What do you think?
Rate this book
Meno and Other Dialogues: Charmides, Laches, Lysis, Meno
A unique selection of four dialogues in which Plato considers virtue-- individual virtue as well as virtue as a whole-- and its definition. Charmides, Laches, and Lysis investigate the specific virtues of self-control, courage, and friendship. The later Meno discusses the concept of virtue as awhole, and whether it is something that can be taught.
Plato is a major figure in the history of Western philosophy, and these dialogues are an essential part of his work. Robin Waterfield is an acclaimed translator of Plato, Euripedes, Plutarch, and Aristotle. The introduction and notes explain the course of the four dialogues and analyze the philosophical importance of Socrates' questions and arguments, providing an invaluable aid to understanding for student and non-specialist alike.
About the For over 100 years Oxford World's Classics has made available the broadest spectrum of literature from around the globe. Each affordable volume reflects Oxford's commitment to scholarship, providing the most accurate text plus a wealth of other valuable features, including expert introductions by leading authorities, voluminous notes to clarify the text, up-to-date bibliographies for further study, and much more.
Plato is a major figure in the history of Western philosophy, and these dialogues are an essential part of his work. Robin Waterfield is an acclaimed translator of Plato, Euripedes, Plutarch, and Aristotle. The introduction and notes explain the course of the four dialogues and analyze the philosophical importance of Socrates' questions and arguments, providing an invaluable aid to understanding for student and non-specialist alike.
About the For over 100 years Oxford World's Classics has made available the broadest spectrum of literature from around the globe. Each affordable volume reflects Oxford's commitment to scholarship, providing the most accurate text plus a wealth of other valuable features, including expert introductions by leading authorities, voluminous notes to clarify the text, up-to-date bibliographies for further study, and much more.
190 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2005
26 people are currently reading
157 people want to read
About the author
Plato
5,138 books8,568 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 - 19 of 19 reviews
October 20, 2025
A big fan of this translation (knowing ~nothing of the original Greek), especially in its use of terms like "whatever" in places where it feels at once linguistically, dramatically and argumentatively cogent. I've never read Socratic dialogues before, and this collection was very instructive and enlightening—not necessary due to Socrates/Plato's impeccable logic, as the introduction and explanatory notes helpfully break down, but rather due to the very simple structure of repeated elenchus. I don't find the ideas discussed, mostly ideas surrounding the nature of "excellence" or its related qualities, to be particularly stimulating or relevant today. But, indeed, the very basic structure outlined in these dialogues feels satisfying and, especially when one takes the idea of "irony" serious, perhaps necessary.
It also should not be discounted how funny, well-written and otherwise interesting these dialogues are. As someone with a mere cursory familiarity with Ancient Greece, the conversational tone and setting constantly referred to things that feel both familiar, in their overwhelming influence in Western society, and deeply strange. From the repeated exclamations to Zeus, the Great King or the Dog, to the homo-normativity (or whatever you want to call this form of pederasty) contrasted with these ideas that have been echoed for thousands of years, it really does feel like I've been transported to a strange, familiar land.
It also should not be discounted how funny, well-written and otherwise interesting these dialogues are. As someone with a mere cursory familiarity with Ancient Greece, the conversational tone and setting constantly referred to things that feel both familiar, in their overwhelming influence in Western society, and deeply strange. From the repeated exclamations to Zeus, the Great King or the Dog, to the homo-normativity (or whatever you want to call this form of pederasty) contrasted with these ideas that have been echoed for thousands of years, it really does feel like I've been transported to a strange, familiar land.
June 3, 2013
I think I need to read more of Platos work to be able to fully digest this beauty ? or to be able to solidly build my opinion about his work, I don't really know but yeah, again, me and Philosophy, ha! I actually finished this book about a week and a half ago and just spent all this time to reread it in my mind, does this make any sense? anyways, I really like the edit of these dialogues, the introduction that made everything in the dialogues later make much more sense, although I don't see myself reading an "informative introduction" again in any other Philosophical dialogues or any of that sort cause I think that It just made it a lot easier for me to read and understand the dialogues and that is just the opposite of what I want to accomplish reading Plato or Aristotle or Kant or Marx, reading that introduction took away the element of surprise and imagination from my process of reading which made it a little boring for me and difficult to continue reading as I already knew the content of each dialogue. I was although able to interpret the dialogues alone.
OK more of the book and LESS of the reading process; the book contained four dialogues Charmides, Laches, and Lysis. Self-Control, courage, and friendship. Then Meno which was kinda the main dialogue which was mainly about the concept of virtue as a whole. I liked how the arguments were presented and that got me to thinking about those time of Plato and Socrates, they argued, debated in those dialogues and through stories,
how they argued and asked questions made the understanding process of their claims later more and more easy. Would really recommend this book for philosophy students, I think it's good for revising ? yeah an to those of you with a limited knowledge of philosophy......
OK more of the book and LESS of the reading process; the book contained four dialogues Charmides, Laches, and Lysis. Self-Control, courage, and friendship. Then Meno which was kinda the main dialogue which was mainly about the concept of virtue as a whole. I liked how the arguments were presented and that got me to thinking about those time of Plato and Socrates, they argued, debated in those dialogues and through stories,
how they argued and asked questions made the understanding process of their claims later more and more easy. Would really recommend this book for philosophy students, I think it's good for revising ? yeah an to those of you with a limited knowledge of philosophy......
November 19, 2024
As I've said elsewhere, I love Meno, especially in the Beresford translation. The earlier dialogues collected here however - Charmides, Laches, and Lysis - are...frustrating.
It's the equivocation that makes them so, with Lysis being the worst offender. Having only read them in the Waterford translation, I don't know if this problem is so starkly present elsewhere.
Still, to someone trying to get a more comprehensive sense of the Socratic or dialogic method of doing philosophy, they're worth one's time. At the very least, they suggest the value that Socrates placed on bafflement: there's benefit in simply knowing that we do not know. And this, this Socratic or Cartesian(!) doubt is an excellent place to start doing philosophy. These dialogues are helpful reminders of that.
It's the equivocation that makes them so, with Lysis being the worst offender. Having only read them in the Waterford translation, I don't know if this problem is so starkly present elsewhere.
Still, to someone trying to get a more comprehensive sense of the Socratic or dialogic method of doing philosophy, they're worth one's time. At the very least, they suggest the value that Socrates placed on bafflement: there's benefit in simply knowing that we do not know. And this, this Socratic or Cartesian(!) doubt is an excellent place to start doing philosophy. These dialogues are helpful reminders of that.
October 9, 2025
4 stars for 4 dialogues all of which Socrates is just a girl; thus 4 reviews.
Charmides: discussing self control Socrates encounters a massive fitty who acc turns out to not have a beautiful soul :(. what is self control? inconclusive
Laches: discussing how best to educate one’s son, discusses excellences like courage. also contains a valid crashout from nimicus when laches makes fun of him for not knowing the answer because stfu laches. what is courage? who should teach my son excellence? inconclusive
Lysis: discussing hippithalyus’ crush on lysis #GAGGED lysis is such a little perfect twink apparently and Socrates knows how to rizz little omegas so gives hippithalyus a lesson in being suave. in the end however, what is friendship? what is love? inconclusive
meno: the big one. discussing what is excellence, contains the classic slave boy geometry example which u actually think is insane that anyone would look at that and see anything but a confused kid just agreeing w Socrates. what is excellence? who will teach us? inconclusive BUT we DO know that it is unreachable, so at least we learned one thing :)
Charmides: discussing self control Socrates encounters a massive fitty who acc turns out to not have a beautiful soul :(. what is self control? inconclusive
Laches: discussing how best to educate one’s son, discusses excellences like courage. also contains a valid crashout from nimicus when laches makes fun of him for not knowing the answer because stfu laches. what is courage? who should teach my son excellence? inconclusive
Lysis: discussing hippithalyus’ crush on lysis #GAGGED lysis is such a little perfect twink apparently and Socrates knows how to rizz little omegas so gives hippithalyus a lesson in being suave. in the end however, what is friendship? what is love? inconclusive
meno: the big one. discussing what is excellence, contains the classic slave boy geometry example which u actually think is insane that anyone would look at that and see anything but a confused kid just agreeing w Socrates. what is excellence? who will teach us? inconclusive BUT we DO know that it is unreachable, so at least we learned one thing :)
March 19, 2025
Socrates: very nice
His friends: dumber than in other dialogues
His friends: dumber than in other dialogues
February 18, 2022
5 stars for the Waterfield translation and all the footnotes. Plato's logic is 3 stars but it is a fun read, especially the bantering between Socrates and whoever had the fortune and misfortune to be around. The "not teaching" the slave scene in Meno is classic.
June 4, 2023
This is my second reading of a Robin Waterfield’s translation. While I cannot fully critique the accuracy of his translation, I find some his bias that manifest in his additional comments to be tiresome. His continual dig at conservatism, as if it is inherently anti-intellectual borders on a pathology. I agave to chuckle at is selective application of the term “snobbery” in his comments. Clearly an opinion in the eye of the beholder.
What follows are my comments for each of these four dialogues.
Charmides
I found this work to be unfulfilling. I know that is partly the point of this and all of Plato’s early dialogues. The objective of Socrates is to show people that they don’t really know what they think they know. Still I was hoping this work on the virtue of self-control (temperance) should have provided a foundation for my interesting in studying the virtues. Sadly the dialogue was diverted into a discussion of knowledge of knowledge. From what I understand, I believe Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics is a better place to start.
For me the most significant aspect is that Socrates’ two interlocutors, Critias and Charmides became two of the hated Thirty Tyrants who briefly ruled over Athens following the Peloponesian War. To see Socrates take them down a notch, despite the familiarity and friendly relationships they had at the time is interesting considering Plato is writing this work at least a few years after the overthrow of the Thirty Tyrants.
Laches
I found Laches a much easier dialogue to follow than Charmides. It begins with the question of educating sons - specifically if they should train to be the heavy infantry of Greek military - the hoplites. It follows with interesting perspectives around training - all the more so as this book was written during the era of hoplite warfare. I was struck that such training was NOT a given considering Laches was a military general.
Knowing these dialogues always end I aporía - stuck without a conclusion - what I am finding the most interesting is how the characters react to this process. Laches is taken down by Socrates and openly admits defeat. He then proceeds to side with Socrates to ensure Nicias is also taken down, even if it means the conversation fails to define courage. Socrates of course succeeds in this effort.
Yet the argumentation is not as strong here. I believe the definition could have easily be come by if they considered not simply knowledge of threatening things, but how one acts with such knowledge. However, that is not the aim of Socrates. He is focused on the transcendent source of that which we call courage. The source cannot be contained by a definition of courage and thus a final definition remains elusive. These early works seem to be a prelude to Plato’s Theory of Forms that manifests in the middle and late dialogues.
Lysis
Lysis seems to be the opening of a trilogy of dialogues on love (Symposium and Phaedra’s being the other two). This work is focused on friendship (philia) or more accurately “attraction”. I found this work to be the most convincing evidence of Socrates corrupting the young.
The premise here is Socrates engaging in a debate around the nature of friendship to prepare Lysis, who is 12, to receive the affections of Hippothales. Now I know this was part of the ancient Athenian culture, but even considering this, it cheapens the whole dialogue. This is exacerbated by weak argumentation and word play resulting in a forced aporia.
One notion I salvaged out of this work is that the presence of the bad drives that which is neither good nor bad to the good. The opposite of this (something Socrates always likes to examine) is that without the bad there is no drive to the good. It is an interesting premise. If there was nothing bad in the world, would we need or even want friends?
Meno
Of the nine works of Plato I have read this far, Meno is my favorite. I admit this may be due in part that most of my previous readings have been Plato’s early dialogues which are notorious for ending in a state called aporia or ‘stuckness’. The dialogue ends in a dead end whereby no one knows what the right definition but do know at least a few wrong definitions.
What follows are some thoughts that came to me as I was reading:
Seeing Socrates give a geometry lesson to an uneducated slave was fascinating to read. It really drove the value of the Socratic Method - the elenchus. I think I need to put this into practice myself when tutoring my kids or leading a Bible study group. I clearly see the merits.
Is virtue (or excellence as described in Meno) teachable? In his comments the translator, Waterfield, implies that they are when considering the students aptitude and exposure to an “inherited conglomerate”. This comment made me smile as it is made firmly through the lens of a progressive college professor. In my own experience, I do believe moral virtue cannot truly be taught and that his arguments about fathers and sons ring true. The failure of sons to achieve the same moral standing as their fathers is so common as to practically be a law of nature. Plato describes Pericles and Thucydides. I would add King David from the Torah as another obvious example. In fact this is a proverb that I live by - do not heed the children of great men or women. Just as Socrates implies at 93e, virtue is not genetic.
The conclusion of Meno was a mind blowing moment for me. Whereas Waterfield was resistant to this argument - to the point of suggesting it almost destroys the entire work. For me, as a Christian, it articulated a passage of Scripture (Rom 13:1-5) that I have always struggled with. How do the authorities know how to govern? They clearly do it in a flawed manner. It is not a “science” of formulas with expected results. Rather it is an activity conducted in the conditions of the inspired working of God.
What follows are my comments for each of these four dialogues.
Charmides
I found this work to be unfulfilling. I know that is partly the point of this and all of Plato’s early dialogues. The objective of Socrates is to show people that they don’t really know what they think they know. Still I was hoping this work on the virtue of self-control (temperance) should have provided a foundation for my interesting in studying the virtues. Sadly the dialogue was diverted into a discussion of knowledge of knowledge. From what I understand, I believe Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics is a better place to start.
For me the most significant aspect is that Socrates’ two interlocutors, Critias and Charmides became two of the hated Thirty Tyrants who briefly ruled over Athens following the Peloponesian War. To see Socrates take them down a notch, despite the familiarity and friendly relationships they had at the time is interesting considering Plato is writing this work at least a few years after the overthrow of the Thirty Tyrants.
Laches
I found Laches a much easier dialogue to follow than Charmides. It begins with the question of educating sons - specifically if they should train to be the heavy infantry of Greek military - the hoplites. It follows with interesting perspectives around training - all the more so as this book was written during the era of hoplite warfare. I was struck that such training was NOT a given considering Laches was a military general.
Knowing these dialogues always end I aporía - stuck without a conclusion - what I am finding the most interesting is how the characters react to this process. Laches is taken down by Socrates and openly admits defeat. He then proceeds to side with Socrates to ensure Nicias is also taken down, even if it means the conversation fails to define courage. Socrates of course succeeds in this effort.
Yet the argumentation is not as strong here. I believe the definition could have easily be come by if they considered not simply knowledge of threatening things, but how one acts with such knowledge. However, that is not the aim of Socrates. He is focused on the transcendent source of that which we call courage. The source cannot be contained by a definition of courage and thus a final definition remains elusive. These early works seem to be a prelude to Plato’s Theory of Forms that manifests in the middle and late dialogues.
Lysis
Lysis seems to be the opening of a trilogy of dialogues on love (Symposium and Phaedra’s being the other two). This work is focused on friendship (philia) or more accurately “attraction”. I found this work to be the most convincing evidence of Socrates corrupting the young.
The premise here is Socrates engaging in a debate around the nature of friendship to prepare Lysis, who is 12, to receive the affections of Hippothales. Now I know this was part of the ancient Athenian culture, but even considering this, it cheapens the whole dialogue. This is exacerbated by weak argumentation and word play resulting in a forced aporia.
One notion I salvaged out of this work is that the presence of the bad drives that which is neither good nor bad to the good. The opposite of this (something Socrates always likes to examine) is that without the bad there is no drive to the good. It is an interesting premise. If there was nothing bad in the world, would we need or even want friends?
Meno
Of the nine works of Plato I have read this far, Meno is my favorite. I admit this may be due in part that most of my previous readings have been Plato’s early dialogues which are notorious for ending in a state called aporia or ‘stuckness’. The dialogue ends in a dead end whereby no one knows what the right definition but do know at least a few wrong definitions.
What follows are some thoughts that came to me as I was reading:
Seeing Socrates give a geometry lesson to an uneducated slave was fascinating to read. It really drove the value of the Socratic Method - the elenchus. I think I need to put this into practice myself when tutoring my kids or leading a Bible study group. I clearly see the merits.
Is virtue (or excellence as described in Meno) teachable? In his comments the translator, Waterfield, implies that they are when considering the students aptitude and exposure to an “inherited conglomerate”. This comment made me smile as it is made firmly through the lens of a progressive college professor. In my own experience, I do believe moral virtue cannot truly be taught and that his arguments about fathers and sons ring true. The failure of sons to achieve the same moral standing as their fathers is so common as to practically be a law of nature. Plato describes Pericles and Thucydides. I would add King David from the Torah as another obvious example. In fact this is a proverb that I live by - do not heed the children of great men or women. Just as Socrates implies at 93e, virtue is not genetic.
The conclusion of Meno was a mind blowing moment for me. Whereas Waterfield was resistant to this argument - to the point of suggesting it almost destroys the entire work. For me, as a Christian, it articulated a passage of Scripture (Rom 13:1-5) that I have always struggled with. How do the authorities know how to govern? They clearly do it in a flawed manner. It is not a “science” of formulas with expected results. Rather it is an activity conducted in the conditions of the inspired working of God.
December 2, 2018
Meno was lit
September 14, 2017
You've got to love Plato, he was an argumentative little sod!
July 11, 2018
Just a splash of some common core dialogues. Light commentary.
May 24, 2019
Interesting dialogues on Plato's virtue ethics, with the Charmides, Lysis, and Meno being the most interesting. Lots in there, despite the inconclusiveness of the earlier Socratic dialogues.
December 5, 2020
Read Meno and Laches
November 10, 2022
Great translation and footnotes.
April 18, 2024
Read Charmides and Meno. 18th april 2024. Decent reads. I think Socrates' theory of recollection is fascinating.
January 11, 2025
meno and protagoras are my favorite dialogues they're so funny
February 26, 2025
Had to read for class. Definitely not something I would choose on my own or seek out again, but it had interesting arguments.
March 25, 2025
A solid set of dialogues concerning varied topics
August 10, 2021
This book acts as a fantastic introduction to Socrates & Plato, notwithstanding philosophy in general, collecting some of the shorter and more digestible dialogues. Learning how to enquire using the Socratic method (elenchus) and using it as a tool in which to investigate relatable concepts; self-control, courage, friendship and virtue, respectively, is fascinating.
I think it is essential to recognise that although not a single dialogue concludes with any concrete answers (aporia), the texts prove that philosophy is just as much about the examination of ideas. An advantage to this (and one Plato may have intentionally meant to install) is that you can add further to the discussions with whomsoever is interested. However, finishing on a disadvantage, some of the word synonymity and ambiguity can get become confusing if you aren't unaware that they are being used interchangeably by the interlocutors.
I think it is essential to recognise that although not a single dialogue concludes with any concrete answers (aporia), the texts prove that philosophy is just as much about the examination of ideas. An advantage to this (and one Plato may have intentionally meant to install) is that you can add further to the discussions with whomsoever is interested. However, finishing on a disadvantage, some of the word synonymity and ambiguity can get become confusing if you aren't unaware that they are being used interchangeably by the interlocutors.
December 20, 2013
One of my favourite classics ever!
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews