Socratic Dialogues

Rank the Socratic Dialogues from best to worst.

Socrates is not real, he is a tulpa inside Plato's head.

>Rank the Socratic Dialogues from best to worst.
That's not possible.

/thread

I only read up to Republic. Ion is the dumbest.

I thought Phaedo was the best, though that's likely the plebeian opinion

I think that might be like ranking chapters in a book as opposed to ranking separate works, so it might not make any sense to attemp it

Parmenides is the best. For some reason I intensively dislike the Politikos.

There's a shitload of them lmao.

I will say that Euthyphro is underrated

They're all boring, pointless, outdated, useless dribble. When starting with the greeks, start with Aristotle. Everything before that is hot garbage.

>Socratic Dialogues

I will never understand analytic philosophers. Why don't you just become a mathematician if you're bright or a code monkey if you're not?

>I will never understand
I know.

Theætetus
Phædo
Euthydemus
Symposium
Phædrus
Gorgias
Republic
Sophist
Parmenides
Apology
Protagoras
Philebus
Laws
Euthyphro
Critias
Hippias minor
Meno
Crito
Statesman
Charmides
Laches
Lysis
Hippias major
Ion
Timæus
Cratylus

...

there is literally no need for Plato's dialogues anymore, there really hasn't since he 1200s

...

>anything I can't accept is bait
Is this what Socrates teaches you?

>mfw user is three baits deep and he still has not offered a sensible argument for his first claim
>>They're all boring, pointless, outdated, useless dribble.

>start with Aristotle he says
>everything before is garbage he says
>Aristotle started with Plato
Pottery

How's that relevant? Everyone started with someone else, does that mean we should start with whatever caveman first thought that maybe if throw rock at animal it die and I can eat? Precedence doesn't equal relevance, you tit.
>if I keep posting bait meems the mean man will go away
The "wisdom" offered in his dialogues has little to no support in real life, other than that which can be attained with mere intuition. His philosophy is shallow and was consistently proven inaccurate/irrelevant, much in the same way the discipline of thought that Freud kickstarted showed how fucking stupid his ideas were, or how Saussure was outdone by his successors to the point where defending his ideas nowadays is a sureway to be ridiculed amongst linguistic/semiotic circles.

All that was said was very fine and I think it would be difficult to select one of these things from the fine many. At that point, you're not asking for my opinion at all, are you? Not at all, because the question calls for answers from those familiar with all the works. Now, although I could not personally recall those fine things that were said, I say my voice should still be accounted for, and will be in fact, because now there is no other logical end, and so my voice says this:
That all the things that were said were very fine and it is difficult to calculate the value of these fine things as above one another, and yet in saying this I seem unwelcome given the scope of the question you asked, you fine man. Be fine, though, and entertain me as an audience to my idea, which I feel must be spoken for fear of the stairs, and hear it thus:
That all said is very fine and dissecting them for exact value is a very heavy task, an opinion unfitting for such an exact question by such an exact and fine man with whom I must share it regardless, and it is shared like so:

>t. greatest brainlet the world has ever known

The first thing you need to learn is to be silent.

Is there any good list or charts that shows what the central idea or theme of each dialogue is?

Cratylus and Timaeus are good, Timaeus especially.

>implying anyone has read most of Socrates dialogues

Have you?

10/10