What do you think?
Rate this book
Early Socratic Dialogues
Ion/Laches/Lysis/Charmides/Hippia Major/Hippias Minor/Euthydemus
'I am humble enough to learn, so I probe and ask questions, and am extremely grateful to anyone who answers me'
As the father of Western philosophy, who transformed Greek thought with his questioning insights into life and ethics, Socrates was a powerful inspiration - and major irritant - to the Athenians of his day. After his trial and execution on charges of heresy and the corruption of young minds, his greatest pupil, Plato (c. 427 - 347 BC), wrote these early dialogues as an act of homage. Rich in drama and humour, they include the controversial Ion, a debate on poetic inspiration; Laches, in which Socrates seeks to define bravery; and Euthydemus, which considers the relationship between philosophy and politics. Together, these dialogues provide a definitive portrait of the real Socrates and raise issues still keenly debated by philosophers, forming an incisive overview of Plato's philosophy.
These translations convey the eloquence of the original works. In his general introduction, Trevor J. Saunders discusses Socrates' philosophy. This edition also includes introductions to each dialogue, bibliographies and an index.
'I am humble enough to learn, so I probe and ask questions, and am extremely grateful to anyone who answers me'
As the father of Western philosophy, who transformed Greek thought with his questioning insights into life and ethics, Socrates was a powerful inspiration - and major irritant - to the Athenians of his day. After his trial and execution on charges of heresy and the corruption of young minds, his greatest pupil, Plato (c. 427 - 347 BC), wrote these early dialogues as an act of homage. Rich in drama and humour, they include the controversial Ion, a debate on poetic inspiration; Laches, in which Socrates seeks to define bravery; and Euthydemus, which considers the relationship between philosophy and politics. Together, these dialogues provide a definitive portrait of the real Socrates and raise issues still keenly debated by philosophers, forming an incisive overview of Plato's philosophy.
These translations convey the eloquence of the original works. In his general introduction, Trevor J. Saunders discusses Socrates' philosophy. This edition also includes introductions to each dialogue, bibliographies and an index.
399 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 391
70 people are currently reading
821 people want to read
About the author
Plato
5,198 books8,596 followersPlato (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."
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."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 41 reviews
February 3, 2023
This is a collection of seven dialogues by Plato: Ion, Lachès, Lysis, Charmides, Hippias Major, Hippias Minor and Euthydemus. The collection comes with a general and brief introduction to the works of Plato. Then each dialogue comes with an introduction of its own hinting at the recent interpretation and commentaries by recent scholarship. Even each section of a dialogue starts with a summary of the argument involved in order to make it easy for readers who are new to Plato.
“Early Dialogue” means that this is the part of Plato’s career in which he has not yet developed his most renowned ideas, mainly the theory of Forms, and the theory of knowledge as a form of recollection. However, in these dialogues he already asks the same questions, about the nature of Greek virtues such as excellence, self mastery and courage, and whether these virtues are a skill to be acquired and for what reason or benefit we ought to pursue them.
Although most of them are definition dialogues, they do end up in the classical Socratic aporia, in which the participants admit their inability to find a clear cut answer to the problem, as a manifestation of their awareness of their own ignorance and the necessity to keep pursuing wisdom. This pursuit of wisdom is done in the Socratic way, by criticizing every self-evident postulate, looking for counterexamples in order to disprove the validity of what seems so universal, and testing for fallacies and biases.
In his investigation he leads his interlocutors from the basic and the familiar into deeper realms of self knowledge. In the Lachès, the discussion on courage starts from a common definition of courage as endurance in battle and ends up in an aporia hinting at a much more sophisticated definition of courage, being some sort of knowledge of what is really fearful and what is not. In the Lysis, a discussion starts about friendship and the motives why someone seeks those who are like or unlike himself, , and ends up with the much elaborated aporia that friendship is about seeking what is good, because of the presence of the bad. All these are ideas which Plato was already considering in the start of his career, and which will blossom later especially in works such as the Republic.
Another defining trait of the Socratic Method, or the platonic thought, as limits between the two are so blurred in these dialogues, is the analogy between learning, teaching or being good at a skill or at a branch of knowledge and that of virtue. If we can define virtue and know what it is then we can learn it and excel at it, the same way a doctor or a mathematician learns and excels at his discipline. This boils down to the platonic idea that virtue is nothing else than knowledge. In the Charmides, Plato pushes this idea to its limits, exploring the paradoxes of the knowledge of knowledge, meaning of what one actually knows and what one does not know.
Perhaps the most striking peculiarity of these dialogues, one which is essential to their description by scholars as early works of Plato, is his polemicist approach, going even to caricatured depiction of the sophists. In Hippias Major, Hippias Minor and even far more in the Euthydemus we are introduced to the confusing word play and verbiage of the sophists, which they use to prove the thing and it’s contrary, and offer to teach as a wisdom which will help one in all walks of life. Socrates is of course depicted as their antithesis par excellence. As he answers with his usual irony, he always reminds us, not without great humor and wit, of his desire to learn, to escape the confusion of particulars and traps of logical fallacies in order to achieve wisdom which is the real guarantee of the good and the happy life.
“Early Dialogue” means that this is the part of Plato’s career in which he has not yet developed his most renowned ideas, mainly the theory of Forms, and the theory of knowledge as a form of recollection. However, in these dialogues he already asks the same questions, about the nature of Greek virtues such as excellence, self mastery and courage, and whether these virtues are a skill to be acquired and for what reason or benefit we ought to pursue them.
Although most of them are definition dialogues, they do end up in the classical Socratic aporia, in which the participants admit their inability to find a clear cut answer to the problem, as a manifestation of their awareness of their own ignorance and the necessity to keep pursuing wisdom. This pursuit of wisdom is done in the Socratic way, by criticizing every self-evident postulate, looking for counterexamples in order to disprove the validity of what seems so universal, and testing for fallacies and biases.
In his investigation he leads his interlocutors from the basic and the familiar into deeper realms of self knowledge. In the Lachès, the discussion on courage starts from a common definition of courage as endurance in battle and ends up in an aporia hinting at a much more sophisticated definition of courage, being some sort of knowledge of what is really fearful and what is not. In the Lysis, a discussion starts about friendship and the motives why someone seeks those who are like or unlike himself, , and ends up with the much elaborated aporia that friendship is about seeking what is good, because of the presence of the bad. All these are ideas which Plato was already considering in the start of his career, and which will blossom later especially in works such as the Republic.
Another defining trait of the Socratic Method, or the platonic thought, as limits between the two are so blurred in these dialogues, is the analogy between learning, teaching or being good at a skill or at a branch of knowledge and that of virtue. If we can define virtue and know what it is then we can learn it and excel at it, the same way a doctor or a mathematician learns and excels at his discipline. This boils down to the platonic idea that virtue is nothing else than knowledge. In the Charmides, Plato pushes this idea to its limits, exploring the paradoxes of the knowledge of knowledge, meaning of what one actually knows and what one does not know.
Perhaps the most striking peculiarity of these dialogues, one which is essential to their description by scholars as early works of Plato, is his polemicist approach, going even to caricatured depiction of the sophists. In Hippias Major, Hippias Minor and even far more in the Euthydemus we are introduced to the confusing word play and verbiage of the sophists, which they use to prove the thing and it’s contrary, and offer to teach as a wisdom which will help one in all walks of life. Socrates is of course depicted as their antithesis par excellence. As he answers with his usual irony, he always reminds us, not without great humor and wit, of his desire to learn, to escape the confusion of particulars and traps of logical fallacies in order to achieve wisdom which is the real guarantee of the good and the happy life.
July 24, 2020
When I first read Socrates's dialogues in college, I was impressed. Reading more of them 13 years later, I'm still impressed. No surprise here. What did surprise me though, as this is something I wasn't aware of in his other dialogues, was just how much of the conversation depends on elements of language that seem to be specific to Greek, making a perfectly sensible translation difficult or impossible. The dialogues are intriguing and enjoyable for not only their great substance, but for the manner in which they're written. Plato had a good sense of style and characterization.
The final dialogue, Euthydemus, was remarkable in that it constantly reminded me of a recent discussion I had with an acquaintance. Sophists really are something... to avoid altogether. What struck me most about these dialogues is that those Socrates speaks with have this determination to take the conversation to its limits, to finish it, to keep going when the going gets rough. This is likely an embellishment on Plato's part, if these dialogues even really occurred, but it stands in contrast to the way we have discussions today, as a useful model for inquisitive and reasoned discourse.
It makes sense that Socrates’ conversational partners were other philosophers, because otherwise we might expect to see these conversations turn out exactly as similar discussions go today: you get a brief chance to challenge someone’s belief or preconception or confused reasoning, but quickly the conversation devolves into the other ignoring anything they can’t easily grapple with, making outlandish complaints with little bearing in reality, and finally resorting to name calling. Although Socratic thinking is priceless and one of the best ways to develop our intellectual faculties, it is sadly useless against people too stupid to think critically. We have a lot to learn from the masters.
The final dialogue, Euthydemus, was remarkable in that it constantly reminded me of a recent discussion I had with an acquaintance. Sophists really are something... to avoid altogether. What struck me most about these dialogues is that those Socrates speaks with have this determination to take the conversation to its limits, to finish it, to keep going when the going gets rough. This is likely an embellishment on Plato's part, if these dialogues even really occurred, but it stands in contrast to the way we have discussions today, as a useful model for inquisitive and reasoned discourse.
It makes sense that Socrates’ conversational partners were other philosophers, because otherwise we might expect to see these conversations turn out exactly as similar discussions go today: you get a brief chance to challenge someone’s belief or preconception or confused reasoning, but quickly the conversation devolves into the other ignoring anything they can’t easily grapple with, making outlandish complaints with little bearing in reality, and finally resorting to name calling. Although Socratic thinking is priceless and one of the best ways to develop our intellectual faculties, it is sadly useless against people too stupid to think critically. We have a lot to learn from the masters.
August 10, 2017
Plato is revolutionary, full stop. He was revolutionary thousands of years ago, he is still revolutionary now. Like that one joke by whatever famous comedian, about drugs and whatnot --basically he use to do them, and he still does; well I think this specific comedian might have died, this is besides the point. The point, that is, that Plato is and was and will be revolutionary. As to this book, it has introductions and interpretations for each dialogue, don't read them first. Read the dialogue first then the introduction; in fact, read the dialogue, WRITE your own introduction, and then compare your introduction to the introduction in the book and see how far off the mark you were. Then read the dialogue again.
These are considered the earlier Socratic dialogues, if you're interested in the historical Socrates you will find him, in part, in these dialogues. Plato does not use him as much of a mouth piece until Plato espouses through Socrates a Theory of Ideas after book 1 of the Republic. These specific dialogues are before then.
These are considered the earlier Socratic dialogues, if you're interested in the historical Socrates you will find him, in part, in these dialogues. Plato does not use him as much of a mouth piece until Plato espouses through Socrates a Theory of Ideas after book 1 of the Republic. These specific dialogues are before then.
May 27, 2016
Plato is at his most fun, I think, when he is using Socrates to lay into the sophists. But I do think there is something rather dishonest or cowardly about using your enemies as straw men in this way - even if they did deserve it. Perhaps the biggest problem with it is that it lets Plato go off on one of his own, and fall into the same trap of fallacious argumentation that he criticizes in his enemies.
December 4, 2021
Two points really: 1) lysis is a very interesting dialogue especially if one reads it as a matter of concern, of which the dialogue proceeds to cultivate the development of a technique of self in ones concerning with objects. 2) as far as where vernacular English is today we can probably translate εὐδαιμονία satisfactorily as vibing (in accordance with platonic or socratic Natures.
February 25, 2025
I'm glad to read anything by Plato and would recommend these to anybody who's curious. Subtracted one star for this edition because the pages of notes inserted by the commentators into the text of the dialogues can be a bit much.
January 25, 2024
Great introduction to Socrates and Plato
“Early Socratic Dialogues” by Plato contains seven books probably written shortly after the execution of Socrates in 399 BC. Compared to later works, these dialogues are relatively brief and rather straightforward and were most likely written to defend Socrates’ memory or commemorate him.
The seven dialogues (Ion, Laches, Lysis, Charmides, Hippias Major, Hippias Minor and Euthydemus) are a great starting point to get to know Socrates and Plato, because a lot of their ideas, styles and formats are introduced here. These include amongst others the Socratic dialogue ending in “aporia”, the search for defining moral terms, the idea that virtue is knowledge and the rational conversation to find the truth instead of winning the argument.
The general introduction to understanding Socrates and Plato as well as the introductions to and explanatory notes in each dialogue are excellent guides to understanding, appreciating and enjoying them. Another great companion to classical philosophy in general and Socrates and Plato specifically I use is Peter Adamson’s podcast and book " Classical Philosophy: A history of philosophy without any gaps, Volume 1 ". In short, I can recommend “Early Socratic Dialogues” as a great introduction to Socrates and Plato.
“Early Socratic Dialogues” by Plato contains seven books probably written shortly after the execution of Socrates in 399 BC. Compared to later works, these dialogues are relatively brief and rather straightforward and were most likely written to defend Socrates’ memory or commemorate him.
The seven dialogues (Ion, Laches, Lysis, Charmides, Hippias Major, Hippias Minor and Euthydemus) are a great starting point to get to know Socrates and Plato, because a lot of their ideas, styles and formats are introduced here. These include amongst others the Socratic dialogue ending in “aporia”, the search for defining moral terms, the idea that virtue is knowledge and the rational conversation to find the truth instead of winning the argument.
The general introduction to understanding Socrates and Plato as well as the introductions to and explanatory notes in each dialogue are excellent guides to understanding, appreciating and enjoying them. Another great companion to classical philosophy in general and Socrates and Plato specifically I use is Peter Adamson’s podcast and book " Classical Philosophy: A history of philosophy without any gaps, Volume 1 ". In short, I can recommend “Early Socratic Dialogues” as a great introduction to Socrates and Plato.
September 19, 2022
This book was required for a college course that I never finished due to illness. Sat in a box collecting dust for 26 years before I rediscovered it and was actually interested in it. Was it luck or was it divine dispensation?
...At times I felt as though I was punching outside of my intellectual weight class and at other times I felt as though Plato's/Socrates' very words and ideas were plucked from my brain.
I envisioned myself in the very discussions I was reading, and could see myself drinking and discussing until the sun came up with the legend himself.
I now know why he ended up in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure.
...At times I felt as though I was punching outside of my intellectual weight class and at other times I felt as though Plato's/Socrates' very words and ideas were plucked from my brain.
I envisioned myself in the very discussions I was reading, and could see myself drinking and discussing until the sun came up with the legend himself.
I now know why he ended up in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure.
February 26, 2025
A great collection of Socratic dialogues with decent explanations of the context and characters as well as content on the arguments themselves. The dialogues range in quality but are all worth reading for some purpose or another, especially if you have an interest in philosophy. I read over half of this book for university last semester and finished it in my own time just recently, it was worth finishing and I am glad to have studied it but the dialogues themselves always leave me with a desire for a little bit more, perhaps this is a result of the Socratic method scarcely leaving the reader with a definitive answer. Regardless, a good read.
May 8, 2022
The book everyone should start with if you have any interest at all in western philosophy. Everything else in that realm builds from this point. That besides, the book itself is still worthwhile in a vacuum. You will learn the Socratic method which is indispensable for assessing information and arguments.
For the true challenge lovers, see if you can spot the faults in logic in some of Socrates's reasoning.
For the true challenge lovers, see if you can spot the faults in logic in some of Socrates's reasoning.
March 31, 2009
Check out the guy popping a tent on the cover:-)
July 14, 2020
First things first, I felt that this was a really solid edition of these dialogues with well-written and enlightening introductions and notes throughout. My overall enjoyment of the book was escalated from a 2 star review to a 3 star review based on this.
As for the dialogues themselves, I felt they were quite hit and miss and not the best of Plato's works. As can be inferred from the book's title, most of (or, possibly, all of) these dialogues are more Socratic than Platonic, and Plato was clearly still finding his feet, as well as his voice, when he wrote them.
If you're interested in Plato but don't necessarily want to read everything he wrote, I would probably recommend reading Ion, Laches and Charmides, and skipping the others in this collection. My reasoning is that Ion offers insight into the backdrop of Plato's writing and somewhat explains his feud with the poets, which we'll revisit in Republic Book X, while Laches and Charmides are the two most interesting of the 'dialogues of definition' featured here, and both discuss Platonic virtues. I would then recommend reading Euthyphro (What is piety? - another Greek virtue) before moving onto the Protagoras, in order to get some well deserved closure on the questions discussed in these three dialogues. If that all sounds like too much, skip this collection entirely and get right to the Protagoras.
The dialogues featured in this collection are:
Ion - A short and fairly straightforward dialogue that makes a great opener to the book. Socrates talks to Ion, a rhapsode, about whether or not rhapsodes (and by association, poets) really know what they are talking about. If you've read any of Plato's works before, you can probably guess what the answer is. Overall, this was a really enjoyable one and the introduction was particularly useful in highlighting Plato's likely aims.
Laches - In my opinion, this is the best dialogue in the book. It deals with the question of 'What is courage?' and is one of the 'dialogues of definition'. I found Laches by far the most satisfying dialogue here as the interplay between characters is entertaining and, while the dialogue ends in an apparent 'aporia', it is a slightly more conclusive aporia than we manage to reach elsewhere.
Lysis - I didn't enjoy this dialogue on the question of 'What is philia?' and found myself quite bored through most of it. As I did with all the other dialogues here, I read through it twice, but I just didn't find it to be particularly interesting and started to lose enthusiasm for the Socratic dialogues at about this point. It ends in a much less satisfying aporia than Laches.
Charmides - I wasn't blown away by this discussion of 'What is temperance?' either, although it does seem to be a popular dialogue and it was certainly more enjoyable than Lysis. By this point though, I was starting to tire of the inevitable aporia concluding each dialogue.
Hippias Major - I quite enjoyed this dialogue on 'What is beauty (or at least 'beauty' is what I took as a loose definition of the Greek word 'kalos')?' While the dialogue's authenticity is disputed, the introduction makes a good argument for ascribing it to Plato and it certainly felt in keeping with his usual style. Overall, a fun dialogue that Plato enthusiasts will enjoy but not a must-read.
Hippias Minor - Possibly the worst Platonic dialogue I've read. Socrates argues that to do a bad thing knowingly is better than doing a bad thing by accident. Another tedious aporia inevitably follows. Don't waste your time unless you're interested in seeing Plato at his worst.
Euthydemus - I put off reading this one for a while because I read Gorgias and Protagoras alongside this book and didn't feel like reading Socrates attacking the Sophists for a third time. In the end though, I read it through one quiet evening and actually quite enjoyed it. There is little to be learnt overall, and the whole thing is essentially quite a light-hearted dialogue designed to highlight the difference between Plato's/Socrates' dialectic methods and the eristic methods used by the sophists. However, the interplay between characters is quite entertaining and I'm glad I went back to it.
As for the dialogues themselves, I felt they were quite hit and miss and not the best of Plato's works. As can be inferred from the book's title, most of (or, possibly, all of) these dialogues are more Socratic than Platonic, and Plato was clearly still finding his feet, as well as his voice, when he wrote them.
If you're interested in Plato but don't necessarily want to read everything he wrote, I would probably recommend reading Ion, Laches and Charmides, and skipping the others in this collection. My reasoning is that Ion offers insight into the backdrop of Plato's writing and somewhat explains his feud with the poets, which we'll revisit in Republic Book X, while Laches and Charmides are the two most interesting of the 'dialogues of definition' featured here, and both discuss Platonic virtues. I would then recommend reading Euthyphro (What is piety? - another Greek virtue) before moving onto the Protagoras, in order to get some well deserved closure on the questions discussed in these three dialogues. If that all sounds like too much, skip this collection entirely and get right to the Protagoras.
The dialogues featured in this collection are:
Ion - A short and fairly straightforward dialogue that makes a great opener to the book. Socrates talks to Ion, a rhapsode, about whether or not rhapsodes (and by association, poets) really know what they are talking about. If you've read any of Plato's works before, you can probably guess what the answer is. Overall, this was a really enjoyable one and the introduction was particularly useful in highlighting Plato's likely aims.
Laches - In my opinion, this is the best dialogue in the book. It deals with the question of 'What is courage?' and is one of the 'dialogues of definition'. I found Laches by far the most satisfying dialogue here as the interplay between characters is entertaining and, while the dialogue ends in an apparent 'aporia', it is a slightly more conclusive aporia than we manage to reach elsewhere.
Lysis - I didn't enjoy this dialogue on the question of 'What is philia?' and found myself quite bored through most of it. As I did with all the other dialogues here, I read through it twice, but I just didn't find it to be particularly interesting and started to lose enthusiasm for the Socratic dialogues at about this point. It ends in a much less satisfying aporia than Laches.
Charmides - I wasn't blown away by this discussion of 'What is temperance?' either, although it does seem to be a popular dialogue and it was certainly more enjoyable than Lysis. By this point though, I was starting to tire of the inevitable aporia concluding each dialogue.
Hippias Major - I quite enjoyed this dialogue on 'What is beauty (or at least 'beauty' is what I took as a loose definition of the Greek word 'kalos')?' While the dialogue's authenticity is disputed, the introduction makes a good argument for ascribing it to Plato and it certainly felt in keeping with his usual style. Overall, a fun dialogue that Plato enthusiasts will enjoy but not a must-read.
Hippias Minor - Possibly the worst Platonic dialogue I've read. Socrates argues that to do a bad thing knowingly is better than doing a bad thing by accident. Another tedious aporia inevitably follows. Don't waste your time unless you're interested in seeing Plato at his worst.
Euthydemus - I put off reading this one for a while because I read Gorgias and Protagoras alongside this book and didn't feel like reading Socrates attacking the Sophists for a third time. In the end though, I read it through one quiet evening and actually quite enjoyed it. There is little to be learnt overall, and the whole thing is essentially quite a light-hearted dialogue designed to highlight the difference between Plato's/Socrates' dialectic methods and the eristic methods used by the sophists. However, the interplay between characters is quite entertaining and I'm glad I went back to it.
October 19, 2024
"Listen, Socrates. This is all picking and whittling at words, as I said before - just splitting hairs. What else do you suppose it is? ... Forget all this nitpicking: if you continue to get involved in trivial nonsense, you'll end up with a reputation of extreme stupidity." - Hippias, p.264
I actually laughed out loud when I read that segment because it summarizes the entire compilation. Hippias ended up being quite irrelevant in comparison to Socrates, the latter of which most people have at least heard of. This book was an incessant bore. The text is Socrates debating pedantic things in which most of the responses are affirming his ranting. If you want to read two-three people spending an entire chapter debating the meaning of "fineness" - then this is the text for you.
At one point Socrates is helping another older man groom a young boy into desiring a relationship with the older man, telling the older man that he mustn't compliment or praise the boy in any regard otherwise he will be spoiled and get ideas in his head that he can do better than the old man. That part was both manipulative and gross.
The added introductions to every single sub-chapter were confusing and nearly worthless, doing little other than making this text even more tedious. One I am glad to finish because I never have to pick it up again. If I want to read another philosophy text, I shall re-read Epictetus because he was actually helpful. I have no idea why Socrates is so praised, he's just not for me.
I actually laughed out loud when I read that segment because it summarizes the entire compilation. Hippias ended up being quite irrelevant in comparison to Socrates, the latter of which most people have at least heard of. This book was an incessant bore. The text is Socrates debating pedantic things in which most of the responses are affirming his ranting. If you want to read two-three people spending an entire chapter debating the meaning of "fineness" - then this is the text for you.
At one point Socrates is helping another older man groom a young boy into desiring a relationship with the older man, telling the older man that he mustn't compliment or praise the boy in any regard otherwise he will be spoiled and get ideas in his head that he can do better than the old man. That part was both manipulative and gross.
The added introductions to every single sub-chapter were confusing and nearly worthless, doing little other than making this text even more tedious. One I am glad to finish because I never have to pick it up again. If I want to read another philosophy text, I shall re-read Epictetus because he was actually helpful. I have no idea why Socrates is so praised, he's just not for me.
May 31, 2020
In the end I found this collection worth reading thanks to the last one, Euthydemus. The only other interesting dialogues are Laches and Hippias Major and, in fact, they aren't particularly interesting. After reading these dialogues I wonder why Xenophon is criticized so much by modern academics, when this collection of dialogues is in general not philosophically interesting or intelligent, just like Xenophon's Memoirs. I imagine that academics love to analyze the intricate but stupid arguments used in these dialogues, which are not found in Xenophon's. Ironically, this would make these academics look like sophists.
Here's a summary of each dialogue:
To conclude, by reading these dialogues and Xenophons', it's clear than the Hellenistic schools of Philosophy were inspired by Socrates in different ways. In some cases, what Socrates says is clearly Skeptic, Stoic, Peripatetic or even Hedonistic.
Socrates maybe wasn't a genius, but he was very smart and a pioneer in moral philosophy. Thanks to his teachings, the recording of them by Plato and Xenophon, and the evolution of his thought by the Hellenistic schools, today we have access to moral knowledge which hasn't evolved since then and remains as valid as ever. Specifically, I think that the Skeptic's critical thought and the Stoic's bold and practical ideas can help contemporary people to live a good life.
Here's a summary of each dialogue:
To conclude, by reading these dialogues and Xenophons', it's clear than the Hellenistic schools of Philosophy were inspired by Socrates in different ways. In some cases, what Socrates says is clearly Skeptic, Stoic, Peripatetic or even Hedonistic.
Socrates maybe wasn't a genius, but he was very smart and a pioneer in moral philosophy. Thanks to his teachings, the recording of them by Plato and Xenophon, and the evolution of his thought by the Hellenistic schools, today we have access to moral knowledge which hasn't evolved since then and remains as valid as ever. Specifically, I think that the Skeptic's critical thought and the Stoic's bold and practical ideas can help contemporary people to live a good life.
March 13, 2018
This was very user friendly, with tons of excellent explanatory material – an overall introduction to Plato in general and the early dialogues, with each dialogue having its own separate introduction along with a running synopsis and extensive notes. The supplementary material occupies almost as much space as the dialogues themselves; this helps explain the page count for a book containing seven dialogues none of which are long and some very short. As for the dialogues, they range in quality – Socrates can be as annoying as ever, but the subjects he deals with here aren’t all particularly profound, and his treatment of some is on the supercilious side. He’s at his best when taking on the Sophists directly - “Euthydemus” is particularly good. The humor is good in all of them, though, and the picture of Athenian is life always interesting.
July 23, 2025
Honestly I get that it’s early platonic thought and that it’s the building blocks for future philosophical concepts and whatever but most of these books are under a false assumption. It’s explained in the text and the commentary that they thought language was created purposefully for things with direct meaning.
Obviously this could have been metaphorical but it still means that these dialogues’ central purpose about the meanings of words are pointless. There’s peripheral ideas in some which do well to highlight other issues, but overall the text would be a waste to spend time studying over more than twice unless you’re a Plato scholar.
The dialogues Euthydemus and Hippias Major are good in their content in a vacuum; Laches, Lysis, and Hippias Minor are good for showing the character of Socrates; and Ion’s redeeming quality is that it’s very short. Charmides gets points off for Socrates being a creep in it and it being based off language being objective (which it definitely isn’t).
Obviously this could have been metaphorical but it still means that these dialogues’ central purpose about the meanings of words are pointless. There’s peripheral ideas in some which do well to highlight other issues, but overall the text would be a waste to spend time studying over more than twice unless you’re a Plato scholar.
The dialogues Euthydemus and Hippias Major are good in their content in a vacuum; Laches, Lysis, and Hippias Minor are good for showing the character of Socrates; and Ion’s redeeming quality is that it’s very short. Charmides gets points off for Socrates being a creep in it and it being based off language being objective (which it definitely isn’t).
October 26, 2025
Here these guys are trying to define what is "sophrosune" and "fineness", categorizing everything into terms of "good" and "bad" and what traits are considered "virtuous" or "moral".
It's a very black-and-white state of affairs and I don't think they get anything done at all (other than argue in circles). No wonder philosophy is seen as a waste of time - these blokes had far too much time on their hands.
I did enjoy it for the historical content, just not the philisophical aspect which was flaky. However having said that, the discussions were somewhat humorous and elicited a slight chuckle on my daily commute into work. But part of me wishes that I was there with Socrates, so I could pull him up by his toba and say "Hang on mate, define 'good' first..."
It's a very black-and-white state of affairs and I don't think they get anything done at all (other than argue in circles). No wonder philosophy is seen as a waste of time - these blokes had far too much time on their hands.
I did enjoy it for the historical content, just not the philisophical aspect which was flaky. However having said that, the discussions were somewhat humorous and elicited a slight chuckle on my daily commute into work. But part of me wishes that I was there with Socrates, so I could pull him up by his toba and say "Hang on mate, define 'good' first..."
Currently reading
August 2, 2025Ion - I think the critique of rhapsodes not having any skill but instead being the recipient of divine possession is pretty weak as elements of performative skill are overlooked not least because we are lead to believe Ion himself is the greatest performer of Homer, if many rhapsodes can speak on this then the given logic would dictate there is some skill involved as there are those that can speak to the expertise and conclude Ion is the greatest, futhermore the argument hinges on the fact that Ion is useless at performing any other poet, this feels like a weak basis to me as unless this is true of all poets it means Ion is being used as a strawman
September 26, 2021
The books consists of 7 dialogues from Plato’s beginning days, and many of the dialogues do well at highlighting the differences between Socrates and the sophists. A few of the others, although aporetic, display Socrates’ efforts in his search for truth, and divulges his dialectic method. Much of Plato’s early ideas can be found within these dialogues before we see their more developed form in Republic, and I enjoyed the dialogues that displayed his hints towards the universality of knowledge as virtue/the virtues.
April 2, 2021
Reading Plato changed my life. He gave me a vision of life which is hopeful and full of joy. The New Testament writers assumed that the reader read Plato. Plato is philosophy, the university, the academic method. All roads lead to Plato. Alas, the modern world listens to Foucault, the anti-Plato. Plato is one of the most important authors who ever lived.
June 22, 2023
Would give 2.5 stars if possible. Pain to read. Euthydemus was basically a comedy about sophistry, but the rest of the dialogues relied on sophistic reasoning. Unless Strauss is correct, Socrates was just a sophist. Would put these dialogues at the bottom of the list of pieces of classical philosophy worth reading.
November 18, 2025
God, Socrates/Plato is annoying. Not for asking questions but for making so-called 'self-evident' claims and then basing an entire dialogue upon that. It's not just wrong and infuriating, it's just annoying.
If this is really what Western Philosophy is based upon, then I'm ready to move to China.
If this is really what Western Philosophy is based upon, then I'm ready to move to China.
October 28, 2022
Ion 3/5
Laches 3/5
Lysis 3/5
Charmides 2/5
Hippias Major 3/5
Hippias Minor 3/5: Plato writes the Berenstain Bears' "Bike Lesson"—"This is what you should not do!" Successful but annoying.
Euthydemus 3.5/5
Read all except Charmides twice.
Laches 3/5
Lysis 3/5
Charmides 2/5
Hippias Major 3/5
Hippias Minor 3/5: Plato writes the Berenstain Bears' "Bike Lesson"—"This is what you should not do!" Successful but annoying.
Euthydemus 3.5/5
Read all except Charmides twice.
December 19, 2025
I'm not really a fan of the early Socratic dialogues obviously I believe Hippa major/ minor along with Euthydemus we're probably the strongest Socratic dialogues however it was a little frustrating how most of them end in APORIA 😭
February 23, 2023
Lovely to read with tweens. “Ugh that guy is sooo wrong!!”
Read
July 17, 2023well 3/7 ....
September 10, 2024
The Apology is a brilliant passage, and carries much of the weight of my 4 star rating
June 26, 2025
low rating is on me not you Socrates. I'm just not there... I tried.
June 3, 2010
Plato lived a relatively long life, even according to modern standards. We know that he was born about 427 B.C.E. and died at the age of eighty or eighty-one about 347 B.C.E. Born into a prominent Athenian family, Plato was expected to pursue a career in politics. However, after the trial and execution of his mentor, Socrates, at which Plato was present, Plato became disgusted with Athenian political life, and devoted himself instead to teaching and philosophical inquiry. To that end, he founded the Academy around 385 B.C.E., which counted the famous thinker Aristotle among its students. In addition to his dialogues, the Academy was Plato's great contribution to philosophy and civilization, lasting 912 years until 527 A.D., and serving as the prototype for the Western university system.
Socrates himself lived amidst a time of war and transition. Born in 469 B.C.E. and executed in 399 B.C.E., Socrates lived in Athens during the transfer of power from Athens to Sparta, following Athens's defeat in the Peloponnesian War (431–404 B.C.E) With this war, in which Socrates fought many battles, came the end of Athens's Golden Age, despite the fact that most of the great philosophy of Plato and Aristotle was still to come.
Although Plato is considered by most to be the father of philosophy, he did not create the field out of nothing. There already existed several currents of thought, which were prominent at the time in which Plato was writing and which were influential to his thought. Plato's travels in southern Italy and Sicily as a young man brought him into close contact with many followers of the philosopher Pythagoras, whose mathematical research played an important role in Plato's early intellectual development. He was also familiar with and influenced by the philosophy of Heraclitus, who claimed that the world was in constant flux.
Plato was also influenced to write against the relativist ideas advocated at the time by Protagoras and the materialist mode of explanation assumed by Democritus. However, the most important influence on Plato is obviously that of his mentor, Socrates. Aside from other strains of philosophy popular at the time, there were also several periods and methods present within the entire philosophy of Plato. Generally, Plato's dialogues are classed into categories of early, middle, and late periods. The early dialogues were written soon after Socrates's death, and in them we get the clearest picture of Socrates and Socratic philosophy. As Plato matured, however, he developed an increasingly distinct voice and philosophical outlook. The figure of Socrates in the middle and late dialogues is more of a mouthpiece for Plato's own views. In particular, the theory of Forms, we know from Aristotle, was not a belief held by the actual Socrates, despite the fact that his character preaches it consistently in many of the middle and later dialogues. The Laches is considered to be one of Plato's early dialogues. Other early dialogues include the Apology, the Gorgias, and the Euthyphro.
The Laches is a dialogue concerned with the virtue of courage. Throughout the dialogue, two distinguished generals, Nicias and Laches take turns attempting to define the nature of courage while Socrates mediates and responds. By the end of the dialogue Socrates has defeated each of the arguments by the generals and proven to them that they cannot say what the nature of courage is because they do not know it. Despite the fact that Socrates, Nicias, and Laches are all conspicuous examples of courageous men, since not one of the men succeeds in defining courage, they have no real knowledge of it. In the end, Socrates instructs that the whole company go back to school again and that he will also do so himself.
The dialogue begins with a speech by Lysimachus to two of his friends, Nicias and Laches. Lysimachus and his friend Melesias want their sons to become honorable men and so have asked the advice of two generals about how they should educate their children and specifically what they think of the art of fighting in armor. To this question, Nicias responds that he believes the art of fighting in armor would be a good thing to learn for it would make the children want to learn other things in war. Laches replies that he believes the art of fighting in art to be a kind of knowledge without value. Laches argues that most of the men he has seen who are teachers of this art make fools of themselves on the battlefield. He relates a particularly long anecdote concerning a teacher named Stesilaus who was laughed at by all his companions in battle. Laches believes that fighting may be a form of knowledge; but since this knowledge does not make the masters of it better fighters, it is not worth knowing.
Socrates himself lived amidst a time of war and transition. Born in 469 B.C.E. and executed in 399 B.C.E., Socrates lived in Athens during the transfer of power from Athens to Sparta, following Athens's defeat in the Peloponnesian War (431–404 B.C.E) With this war, in which Socrates fought many battles, came the end of Athens's Golden Age, despite the fact that most of the great philosophy of Plato and Aristotle was still to come.
Although Plato is considered by most to be the father of philosophy, he did not create the field out of nothing. There already existed several currents of thought, which were prominent at the time in which Plato was writing and which were influential to his thought. Plato's travels in southern Italy and Sicily as a young man brought him into close contact with many followers of the philosopher Pythagoras, whose mathematical research played an important role in Plato's early intellectual development. He was also familiar with and influenced by the philosophy of Heraclitus, who claimed that the world was in constant flux.
Plato was also influenced to write against the relativist ideas advocated at the time by Protagoras and the materialist mode of explanation assumed by Democritus. However, the most important influence on Plato is obviously that of his mentor, Socrates. Aside from other strains of philosophy popular at the time, there were also several periods and methods present within the entire philosophy of Plato. Generally, Plato's dialogues are classed into categories of early, middle, and late periods. The early dialogues were written soon after Socrates's death, and in them we get the clearest picture of Socrates and Socratic philosophy. As Plato matured, however, he developed an increasingly distinct voice and philosophical outlook. The figure of Socrates in the middle and late dialogues is more of a mouthpiece for Plato's own views. In particular, the theory of Forms, we know from Aristotle, was not a belief held by the actual Socrates, despite the fact that his character preaches it consistently in many of the middle and later dialogues. The Laches is considered to be one of Plato's early dialogues. Other early dialogues include the Apology, the Gorgias, and the Euthyphro.
The Laches is a dialogue concerned with the virtue of courage. Throughout the dialogue, two distinguished generals, Nicias and Laches take turns attempting to define the nature of courage while Socrates mediates and responds. By the end of the dialogue Socrates has defeated each of the arguments by the generals and proven to them that they cannot say what the nature of courage is because they do not know it. Despite the fact that Socrates, Nicias, and Laches are all conspicuous examples of courageous men, since not one of the men succeeds in defining courage, they have no real knowledge of it. In the end, Socrates instructs that the whole company go back to school again and that he will also do so himself.
The dialogue begins with a speech by Lysimachus to two of his friends, Nicias and Laches. Lysimachus and his friend Melesias want their sons to become honorable men and so have asked the advice of two generals about how they should educate their children and specifically what they think of the art of fighting in armor. To this question, Nicias responds that he believes the art of fighting in armor would be a good thing to learn for it would make the children want to learn other things in war. Laches replies that he believes the art of fighting in art to be a kind of knowledge without value. Laches argues that most of the men he has seen who are teachers of this art make fools of themselves on the battlefield. He relates a particularly long anecdote concerning a teacher named Stesilaus who was laughed at by all his companions in battle. Laches believes that fighting may be a form of knowledge; but since this knowledge does not make the masters of it better fighters, it is not worth knowing.
July 3, 2023
For a multitude of reasons, one should begin here, both with Plato and philosophy. Wonderful
Displaying 1 - 30 of 41 reviews