Plato

by Plato, Mortimer J. Adler (Editor), Clifton Fadiman (Associate Editor)

Charmides
Lysis
Laches
Protagoras
Euthydemus
Cratylus
Phaedrus
Ion
Symposium
Meno
Euthyphro
Apology
Crito
Phaedo
Gorgias
The Republic
Timaeus
Critias
Parmenides
Theaetetus
Sophist
Statesman
Philebus
Laws
The Seventh Letter

Genres: Philosophy, Classics, Collections

814 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1969

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

[William Crosby · Rating 3 out of 5]

Okay read. Lots of ideas. I did not like his dialogue style with the others who always seemed so agreeable. I disagreed in many places with his arguments and they became tedious to me.

[Daniel Taylor · Rating 2 out of 5]

After growing up in the shadow of Plato, I thought I'd get a lot more from his work than I did. Many of the dialogues seem almost pointless, starting at one place and either arriving back at that same place, or simply giving up. I found Plato hard to follow and almost impenetrable. My coach asked why I was persevering with him, given I was finding him such a challenging read. I explained reading Plato is like running long-distance: it's not fun in the moment, but in the end it's rewarding. Well, at least that's what I expected, but it didn't happen. My only concession is this was my first inspectional reading of Plato and maybe my opinion will change with deeper rereadings.

[Christopher Rush · Rating 2 out of 5]

A pair of important factors go in to my allocating but two stars to this collection of Plato: 1) I'm correct and 2) it wasn't that great. It is important for you to keep those two factors in mind on the off chance you will disagree with my dyadic-stellar assessment. Remember as well this assessment does not bring me pleasure: one of my most beloved mentors, Fr. James V. Schall, continuously praises Plato to the heavens in virtually every book he publishes, so my disaffection for Plato is costly.

Perhaps for Father Schall "Socratic philosophy" is much akin to "Peter Pan" or "Oz" - not, to be sure, in the sense of "imaginary lands of childish fantasy," of course, but it in the sense of "the kernel of an idea of Neverland and Oz and the wondrous adventures in such magical realms are rife with possibilities and enchantment but the original books from which they came are rather humdrum." The "idea" of asking questions and leading people to investigate their preconceptions and taking their notions to their logical conclusions is truly an important facet of education and philosophy and Western Civilization ... but 96% of Socrates' questions are "yes or no" questions. Let's be honest. Most of his "questions" are basically "of course you agree with me, yes?" in nature. Such is also the case with the Athenian Stranger in the Laws. It's not favorably impressive.

I understand this is a product of its time, as everything is, but this is also supposed to be transcendent. Even so, can anyone explain to me why the government should take the job of childrearing away from parents? or why a father who kills his child should be banished for three years from town but then can come back with impunity? or why a slave who accidentally kills someone can be treated in any way seen fit by the victim's family so long as he is eventually killed? Not all of this has stood the test of time so well.

I wonder, though, if the Republic is perhaps a satire? Have we considered that possibility yet? Surely Socrates, who desires the youth to be thoughtful and wise and virtuous (not that he can ever define virtue, no matter how many times he tries) would not want them to be censored from the "bad" parts of Homer or Hesiod or the rest? Surely he is not sincerely suggesting the government should prevent the citizenry from hearing poetry that does not encourage them to blindly accept the decisions of their leaders? And surely he is not suggesting for a free populace a human being can only become one thing in life based on childhood tendencies: if I am reading this correctly (and perhaps I am not), Socrates says a soldier should never be allowed to learn a trade or a craft or have time to delight in beautiful things since it will only spoil his training as a soldier. Likewise, a potter should never be allowed to learn about metalwork or embroidery or statesmanship, since his role in life solely is making pottery. I'm hoping Socrates is joking.

As intimated above, a goodly number of these dialogues end along the lines of Socrates saying "well, it's time for lunch, so let's continue this discussion another time," before coming to any wholly satisfactory definition of justice or virtue or courage or anything. On the whole, it was not a pleasant experience working through these.

Sure, there are some great lines and snippets and notions and ideas scattered throughout the dozens of dialogues, and to be more fair to Plato, these dialogues are probably best understood and enjoyed at a much slower, deliberate, inquisitive pace than what I took to essentially plow through them. So maybe the fault is within me. I mean, this is Plato, after all, and who am I? Exactly. I'm Odysseus in Polyphemus's cave: I'm Nobody. I wanted to like these, I really did, especially since the Lost Dialogues led me to such adventure on Atlantis. However, it wasn't that great of an experience for me, but perhaps for you it will be better. Go ahead and read Plato for yourself. I might again ... later ... if I live long enough ... at a much slower pace (the reading not the living, though that would help as well).

[Elijah Christopher · Rating 3 out of 5]

It will be a long time before I attempt swallowing philosophy as I have done in reading Plato's works. I gained a lot of quotes and insight in reading these dialogues. However, much of these readings were of no worth to me, compared to the time spent on them. Perhaps this is because I am at a time in life where I cannot sit down for a day and simply indulge as fully as I can in a book, but there were times in reading Plato's works that were painstaking to get through. Never the less, I much enjoyed the studies within, and have gained a heightened sense of wisdom and understanding in regards to studying philosophy, and creating works of my own. This journey has been long, and I have pondered greatly upon what I should write in my review. Though originally I had intended to go into great length and detail about my views in the field of philosophy, I have learned through reading Plato's works that brevity can be a powerful thing. Though I loved this book, I'll most likely never pick it up again. Studying such as deeply as I have over the past year and a half requires great dedication and determination. This journey has been long and hard, and in some ways it was, admittedly, not worth the time. Never the less, some of the lessons I have learned will stay with me through my life, and I hope to impart some lessons upon my children. And is this not the root of philosophy?

[Persephone Abbott · Rating 4 out of 5]

Oh I don't know, at times fascinating and at times god awful slow, and on my bookshelf for ages. Due to the Coursera class, reading more of it, so time to move it off this list. Ancient Greece Course final assignment? Rewrite the Eurythro entrance in for the other side of the argument. Leading questions, monkey up sleeve, self effacing, bathroom tile cross examination, "but the argument must be based on honesty." Hmmm don't know about that, already a moment of bathroom tile contemplation. "Can a man answer truthfully for another man? When ordering a cup of coffee? When relating the latest development about a business decision? Is the collaboration of the both only then the truth? Take two witnesses to testify against the other two..... How many needed to make up a batch of piety?"

[Chris · Rating 4 out of 5]

Plato: Apology & Crito (pp 200-219) (First Year Reading List)

The "Apology" is Socrates address to the "men of Athens" in defense of himself while on trial for his life, a trial that results in a death sentence for corrupting the young. Socrates trial was a real event and occurred in 399 and this is Plato's recollection and recreation from his notes. What struck me straight away was that the story Socrates tells of himself is very much like the life story of Jesus as told by his apostles. Socrates teaches and preaches against the powers that be and ends up on trial for this. There is a sense in which he is being asked to save himself by renouncing his teaching and by begging the men of Athens for mercy by promising to go and preach no more, but like Jesus, Socrates refuses, choosing to die a martyr to his truth rather than stepping down and accepting their judgment and his own diminishment. He makes a big deal of the fact that he has never taken money for what he does. Unlike Jesus, though, he has a family. Though he seems only to value his sons as he does not mention their mother or any sisters they might have. Like any closing argument in court, he tries to frame the arguments of his accusers--Meletus, Anytus, and Lyeon--before answering each charge in turn. He doesn't actually say anything about Lyeon, little about Anytus, but mostly he focuses on Meletus. Perhaps because it is Meletus who argues that he corrupts the youth of Athens, which I gather is why he is on trial for his life. Apparently Socrates is being asked to offer what he thinks his punishment should be, perhaps exile, he says. He rejects that plea because he has, he says, spent all his life in Athens. Also, if he were to accept the claims made against him, or if he were to carry on as he had, those other cities might soon expel him, too. Besides, he is too old to wander from city to city at 70. His principal defense, very Jesus-like, or rather I guess Jesus is very Socrates like, is that he does what he does because a god, the Oracle, instructs him to do it. The Oracle tells Socartes what he should not do--never what he should do--and so in the end Socrates tells the men of Athens he is a gift to them from the Oracle and they should be thankful for his preaching. And if not, Socrates is ready to accept death, and here he says he is ready because the Oracle has not protested. The oracle always warns him when he is about to do a wrong thing, but here it is silent so death must not be a wrong thing for him now. Besides, death has no fear for him. Either it will be like a long peaceful sleep from which one does not awake, or it will put him in the afterworld where he will be in the company of other men like himself.

The Crito is somewhat in the form of a play, a dialogue really, between Socrates and Crito. Socrates, having been found guilty and condemned to death, is sitting in prison awaiting his execution. Crito's role is mainly to agree with everything Socrates says, he is a bit credulous. The device is easy to lampoon. (I once wrote one myself for a high school English class.) Socrates is now explaining why, condemned to death, it would be wrong for him to escape his fate by fleeing the prison. He argues in favor of following the law because only the rule of law is proper, even when it does wrong. In his concluding remarks, expressed as if from some higher power speaking to Socrates, he says," Now you depart [die] in innocence, a sufferer and not a doer of evil; a victim not of laws but of men. But if you go forth, returning evil for evil, and injury for injury, breaking the covenants and agreements which you have made with us [the laws], and wronging those whom you ought least of all to wrong, that is to say, yourself, your friends, your country, and us [laws of Athens], we shall be angry with you while you live, and our brethren, the laws in the world below, will receive you as an enemy . . ."

"Meno" (Vol 7, pp. 174-190)
Socrates and Meno are discussing virtue. Socrates is pushing Meno to define "virtue" in a universal way that applies to men, women, children--everyone. Meno had given him a definition of virtue in men and another for virtue in women. Socrates does not take issue with Meno's claims about virtue for men and women, but rather pushes again for an overall definition of virtue. Just as "round" and "straight" define instances of "figure", the specific virtues (justice, temperance, courage, wisdom, etc.) are instances but not a definition of virtue per se. Meno had stated that virtue in a man is the ability in governance to administer the state in order to benefit his friends, harm his enemies, and avoid harming himself. For women, virtue is keeping order in the house and obeying their husband. Socrates takes no issue with these instances, but insists instead on a universal definition, which he says neither Meno, nor his master Gorgias, nor Socrates can supply. For Plato virtue is a matter of knowledge about what the good is. Vice is then ignorance, not knowing what the good is. (Contrasts with Aristotle's idea of virtue being a matter of learning and judgement found in character (hexus).)

[Paul · Rating 5 out of 5]

All the surviving works of this thinker who is generally considered one of the greatest in Western literature, in a single durable volume. The ideas cover a wide field, but Plato's special interest was in virtue and vice--what we would call human character--and their relation to the problem of constructing a state that is most conducive to the good life for all its citizens. It is capped with the final, 15-page work, The Seventh Letter, in which Plato, writing in his own voice instead of that of his teacher Socrates, briefly describes his own unhappy experience of trying to help create an enlightened state in Syracuse, Sicily. Tyranny seems to be the default system of government (if it can be called that) because the hunger for unrestrained power is exactly what brings men to the top of the dog-pile of political competition.

Another volume down; this wayfarer moves on to the next in the set of the Great Books of the Western World.

[Adam Chandler · Rating 5 out of 5]

Close to a complete collection of Plato's works. The materials here are the most essential and influential works on Western thought and philosophy in history. As Whitehead said, "Philosophy is a collection of footnotes to Plato." The works I view as most important would be the Apology (one of the earliest writings, although dealing with Socrates' death, which goes over the basic understanding of moral integrity and life), the Republic (the foundations of government and supplying an early understanding of the philosophy of mind with the Cave), and Timaeus (discussion of the nature of reality and human beings in particular). While the concepts brought up are better developed over time in the history of philosophy, Plato gives the foundation for what we think about.

[Jonathan Ward · Rating 3 out of 5]

hard to adjudge correctly. Unique, classic, foundational...at the same time much of it is boring. Long discourses in which the questioner is too easily lead about by the nose instead of a more aggressive stance of disputation makes it hard to accept the arguments that are offered. My primary takeaways are a better understanding of his prime mover argument for the existence of deity, the assumption of the Great Flood as truth upon which assumption of civilizations could be construed, his ordering of values of soul, body and wealth in that order and his privileging of virtue (esp. the four of wisdom, temperance, courage and justice).

[BookWaffle :3 · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a pain to read. 800+ pages of pure Socrates, and his dialouges about everything and anything. I am, however, glad that I read it because Socrates and his way of thinking has definitely made me think differently about how I see things.

I only feel exhausted after having finished this, honestly.

[Sean Hadley · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read Plato's "Apology" (9.3.2023)

[Scott · Rating 4 out of 5]

A huge museum of thinking.

[Thomas White]

Apology [Read]
Crito [Currently Reading]

[Dave McCracken · Rating 5 out of 5]

Charmides, a brilliant discussion and dissection of knowledge & wisdom, culminating in quote:
"… knowledge is not that which makes men act rightly and be happy, not even if knowledge include all the sciences, but one science only, that of good and evil.” (Plato, Great Books of the Western World, V.6: Plato)
Charmides
Lysis
Laches
Protagoras

[Cws]

888.4

[Chanelle · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've read:

Apology
Crito