismo, de la justicia, la injusticia y de si es peor ser víctima de una injusticia o cometerla. Sócrates se va debatiendo con distintos interlocutores mediante preguntas que hacen que ellos mismos desbaraten sus propios argumentos o reconozcan las falencias en los mismos.

El segundo de los diálogos se refiere al momento de la muerte de Sócrates, a ese último día en prisión esperando a beber la cicuta mientras sus discípulos y amigos se reúnen con él para una última conversación. Se habla del alma, de su inmortalidad, de la teoría de las ideas. Sócrates defiende que un filósofo no solo debe no temer a la muerte, sino que debe ansiarla, pues es lo que le acerca a desprenderse del cuerpo (vicioso, corrompible) y acerca al alma al objeto máximo de sus deseos (la sabiduría). Este es por lejos el más interesante de los diálogos, guarda cierta emotividad y se abre a varios debates que me parecen aplicables y pertinentes al día a día.

Por último, el Banquete. En este se reúnen varias personas que comienzan a hacer un elogio al amor, presentándose distintas perspectivas, algunas cargadas de mitos, otras de poesía, otras de emocionalidad o racionalidad. Finalmente llega el turno de Sócrates que define una concepción del amor no como bella o fea, sino como intermedia entre ambos. En este sentido, el amor sería aquello que busca a lo bello (lo que se ama) mientras que el mismo no necesariamente lo es (pues, según se argumenta, aquello que es bello en sí mismo no anhelaría aquello que ya tiene). Este diálogo me pareció el menos atractivo y era el que más anticipaba, tal vez fuera que las perspectivas que anteceden a Sócrates no me resultaron fáciles de empatizar o comprender.

Finalmente, la lectura de estos Diálogos de Platón me fue muy grata. Son fáciles de comprender, la forma de la narración hace que los conceptos no parezcan inalcanzables y el método socrático queda muy patente en cada uno de ellos. Como primera aproximación a ideas filosóficas me parece muy recomendable.

[Germà · Rating 5 out of 5]

Probablement el segon millor llibre de tots els que he llegit (que són pocs). Aquesta edició de la magnífica col·lecció de divulgació "Sepan cuantos" de l'editorial Porrua de Mèxic compta amb un excel·lent estudi preliminar de Francisco Larroyo, ideal per als que s'apropen a Plató per primer cop.
---------------------
Maybe the second.best book I ever read (only a few, I'm afraid). This edition from the great "Sepan cuantos" collection from Mexican Editorial Porrua counts with an excellent preliminar study from Francisco Larroyo, ideal for those who reads Plato for the first time.
----------------------
Tal vez el segundo mejor libro de todos lo que he leído (que son pocos). Esta edición de la magnífica colección "Sepan cuantos" de la Editorial Porrua de Mexico cuenta además con un excelente estudio preliminar de Francisco Larroyo. ideal para los que se aproximan a Platón por primera vez.

[Radit Panjapiyakul · Rating 5 out of 5]

The cleverness of Plato shines through in his writing and his way of proving things. This does not mean that he's always right. His reasonings can be pointed out with many flaws and are not very scientific. Plato argues that there's immortality of the soul (though he should first question if there's such thing as a soul or not). There are lots of talking about gods and the doing of gods. But from the viewpoint of an ancient greek, this could be forgiven.

Many of his ideas are presented here such as the theory of forms, the gaining of knowledges through recollection and Platonic's love. He's of the idealism, believing in the absolute truth and absolute beauty.

Plato and Socrates deserve all those respects as the pillar of western philosophy. In every philosophy class, they should have students read one of these dialogues. This sums up what it is all about, the questionings and examinings of what we think we know, the uses of logical reasoning to gain new thoughts and insights.

[Doug · Rating 3 out of 5]

"The easiest and the noblest way is not to be crushing others, but to be improving yourselves."

It's interesting to think that political correctness existed so far back in the past and that it still is here today. it's a long running rule that will always be broken. it's a long running tool used as an excuse to condemn people who otherwise there would be nothing to condemn them with.

I wonder what Socrates would say... being that the attempt to destroy others still continues. And that instead of being sentenced to death like was done to him, political correctness today is meant to wear down one's soul and ideas instead.

[Francisco Torres · Rating 5 out of 5]

Mi diálogo favorito es el de "BANQUETE", el cual analiza el concepto del amor desde distintas posturas. Durante el proceso de estudiar filosofía, uno se da cuenta de que la afirmación de Whitehead, sobre la obra de Platón, es muy acertada, sin que rayemos en el fanatismo. "Toda la filosofía occidental es una serie de notas a pie de página de las obras de Platón" (A.N. Whitehead). Es llevadero leerlo, su estilo de diálogo hace entretenida la lectura considerando el lenguaje de la época en la que fueron escritos.