What do you think?
Rate this book
Six Great Dialogues: Apology/Crito/Phaedo/Phaedrus/Symposium/The Republic
Plato's brilliant dialogues, written in the fourth century B.C., rank among Western civilization's most important philosophical works. Presented as a series of probing conversations between Socrates and his students and fellow citizens, they form a magnificent dialectical quest that examines enduring political, ethical, metaphysical, and epistemological issues.
Here, in one inexpensive edition, are six of Plato's remarkable and revelatory dialogues, each translated by distinguished classical scholar Benjamin Jowett. Apology defends the integrity of Socrates' teachings. Crito discusses respect for the law. Phaedo considers death and the immortality of the soul. Phaedrus explores the psychology of love. Symposium reflects on the ultimate manifestation of the love that controls the world, and The Republic ponders society and the philosopher's role within it. Stimulating, dramatic, and always relevant, these dialogues have profoundly influenced the history of intellectual thought, and offer crucial insight into mystical, aesthetic, and other aspects of Platonic doctrine.
Here, in one inexpensive edition, are six of Plato's remarkable and revelatory dialogues, each translated by distinguished classical scholar Benjamin Jowett. Apology defends the integrity of Socrates' teachings. Crito discusses respect for the law. Phaedo considers death and the immortality of the soul. Phaedrus explores the psychology of love. Symposium reflects on the ultimate manifestation of the love that controls the world, and The Republic ponders society and the philosopher's role within it. Stimulating, dramatic, and always relevant, these dialogues have profoundly influenced the history of intellectual thought, and offer crucial insight into mystical, aesthetic, and other aspects of Platonic doctrine.
481 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 381
192 people are currently reading
410 people want to read
About the author
Plato
5,205 books8,607 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 - 20 of 20 reviews
May 3, 2022
Unlike last year when I subjected you to an extensive series of reviews on the entire collected works of Xenophon, I'm starting Plato's introduction on the site slowly. We're just going to be examining six of his most famous dialogues, and we're going to put them together all in a single review. Considering that I'm writing this post in April and have book reviews scheduled out into September, I'm not exactly hurting for content right now.
I'm honestly not a huge fan of the dialogue format, for as much as I have been known to use it myself. As my wife and I noted while I was reading this, it's a good thing that my voice has a magical ability to put people to sleep, because otherwise my tendency to engage in Socratic-style arguments would probably have people force-feeding me hemlock. To me, the dialogue format is fantastic for having real-life, philosophical discussions and debates, but not so useful for presenting philosophical ideas in a textual format. Then again, Socrates would have been displeased that Plato was writing philosophy at all, so we should probably be thankful that we have any record of this foundational period of Western thought.
Apology
Last year (right around this time, actually, by some strange coincidence), I plowed through the collected works of Xenophon, and posted reviews for all of those works; if you were following the site at the time, you probably remember weeks’ worth of Thursday book reviews covering Xenophon’s writing on everything from his adventures in Persia to how to run a proper ancient Greek farmstead. Assuming that you didn’t get bored and start skimming those, the first of these Plato dialogues will look familiar to you: both Xenophon and Plato wrote versions of the Apology dialogue detailing Socrates’ defense to the charges levied against him by the Athenians. Scholars who study such things point to important differences in the presentation between the two, and observe that unlike Xenophon, Plato was actually present, but reading Plato’s version of events I did not identify any significant differences.
In fact, my main sense was of having read this before – logical, considering that I had read Plato’s Apology several years ago, when I first started digging into hobbyist philosophy. Apology is far from my favorite of Plato’s (or Xenophon’s) works; I don’t think it provides any noteworthy insights, and there are several places where Socrates either makes claims that contradict his earlier statements, and exhibits a certain false humility that is more off-putting than simple arrogance (and is probably why the fed him hemlock). In retrospect, especially reading it so soon after Mistborn: Final Empire and its examination of religions, one wonders whether Socrates was actually hoping to be “unjustly” executed so that he would be preserved in memory as a philosophical martyr; if he was truly so conniving, then he was singularly successful, considering that Socrates is now considered the foundation of Western philosophical thought, and his teachings are often put on a level with Jesus and Buddha.
There are scholars who have claimed that Socrates did not exist, and was instead a sort of stock character invented by philosophers like Plato as a literary device by which to present their musings and thoughts – a wise move if you’re looking to avoid being force-fed hemlock for trumped-up charges about corrupting the youth. My suspicion is that there was a real person named Socrates who did have teachings much like are presented in writings like Apology, and who was probably even executed for those teachings, but that after his execution philosophers like Plato started to put some of their own teachings into Socrates’ mouth both as a way to assume philosophical authority, and to distance themselves from the threat of execution.
Crito
For me, Crito is where this story of Socrates’ trial and execution, whoever it might be presented by, gains in interest and philosophical impact. Taking place after he has been sentenced to death but before the execution takes place, the Crito dialogue begins with one of Socrates’ friends/supporters approaching him furtively under cover of darkness to propose breaking him free. Socrates launches into a lengthy discussion of the implications and morality of fleeing from justice, effectively a debate that has continued well into modern times, with resonances in everything from morality’s source (is conduct right because the gods demand it, or do the gods demand it because it is right), to John Locke’s ideas of a social contract, to Abraham Lincoln’s essay on justice and the law, to Martin Luther King’s Letters from a Birmingham Jail. From whence does right action derive? Can right action be other than legal? Is the consent of the governed significant in the rightness of obedience to laws?
Socrates’ decision to remain (spoiler, in case you didn’t know that Socrates dies at the end) is based on a logic not dissimilar from Abraham Lincoln’s assertion that there can be no justice outside of the law, with the additional reasoning that because he has actively consented to be governed by the laws of Athens, it is therefore right, just, honorable, and moral to live (and die) in obedience to those laws, regardless of their apparent “fairness” in a specific case. Athens at the time had the interesting feature of offering a choice to those born in the city: they could “opt in” to being an Athenian at their age of majority, after they have had a chance to experience it, or they could “opt out” and seek their fortunes elsewhere. Socrates’ logic is therefore that since he knowingly agreed to the Athenian system, he is bound by its dictates.
This is a heavy topic, and worthy of greater discussion than I have given it here; it remains an open question. Martin Luther King would have strongly disagreed, arguing that there is a morality independent of the law and that if the law arrives at an immoral conclusion then it is in fact the moral duty of those affected to disobey it. This is the logic behind his philosophy of peaceful protest, for he sought to change immoral laws without violating moral ones – which necessarily brings us back to the source of that morality. Although Socrates dances around this idea in Crito, even he (or Plato) fails to offer a definitive answer.
Phado
The first two dialogues in this collection were relatively short; this one was as long as both of them combined. It would figure, therefore, that I found it more tedious and less insightful than either of its predecessors. Set just before Socrates’ execution, after his trial and after he rejects Crito’s offer of jailbreak, it is Socrates using his last moments of life to explain to his friends why they should rejoice for his opportunity to reach the pinnacle of philosophical achievement, rather than mourning his death.
I had problems with this dialogue on several levels. The most off-putting part was Socrates’ treatment of his family. When his wife and children show up and interrupt him talking with his friends on the morning before he is to be executed, he berates them for wasting his time and embarrassing him by being sad, and for disturbing him from his much more important friends. Whatever else we may think of Socrates, the way he treats his family is definitely a black mark on his record.
At a more intellectual level, the dialogue spends most of its time discussing the existence and immortality of the soul, in which discussion Socrates both falls into and lays a variety of logical traps. First, he clearly starts from the premise of the soul’s existence and immortality, and proceeds to seek arguments by which to enjoin others to share his opinion. To do this, he primarily relies upon analogies. He’ll say, for instance, how the soul might be like the music from a lyre, where the lyre is the crude matter of the mortal body, and the soul is logically therefore as immortal as the music that the lyre created. This is barely logic, and it certainly proves nothing, but it seems to be convincing enough for his friends in the abstract.
Phaedus
I could condense this review into a single statement: just read Aristotle’s Art of Rhetoric instead. However, I know that you readers expect more from me, especially in reviewing one of Plato’s classic dialogues, so I will attempt to provide a modicum of additional insight. This is another dialogue featuring Socrates (either as a real person or a literary device), but it is not at all associated with his eventual trial and execution, taking place instead some indeterminate period of time before those events.
Two main arguments compose this dialogue: one regarding the nature of love, and one regarding the art of rhetoric. Socrates starts out telling us that love is a base physical sensation that distracts from the pursuit of wisdom and philosophical perfection, but then changes his mind and admits that certain types and circumstances of love can be legitimate. While mildly interesting, I did not find the dialogue particularly insightful – I also question the wisdom of placing wisdom upon such an unapproachable pedestal. The subsequent discussion on rhetoric would have been fascinating, had I not already read Aristotle’s Art of Rhetoric, which provides a better organized and more rigorous treatment of the topic.
A tiny segment of the whole dialogue was the most interesting to me, and that was Socrates’ rant against writing as a means of recording information. To paraphrase, he claims that writing information down will leave no reason for anyone to actually know or remember that information, and that therefore writing will create the illusion of omniscience without the reality of knowledge or concomitant wisdom. I’ve written before about some of my thoughts on the role, importance, and purpose of memorization, and while I won’t go to the extreme that Socrates does, I do think that there is merit to the idea that just having the information recorded does not make it useful. Although only a sliver of the dialogue, this is an immensely relevant topic in the context of today’s “Information Age,” and helps make this one worth reading.
Symposium
Xenophon also wrote a version of Symposium , which I described in my review for it as a comedic one-act play. Plato's version is similar in form and setting - it involves some people getting drunk at a party - but takes a more serious tone. The topic is primarily that of love: the nature of love, the purpose of love, the rightness or wrongness of love. I did not find the insights offered on the particular topic enlightening; what I most took out of this dialogue was cultural history.
It is difficult to fully immerse oneself in another culture, especially one that is extinct. Aspects of the culture you know will inevitably intrude in the form of basic assumptions that you do not even think to question until you are confronted with evidence contrary to those assumptions. We can start to think, therefore, that a culture like that of ancient Athens is really not all that much different from something that we might encounter today, until some fact or offhand comment recorded in a dialogue remind us that this was a very different time, with very different mores, understandings, and expectations.
Take marriage and family, for instance. I might dedicate a whole post to the topic of marriage and family in speculative fiction writing, but for now, suffice to say that we tend to assume a certain degree of uniformity in perspectives on ideas of marriage and family. Many of those assumptions are counter to what was the norm in fifth century BCE Athens: family was not so much of a priority, for instance.
A myth is related about the origins of man and woman, which might have been my favorite part of this dialogue. In the story, humans were originally one being with four legs, four arms, and so forth. These "whole" humans were very powerful, and challenged the gods. In order to prevent the humans from destroying them, the gods split humans in two, into men and women, and that is why we are always looking for companionship and love - because we are literally incomplete.
There were a lot of words in this dialogue, without all that much being said (maybe like some of my blog posts). Maybe this is why I'm not a true philosopher - this kind of philosophy does not hold my attention very well. Fortunately, The Republic is much more my kind of philosophy.
The Republic
If you've never read Plato's Republic, you've still probably heard of it - it is one of the most famous pieces of ancient writing - and you also probably have a completely mistaken idea of what it's about, since while this dialogue, which composes more than half by length of the content includes in this six dialogue collection, covers a lot of ground, what it talks about hardly at all is the formulation of an ideal republic, at least as we would understand that constitutional system today. That was certainly the case the first time that I read it, and while I had a better idea of what I was in for this time, parts of it still took me by surprise.
The dialogue begins with a discussion of justice, and one of the characters in the dialogue steps in and confronts Socrates. I don't know what image you have in your head of Socrates, but after reading six dialogues featuring him, I found myself getting excited any time someone showed up to call him out on his shenanigans. While he has some fantastic insights, he also has a tendency to twist peoples' words around in such a way that they lose track of the original argument, and he will often fail to address at all important questions to which he does not have ready answers.
Anyway, from a discussion of justice, Socrates eventually declares that the best way to understand the just individual is to magnify the concepts into a just state, with the idea being that since a state can be conceived like an individual writ large, they will be more able to analyze justice than on the small scale of a human. With that, Socrates launches into his description of the constitution of the "perfect state."
In the West, we revere Hellenic civilization as the birthplace of democracy and representative government, and we look to the writings of that place and time to guide us today - they supposedly helped to inform the US Constitution, among other central pillars of modern democratic states. You might think that a dialogue entitled The Republic would be a key document, and would go about describing in Socrates' customary detail the formulation of an idea republic. I thought that, before reading it. I could hardly have been more mistaken.
The "perfect state" that Socrates describes is about as antithetical to many of our core notions of a republican system of governance as it is possible to be. It is, in fact, a benevolent dictatorship (which many political scientists will tell you is, in fact, the ideal form of governance, but that's a subject for another post - this review is already too long), and Socrates flat-out asserts that the state's goal is not the happiness of fulfillment of the individuals composing it, but rather the glorification and fulfillment of the state itself. Contrary to the assertions of latter-day philosophers like John Locke and his social contract, Socrates claims that the people exist to serve the perfect state, not the other way around.
Suffice to say, for now, that I disagree, but this is supposed to be a book review, not a philosophical rebuttal of Socrates'/Plato's ideas of the perfect system of governance. I may disagree, but the treatment was still fascinating, not least for its insights on Hellenic culture of the time, and reading alternative perspectives is always a valuable experience.
After waxing eloquent and at great length about the formulation of his perfect state, Socrates finally returns to the original topic of justice, and proceeds to examine justice through the lens of several different types of states, including his hypothetically perfect one. It is as much an exercise in logic and argument as it is in actually achieving an understanding of justice.
Oh, it's also worth noting that the famous allegory of a cave is included in this dialogue - it's one of those things that is much more insightful without the added context, in my opinion.
I may have had problems with some of its assertions, but this was still, by far, the most interesting, influential, and insightful of the dialogues included in this collection, and even if it were not a classic, I would recommend it if you have any interest at all in philosophy, governance, or justice (and really, we should all have some amount of interest in civics and justice).
That brings us to the end of this review. I know that it's lengthy, but that's probably better than subjecting you to over a month of reviews of Socratic dialogues. These are the sorts of works that have sunk themselves into our collective societal consciousness, but from which we have become sufficiently removed that we tend to no longer know what they are really saying, and why they became classics in the first place. If I had my choice, these are the sorts of classics that should be taught in schools, and maybe spend a little less time on Shakespeare. Since they are not, it's left to people like me to persuade you that it's worth taking the time to read something like this, but I really hope you do.
I'm honestly not a huge fan of the dialogue format, for as much as I have been known to use it myself. As my wife and I noted while I was reading this, it's a good thing that my voice has a magical ability to put people to sleep, because otherwise my tendency to engage in Socratic-style arguments would probably have people force-feeding me hemlock. To me, the dialogue format is fantastic for having real-life, philosophical discussions and debates, but not so useful for presenting philosophical ideas in a textual format. Then again, Socrates would have been displeased that Plato was writing philosophy at all, so we should probably be thankful that we have any record of this foundational period of Western thought.
Apology
Last year (right around this time, actually, by some strange coincidence), I plowed through the collected works of Xenophon, and posted reviews for all of those works; if you were following the site at the time, you probably remember weeks’ worth of Thursday book reviews covering Xenophon’s writing on everything from his adventures in Persia to how to run a proper ancient Greek farmstead. Assuming that you didn’t get bored and start skimming those, the first of these Plato dialogues will look familiar to you: both Xenophon and Plato wrote versions of the Apology dialogue detailing Socrates’ defense to the charges levied against him by the Athenians. Scholars who study such things point to important differences in the presentation between the two, and observe that unlike Xenophon, Plato was actually present, but reading Plato’s version of events I did not identify any significant differences.
In fact, my main sense was of having read this before – logical, considering that I had read Plato’s Apology several years ago, when I first started digging into hobbyist philosophy. Apology is far from my favorite of Plato’s (or Xenophon’s) works; I don’t think it provides any noteworthy insights, and there are several places where Socrates either makes claims that contradict his earlier statements, and exhibits a certain false humility that is more off-putting than simple arrogance (and is probably why the fed him hemlock). In retrospect, especially reading it so soon after Mistborn: Final Empire and its examination of religions, one wonders whether Socrates was actually hoping to be “unjustly” executed so that he would be preserved in memory as a philosophical martyr; if he was truly so conniving, then he was singularly successful, considering that Socrates is now considered the foundation of Western philosophical thought, and his teachings are often put on a level with Jesus and Buddha.
There are scholars who have claimed that Socrates did not exist, and was instead a sort of stock character invented by philosophers like Plato as a literary device by which to present their musings and thoughts – a wise move if you’re looking to avoid being force-fed hemlock for trumped-up charges about corrupting the youth. My suspicion is that there was a real person named Socrates who did have teachings much like are presented in writings like Apology, and who was probably even executed for those teachings, but that after his execution philosophers like Plato started to put some of their own teachings into Socrates’ mouth both as a way to assume philosophical authority, and to distance themselves from the threat of execution.
Crito
For me, Crito is where this story of Socrates’ trial and execution, whoever it might be presented by, gains in interest and philosophical impact. Taking place after he has been sentenced to death but before the execution takes place, the Crito dialogue begins with one of Socrates’ friends/supporters approaching him furtively under cover of darkness to propose breaking him free. Socrates launches into a lengthy discussion of the implications and morality of fleeing from justice, effectively a debate that has continued well into modern times, with resonances in everything from morality’s source (is conduct right because the gods demand it, or do the gods demand it because it is right), to John Locke’s ideas of a social contract, to Abraham Lincoln’s essay on justice and the law, to Martin Luther King’s Letters from a Birmingham Jail. From whence does right action derive? Can right action be other than legal? Is the consent of the governed significant in the rightness of obedience to laws?
Socrates’ decision to remain (spoiler, in case you didn’t know that Socrates dies at the end) is based on a logic not dissimilar from Abraham Lincoln’s assertion that there can be no justice outside of the law, with the additional reasoning that because he has actively consented to be governed by the laws of Athens, it is therefore right, just, honorable, and moral to live (and die) in obedience to those laws, regardless of their apparent “fairness” in a specific case. Athens at the time had the interesting feature of offering a choice to those born in the city: they could “opt in” to being an Athenian at their age of majority, after they have had a chance to experience it, or they could “opt out” and seek their fortunes elsewhere. Socrates’ logic is therefore that since he knowingly agreed to the Athenian system, he is bound by its dictates.
This is a heavy topic, and worthy of greater discussion than I have given it here; it remains an open question. Martin Luther King would have strongly disagreed, arguing that there is a morality independent of the law and that if the law arrives at an immoral conclusion then it is in fact the moral duty of those affected to disobey it. This is the logic behind his philosophy of peaceful protest, for he sought to change immoral laws without violating moral ones – which necessarily brings us back to the source of that morality. Although Socrates dances around this idea in Crito, even he (or Plato) fails to offer a definitive answer.
Phado
The first two dialogues in this collection were relatively short; this one was as long as both of them combined. It would figure, therefore, that I found it more tedious and less insightful than either of its predecessors. Set just before Socrates’ execution, after his trial and after he rejects Crito’s offer of jailbreak, it is Socrates using his last moments of life to explain to his friends why they should rejoice for his opportunity to reach the pinnacle of philosophical achievement, rather than mourning his death.
I had problems with this dialogue on several levels. The most off-putting part was Socrates’ treatment of his family. When his wife and children show up and interrupt him talking with his friends on the morning before he is to be executed, he berates them for wasting his time and embarrassing him by being sad, and for disturbing him from his much more important friends. Whatever else we may think of Socrates, the way he treats his family is definitely a black mark on his record.
At a more intellectual level, the dialogue spends most of its time discussing the existence and immortality of the soul, in which discussion Socrates both falls into and lays a variety of logical traps. First, he clearly starts from the premise of the soul’s existence and immortality, and proceeds to seek arguments by which to enjoin others to share his opinion. To do this, he primarily relies upon analogies. He’ll say, for instance, how the soul might be like the music from a lyre, where the lyre is the crude matter of the mortal body, and the soul is logically therefore as immortal as the music that the lyre created. This is barely logic, and it certainly proves nothing, but it seems to be convincing enough for his friends in the abstract.
Phaedus
I could condense this review into a single statement: just read Aristotle’s Art of Rhetoric instead. However, I know that you readers expect more from me, especially in reviewing one of Plato’s classic dialogues, so I will attempt to provide a modicum of additional insight. This is another dialogue featuring Socrates (either as a real person or a literary device), but it is not at all associated with his eventual trial and execution, taking place instead some indeterminate period of time before those events.
Two main arguments compose this dialogue: one regarding the nature of love, and one regarding the art of rhetoric. Socrates starts out telling us that love is a base physical sensation that distracts from the pursuit of wisdom and philosophical perfection, but then changes his mind and admits that certain types and circumstances of love can be legitimate. While mildly interesting, I did not find the dialogue particularly insightful – I also question the wisdom of placing wisdom upon such an unapproachable pedestal. The subsequent discussion on rhetoric would have been fascinating, had I not already read Aristotle’s Art of Rhetoric, which provides a better organized and more rigorous treatment of the topic.
A tiny segment of the whole dialogue was the most interesting to me, and that was Socrates’ rant against writing as a means of recording information. To paraphrase, he claims that writing information down will leave no reason for anyone to actually know or remember that information, and that therefore writing will create the illusion of omniscience without the reality of knowledge or concomitant wisdom. I’ve written before about some of my thoughts on the role, importance, and purpose of memorization, and while I won’t go to the extreme that Socrates does, I do think that there is merit to the idea that just having the information recorded does not make it useful. Although only a sliver of the dialogue, this is an immensely relevant topic in the context of today’s “Information Age,” and helps make this one worth reading.
Symposium
Xenophon also wrote a version of Symposium , which I described in my review for it as a comedic one-act play. Plato's version is similar in form and setting - it involves some people getting drunk at a party - but takes a more serious tone. The topic is primarily that of love: the nature of love, the purpose of love, the rightness or wrongness of love. I did not find the insights offered on the particular topic enlightening; what I most took out of this dialogue was cultural history.
It is difficult to fully immerse oneself in another culture, especially one that is extinct. Aspects of the culture you know will inevitably intrude in the form of basic assumptions that you do not even think to question until you are confronted with evidence contrary to those assumptions. We can start to think, therefore, that a culture like that of ancient Athens is really not all that much different from something that we might encounter today, until some fact or offhand comment recorded in a dialogue remind us that this was a very different time, with very different mores, understandings, and expectations.
Take marriage and family, for instance. I might dedicate a whole post to the topic of marriage and family in speculative fiction writing, but for now, suffice to say that we tend to assume a certain degree of uniformity in perspectives on ideas of marriage and family. Many of those assumptions are counter to what was the norm in fifth century BCE Athens: family was not so much of a priority, for instance.
A myth is related about the origins of man and woman, which might have been my favorite part of this dialogue. In the story, humans were originally one being with four legs, four arms, and so forth. These "whole" humans were very powerful, and challenged the gods. In order to prevent the humans from destroying them, the gods split humans in two, into men and women, and that is why we are always looking for companionship and love - because we are literally incomplete.
There were a lot of words in this dialogue, without all that much being said (maybe like some of my blog posts). Maybe this is why I'm not a true philosopher - this kind of philosophy does not hold my attention very well. Fortunately, The Republic is much more my kind of philosophy.
The Republic
If you've never read Plato's Republic, you've still probably heard of it - it is one of the most famous pieces of ancient writing - and you also probably have a completely mistaken idea of what it's about, since while this dialogue, which composes more than half by length of the content includes in this six dialogue collection, covers a lot of ground, what it talks about hardly at all is the formulation of an ideal republic, at least as we would understand that constitutional system today. That was certainly the case the first time that I read it, and while I had a better idea of what I was in for this time, parts of it still took me by surprise.
The dialogue begins with a discussion of justice, and one of the characters in the dialogue steps in and confronts Socrates. I don't know what image you have in your head of Socrates, but after reading six dialogues featuring him, I found myself getting excited any time someone showed up to call him out on his shenanigans. While he has some fantastic insights, he also has a tendency to twist peoples' words around in such a way that they lose track of the original argument, and he will often fail to address at all important questions to which he does not have ready answers.
Anyway, from a discussion of justice, Socrates eventually declares that the best way to understand the just individual is to magnify the concepts into a just state, with the idea being that since a state can be conceived like an individual writ large, they will be more able to analyze justice than on the small scale of a human. With that, Socrates launches into his description of the constitution of the "perfect state."
In the West, we revere Hellenic civilization as the birthplace of democracy and representative government, and we look to the writings of that place and time to guide us today - they supposedly helped to inform the US Constitution, among other central pillars of modern democratic states. You might think that a dialogue entitled The Republic would be a key document, and would go about describing in Socrates' customary detail the formulation of an idea republic. I thought that, before reading it. I could hardly have been more mistaken.
The "perfect state" that Socrates describes is about as antithetical to many of our core notions of a republican system of governance as it is possible to be. It is, in fact, a benevolent dictatorship (which many political scientists will tell you is, in fact, the ideal form of governance, but that's a subject for another post - this review is already too long), and Socrates flat-out asserts that the state's goal is not the happiness of fulfillment of the individuals composing it, but rather the glorification and fulfillment of the state itself. Contrary to the assertions of latter-day philosophers like John Locke and his social contract, Socrates claims that the people exist to serve the perfect state, not the other way around.
Suffice to say, for now, that I disagree, but this is supposed to be a book review, not a philosophical rebuttal of Socrates'/Plato's ideas of the perfect system of governance. I may disagree, but the treatment was still fascinating, not least for its insights on Hellenic culture of the time, and reading alternative perspectives is always a valuable experience.
After waxing eloquent and at great length about the formulation of his perfect state, Socrates finally returns to the original topic of justice, and proceeds to examine justice through the lens of several different types of states, including his hypothetically perfect one. It is as much an exercise in logic and argument as it is in actually achieving an understanding of justice.
Oh, it's also worth noting that the famous allegory of a cave is included in this dialogue - it's one of those things that is much more insightful without the added context, in my opinion.
I may have had problems with some of its assertions, but this was still, by far, the most interesting, influential, and insightful of the dialogues included in this collection, and even if it were not a classic, I would recommend it if you have any interest at all in philosophy, governance, or justice (and really, we should all have some amount of interest in civics and justice).
That brings us to the end of this review. I know that it's lengthy, but that's probably better than subjecting you to over a month of reviews of Socratic dialogues. These are the sorts of works that have sunk themselves into our collective societal consciousness, but from which we have become sufficiently removed that we tend to no longer know what they are really saying, and why they became classics in the first place. If I had my choice, these are the sorts of classics that should be taught in schools, and maybe spend a little less time on Shakespeare. Since they are not, it's left to people like me to persuade you that it's worth taking the time to read something like this, but I really hope you do.
February 13, 2024
Socrates(Or Plato’s depiction of him) is the most annoying guy on earth. My blood is boiling reading his cross examination of Meletus. Sure, being annoying isn’t punishable by death, but he is driving me nuts. Oh my god. Remember the strawmans from Plato’s Republic? We have those AND leading questions that are framed as correct. “Name who improves the children of society. Oh you’re silent, huh. GOTCHA!” BRO HE’S SILENT BECAUSE HE’S THINKING. BRO JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE ACCUSES YOU OF BEING DETRIMENTAL TO SOCIETY DOESNT MEAN THEY ALSO HAVE TO NAME WHAT IMPROVES SOCIETY. He starts the apology with a disclaimer that he doesn’t have slimey salesman speech, but then proceeds to use it ALL OVER. I can’t tell if my hatred should be directed towards Socrates, Plato, or both. I’m fuming. LET ME AT HIM
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 28, 2019
Very digestible translation by Jowett compared to my other dialogues of Plato. I assume they use this edition in college philosophy courses because i found my used copy with notes right off campus.
June 17, 2020
The Republic, Apology of Socrates, Crito, Phaedo, Ion, Meno, and Symposium. The six great dialogues, probably the finest of what humanity could offer when it comes to writing and philosophy. This, ladies and gentlemen, is the top of what we could contribute, no man could beat this league.
If we were to send aliens a box containing three of the finest manmade objects, we'd send shawarma, a laptop, and this book right here.
When reading Plato, one ought to be dynamic while thinking. You have to anchor yourself in that situation presented, and then move around. Embark on an inquisition, investigate some explanations to find more puzzles, then question again. Trust me, you'll only meet confusion, but with every step, your mind will grow.
Here comes Socrates, Master of the First Mentor. He'll make sure this dialectical process never stops. And what do you get ultimately? The great dialogues.
No piece of philosophical work ever touched my heart like this one. The apology of Socrates, once meditated, will change who you are for the best. For that, I have read the dialogues more than three times, and I'll dive in them happily many more times. I think part of me is stuck there. It is both a blessing and a curse to be an idealist, for you will only face disappointments, but your mind will verily evolve.
I wish that someday I'll have such great talks. The things I'm willing to do for an afternoon with Socrates.
Great Read everyone, Great book Old Master.
If we were to send aliens a box containing three of the finest manmade objects, we'd send shawarma, a laptop, and this book right here.
When reading Plato, one ought to be dynamic while thinking. You have to anchor yourself in that situation presented, and then move around. Embark on an inquisition, investigate some explanations to find more puzzles, then question again. Trust me, you'll only meet confusion, but with every step, your mind will grow.
Here comes Socrates, Master of the First Mentor. He'll make sure this dialectical process never stops. And what do you get ultimately? The great dialogues.
No piece of philosophical work ever touched my heart like this one. The apology of Socrates, once meditated, will change who you are for the best. For that, I have read the dialogues more than three times, and I'll dive in them happily many more times. I think part of me is stuck there. It is both a blessing and a curse to be an idealist, for you will only face disappointments, but your mind will verily evolve.
I wish that someday I'll have such great talks. The things I'm willing to do for an afternoon with Socrates.
Great Read everyone, Great book Old Master.
October 5, 2025
Well, despite the name of Plato and Socrates being part of our cultural canon - this is my first time reading Plato's work in full. I am impressed and astounded at how wise our forebears are, and indeed I feel we have regressed culturally. (Or maybe this is a fallacy, whereby only the greatest accomplishments survive human history, and those are held as falsely representative of their times). The dialogues here deal with such diverse topics as civic justice, the soul, love, and the structure of society. The arguments - while I think they don't hold up on close examination - I think it is still remarkable how they twist words and meanings so you get an unexpected conclusion! And following the arguments make you think.
Of the dialogues in this book, I enjoyed Critos (on justice), Phaedo (on the soul) and The Republic (the ordering and construction of society; and mirroring this in the individual), the most. Symposium was elegant and playful, which suits its theme, an accidental wisdom of drunkards.
I think it makes me reflect on the nature of a good and virtuous life, and examine the one I am living now. Great fun.
Of the dialogues in this book, I enjoyed Critos (on justice), Phaedo (on the soul) and The Republic (the ordering and construction of society; and mirroring this in the individual), the most. Symposium was elegant and playful, which suits its theme, an accidental wisdom of drunkards.
I think it makes me reflect on the nature of a good and virtuous life, and examine the one I am living now. Great fun.
May 22, 2025
3.5 / 5
Finished all dialogues but The Republic (as it’s his longest and hardest to get through). Liked Phaedo and The Symposium the best and particularly enjoyed his thoughts on the soul, death, and love. All the more rhetorical focused stuff was kinda boring IMO tho. Definitely useful as sources of study but a bit convoluted for my personal interests in reading philosophy.
Finished all dialogues but The Republic (as it’s his longest and hardest to get through). Liked Phaedo and The Symposium the best and particularly enjoyed his thoughts on the soul, death, and love. All the more rhetorical focused stuff was kinda boring IMO tho. Definitely useful as sources of study but a bit convoluted for my personal interests in reading philosophy.
August 22, 2020
Awesome collection of Plato's writings. These are probably some of the most significant of his works. They depict the final days of Socrates and present a fair amount of Plato's philosophy.
It's a great introduction to philosophy for anyone who is interested.
It's a great introduction to philosophy for anyone who is interested.
March 9, 2017
Socratic dialogues are, as usual amazing. I would pass on this edition though.
Read
December 30, 2023برای بار دوم ضیافت را خوندم، برای بار دوم در آخر خطابهای مرا شیفتهی عشق نکرد، شاید غایت چیز دیگرست شاید نگاه اشتراوس درست تر باشد ، نمیدانم.
June 16, 2024
very inspiring dialogues. hard read, and idk if dialogues for me.
Read
October 2, 2024Don't let anyone convince you that reading Plato is really interesting and awesome, it's boring and it sucks
June 16, 2013
The Apology
In my mind only enjoyable read in terms of a philosophical piece of art rather than a source of any kind of historicity. Why? Firstly because of my own bias against second hand accounts, really what the text accomplishes for me is a yearning to read what Socrates would have written of the event had the pen been in his hand. Secondly because I struggle with anything where authenticity relies more on plausibility rather than certainty. Plato may have been quoting Socrates verbatim, or he may not have been, we will never know and the veritable ocean of time that separates us from the events in question will always cast a doubt on not only the text but the motives of the author himself. Plato certainly seem dedicated to his old teacher, but he is also of a different character, as his own evolving philosophy shows. The question of who was Socrates and what was the wording of his apologia cannot be answered but merely suggested at in this book. But more important than any of this - the words put into Socrates mouth are thought provoking and opens a door to the philosophy and mindset of a much distant past and is therefor a valuable treatise and well deserving of the fame if has claimed for centuries.
Crito
"Tell us Socrates, they say; "what are you about? Are you going by an act of yours to overturn us- the laws and the whole state, as far as in you lies?
Do you imagine a state can subsist and not be overthrown, in which the decisions of law have no power, but are set aside and overthrown by individuals."
Soc: "But why, my dear Crito, should we care about the opinion of the many? Good men, and they are the only persons who are worth considering,will think of these things truly as they happened."
some things we can still learn from Socrates/Plato
Phaedo
A later work and to me it shows. Mostly it's rambling and nonsense about the soul in my opinion and I really had to struggle with this text. Felt like a pre-Christian practice in vagueness oration and dogma introduction. If anything useful is to be taken from it it is that there seems to always have been a need for some kind of afterlife/answers regarding it. And Plato's ideas or only a 'refinement' (?) of older ideas and - in hindsight - another way towards monotheism. Which to me makes Plato a start and end of a road since we haven't moved far from these particular philosophies.
Cebes; "I agree, Socrates, in the greater part of what you say. But in what releases the soul, men are apt to be incredulous; they fear that when she leaves the body her place may be nowhere, and that on the very day of death she may be destroyed and perish - immediately on her release from the body, issuing forth like smoke or air and vanishing into nothingness." P. 46
Socrates; "or if there were composition only, and no division of substances, then the chaos of Anaxagoras would come again. And in like manner, my dear Cebes, if all things which partook in life were to die, and after they were dead remained in the form of death of death, and did not come to life again all would at last die, and nothing would be alive - how could this be otherwise? For if the living spring from any others who are not dead, and they die, must not all things at last be swallowed up in death?" P49
Phaedrus
The second nail in the coffin. Another text that made me start to lose patience and respect for Plato. Just cursory readings earlier made me suspect that this ST Coleridge quote was accurate;
''Every man is born an Aristotelian or a Platonist. I do not think it possible that anyone born an Aristotelian can become a Platonist; and I am sure that no born Platonist can ever change into an Aristotelian. They are two classes of man, beside which it is next to impossible to conceive a third. "
I've always felt during my readings that I'm more of an Aristotelian but never been sure, until now. In consequence I more or less skimmed both Phaedrus and The Symposium in order to save my strength and patience for The Republic. I needn't have... Much like the rest of Plato's work it simply wasn't for me from his philosophy, his continued use of Socrates to the over confidence he has in men of his own kind (i.e philosophers)
I would include a quote but the ones that stood out to me were pretty late in the game and might be better read in context. I don't regret reading Plato's dialogues but I did not enjoy the journey and I will not be repeating it.
In my mind only enjoyable read in terms of a philosophical piece of art rather than a source of any kind of historicity. Why? Firstly because of my own bias against second hand accounts, really what the text accomplishes for me is a yearning to read what Socrates would have written of the event had the pen been in his hand. Secondly because I struggle with anything where authenticity relies more on plausibility rather than certainty. Plato may have been quoting Socrates verbatim, or he may not have been, we will never know and the veritable ocean of time that separates us from the events in question will always cast a doubt on not only the text but the motives of the author himself. Plato certainly seem dedicated to his old teacher, but he is also of a different character, as his own evolving philosophy shows. The question of who was Socrates and what was the wording of his apologia cannot be answered but merely suggested at in this book. But more important than any of this - the words put into Socrates mouth are thought provoking and opens a door to the philosophy and mindset of a much distant past and is therefor a valuable treatise and well deserving of the fame if has claimed for centuries.
Crito
"Tell us Socrates, they say; "what are you about? Are you going by an act of yours to overturn us- the laws and the whole state, as far as in you lies?
Do you imagine a state can subsist and not be overthrown, in which the decisions of law have no power, but are set aside and overthrown by individuals."
Soc: "But why, my dear Crito, should we care about the opinion of the many? Good men, and they are the only persons who are worth considering,will think of these things truly as they happened."
some things we can still learn from Socrates/Plato
Phaedo
A later work and to me it shows. Mostly it's rambling and nonsense about the soul in my opinion and I really had to struggle with this text. Felt like a pre-Christian practice in vagueness oration and dogma introduction. If anything useful is to be taken from it it is that there seems to always have been a need for some kind of afterlife/answers regarding it. And Plato's ideas or only a 'refinement' (?) of older ideas and - in hindsight - another way towards monotheism. Which to me makes Plato a start and end of a road since we haven't moved far from these particular philosophies.
Cebes; "I agree, Socrates, in the greater part of what you say. But in what releases the soul, men are apt to be incredulous; they fear that when she leaves the body her place may be nowhere, and that on the very day of death she may be destroyed and perish - immediately on her release from the body, issuing forth like smoke or air and vanishing into nothingness." P. 46
Socrates; "or if there were composition only, and no division of substances, then the chaos of Anaxagoras would come again. And in like manner, my dear Cebes, if all things which partook in life were to die, and after they were dead remained in the form of death of death, and did not come to life again all would at last die, and nothing would be alive - how could this be otherwise? For if the living spring from any others who are not dead, and they die, must not all things at last be swallowed up in death?" P49
Phaedrus
The second nail in the coffin. Another text that made me start to lose patience and respect for Plato. Just cursory readings earlier made me suspect that this ST Coleridge quote was accurate;
''Every man is born an Aristotelian or a Platonist. I do not think it possible that anyone born an Aristotelian can become a Platonist; and I am sure that no born Platonist can ever change into an Aristotelian. They are two classes of man, beside which it is next to impossible to conceive a third. "
I've always felt during my readings that I'm more of an Aristotelian but never been sure, until now. In consequence I more or less skimmed both Phaedrus and The Symposium in order to save my strength and patience for The Republic. I needn't have... Much like the rest of Plato's work it simply wasn't for me from his philosophy, his continued use of Socrates to the over confidence he has in men of his own kind (i.e philosophers)
I would include a quote but the ones that stood out to me were pretty late in the game and might be better read in context. I don't regret reading Plato's dialogues but I did not enjoy the journey and I will not be repeating it.
February 26, 2024
I had a hankering for a philosophy book and decided to go with Plato based on a reference to Plato in Russell's "The History of Western Philosophy" as the most influential of ancient Greek philosophers.
I thought this would be a series of short dialogues but the last one, "The Republic", is a lengthy monster.
During the end of the first day of reading this book I have to acknowledge that I had a rough time. I'm used to novels, plays, non-fiction works, and a philosophy book, compared to these others, does not have that much "feel good" elements. The book is attempting to instruct rather than entertain. The next day, I felt it's impact on my mind. It's like my mind got exercised; which felt quite good.
One way to think about philosophy books is that they're like high-fiber, high-nutrition, bland food. You're munching this thing and it's not very enjoyable but it's good for you.
That said, I really had a rough time reading "Plato: Six Great Dialogues". I finished this book by an effort of will. Since I'm not having an easy time so the question would be: Why did I not DNF the book? Because it does not deserve to be DNFed. This is a tough book but it's a worthy one; and I felt that while reading it. This book is worth finishing.
One of the benefits of this book is that it invites you into the mind and thinking process of Plato. You are thinking with Plato in portions of this book. Say what you will of Plato but he is a first-rate, top-tier thinker. He is an analytical juggernaut. And experiencing his thought process, I can only hope, should improve my own.
Another wonderful quality of these dialogues is that the topics they tackle are the topics. The immortality of the soul, life after death, the nature of justice, love, happiness. These topics are related to questions that, I would hazard to assume, we have asked ourselves at one point in time, played around with or discussed about, and then set aside. I don't have the mental horsepower to tackle these questions and make significant headway but Plato does and its a wonderful experience to tag along while he takes on these "giant" topics.
Find books that you might love in my book review site
I thought this would be a series of short dialogues but the last one, "The Republic", is a lengthy monster.
During the end of the first day of reading this book I have to acknowledge that I had a rough time. I'm used to novels, plays, non-fiction works, and a philosophy book, compared to these others, does not have that much "feel good" elements. The book is attempting to instruct rather than entertain. The next day, I felt it's impact on my mind. It's like my mind got exercised; which felt quite good.
One way to think about philosophy books is that they're like high-fiber, high-nutrition, bland food. You're munching this thing and it's not very enjoyable but it's good for you.
That said, I really had a rough time reading "Plato: Six Great Dialogues". I finished this book by an effort of will. Since I'm not having an easy time so the question would be: Why did I not DNF the book? Because it does not deserve to be DNFed. This is a tough book but it's a worthy one; and I felt that while reading it. This book is worth finishing.
One of the benefits of this book is that it invites you into the mind and thinking process of Plato. You are thinking with Plato in portions of this book. Say what you will of Plato but he is a first-rate, top-tier thinker. He is an analytical juggernaut. And experiencing his thought process, I can only hope, should improve my own.
Another wonderful quality of these dialogues is that the topics they tackle are the topics. The immortality of the soul, life after death, the nature of justice, love, happiness. These topics are related to questions that, I would hazard to assume, we have asked ourselves at one point in time, played around with or discussed about, and then set aside. I don't have the mental horsepower to tackle these questions and make significant headway but Plato does and its a wonderful experience to tag along while he takes on these "giant" topics.
Find books that you might love in my book review site
August 22, 2015
At first I did not know what to make of Socrates. He talks quite a bit about his own humility. It reminded me of a passage in the book of Numbers in the Bible, "(Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth.)" It is my understanding that Moses wrote the book of numbers. Were these guys proud of their humility? It is not the conclusion I've come to. Other statements of Socrates come across as arrogant but I do not think this is the case. I think the statements are matter of fact; they are not said out of pride nor out of trying to appear humble. I've run across this quite a bit in reading the writings of the Ancients. I think the difficulty lies in both my modern perception of humility and the way the meaning of words have (unfortunately) changed over time.
I gave the book five stars because it was a pleasure to read.
I gave the book five stars because it was a pleasure to read.
January 21, 2016
This is a great collection to get an overall view of Plato's writings (Socrates's philosophies). I really enjoyed the first two, Apology and Crito, and the rest give a good sense of Socrates's argument style, and include what some people consider to be the most beautiful work of prose ever written. Although I don't totally agree with that statement, I feel this is a staple work of literature which ought to be explored. I started to lose the feelings of wonder I got from the first two books as I read the rest, feeling a little let down by Socrates, wondering if I could trust him to be so unlike the sophists he attacks, but I feel I know now what he was about. And I will pick and choose which of his philosophies I agree with.
July 4, 2014
Picked up for 8 euro making it a great value. There is a little introduction, but besides that it is just text, with occasional notes. Plato isn't the easiest to read, but if you are unsure whether you will like his stuff I highly recommend this book. In comparison, Pelican's published version of only Plato's Republic will run you about 10-13 euros. So grab a copy of this one instead.
November 11, 2019
Foundational, thought-provoking dialogues that concern the nature of the Beauty and the Good, the immortality of the soul, recollection, the idea of Forms the path to wisdom, a model for how society ought to be organized, what constitutes a life well lived.
October 3, 2010
Haven't read this since my college Philosophy days. Still interesting, but a bit tedious at some points.
March 15, 2013
A useful source for students of philosophy and politics.
January 1, 2013
Found this a little hard to read but stick with it as its really interesting!
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews