What's the best order to read Plato?

find a topic that interests you

read a dialogue that covers it

kaboom

Start AT /POL/

Start with Marx

are you an intellectual?

1) my diary desu
2) his diary desu
3) her diary desu
4) their diary desu
5) back to my diary desu again

READ PLATO PLEBE

just get either of the two standard collected works and read it in the presented order

>Phaedo
>not Phaedrus

but seriously you gotta start with Apology before Crito and Phaedo. Read whatever you want after that, but be sure to hit Symposium at some point too.

Start with "Politea" and then you can stop, after you realize he's fucking fascist

The Republic, then read the Dialogues while re-reading the Republic through each of the separate dialogues. After this exercise you should have the Republic memorized.

What an idiot.

Play-toe

I read Republic first. Starting with Euthyphro and reading Apology, Crito, and Phaedo afterward would be a fine place to start as well.

There's no single best order, but the standard euthyphro>apology>crito>phaedo recommendation is a great starting point. After that things get derailed because (a) there is no definite agreement on the chronological ordering of the dialogues, (b) even the orders loosely suggested to be chronological mix a bunch of topics together, (c) the dialogues draw on each other, but not explicitly, and not "A" drawing on "B," but rather more like "A" drawing influence from varying parts of "B" "C" and "D." Republic, which is an obvious must-read if you're reading Plato, is full of this just because of its scope of subjects; Laws has the same difficulty (quality?) at another, late stage of Plato's thought.

There's a Plato reading chart floating around lit which suggests reading order by topic, but honestly I wouldn’t recommend it for a first time reader unless you’re planning on only reading certain topics in Plato, e.g., his metaphysics. Pic related is Copleston’s ordering of Plato’s works; it’s not definitive and I’m sure someone could argue that it’s out of date, but for your purposes as a beginner it’s not a huge deal. A decent plan would be to go by time period, but again that’s not 100% perfect, and doesn’t quite coincide with lit’s “euthyphro etc” starting recommendation.

There’s pretty much nothing wrong with reading Cooper’s complete Plato from beginning to end in the order he presents it. A few things might be a bit off (e.g., wouldn’t recommend Cratylus so early just because it’s a bit demoralizing to get through), but overall you’ll get a nice buildup to Republic, followed by some more advanced stuff before finishing in Laws and trailing off with Letters and spurious works.

Read some commentaries afterward to recap and smooth your overall conceptions of Plato's thought after you're done and you'll be fine. Cambridge companions to Plato and Plato's Republic are great; AE Taylor's "plato the man and his work" (recommended by Copleston in footnote of pic related) is excellent if not quite up to date; Copleston himself gives strong overviews of a few main Platonic ideas; continuum companion to Plato is probably the single most modern, useful tool for preparing yourself to better understand and further study Plato. If you only read one commentary, read that one.

>if you're not a le egalitarian liberal then you're fascist
>implying fascism is even terrible

please fuck off.

Start with Republic, then realize Plato was a sophist who got pwned by Thrasymachus, then stop reading Plato.

>plato got pwned by his own literary character

I know this is bait but come on man

>bait
The conversation probably happened irl. Then Plato probably couldn't sleep after he realized that all truth & justice boils down to "might makes right", as per Thrasymachus' brilliant observation. Hence the Republic: Plato's desperate attempt to sleep soundly again.

shoo shoo anglo reader

>Then Plato probably couldn't sleep after he realized that all truth & justice boils down to "might makes right", as per Thrasymachus' brilliant observation.

Except Plato beautifully BTFO'd such a claim afterwards.

>the conversation probably happened irl

Scholars have literally spent thousands of years trying to figure out how much "actually happened," but gee I'm glad you were here to clear that up for us. PS "might makes right" is addressed and countered not only immediately subsequent to Thrasymachus' claim of it, but literally throughout the entire Republic. You can disagree with that, i.e., the main premise of Republic, but it's ridiculous to suggest that Plato wrote knowing it was entirely wrong.

Thanks for contributing to the thread faggot

Please make sure to read other philosophy than Plato. he's important for a reason, but fuck man: he's not the end all be all.

>beautifully
agreed

>BTFO'd
i wish. i can't help but remember it takes but one bullet to the brain to silence somebody.

>but it's ridiculous to suggest that Plato wrote knowing it was entirely wrong.
my conclusion was that he was in agreement, but gave the ultimate might to the gods, in a convoluted way. It takes but one asteroid to obliterate earth.

>my conclusion was that he was in agreement, but gave the ultimate might to the gods, in a convoluted way. It takes but one asteroid to obliterate earth.

Where are you getting that from? And what bearing does that idea have on human justice and so human ethics, which are the concern of the text?

>human justice
Because it's a spook.

(Also, some busybody got involved in my business, and ended my career in my trade, with no repercussions. i.e. I'm bitter.)

Lmao I was just shitposting but let me clarify my point. A bit rambly so w/e.

My main gripe is with that image you posted. Modern scholars (typically anglos, hence my insult, for what reason I dont know) tend to interpret Plato developmentally. They claim that Plato wrote X dialogue in this time and Y dialogue in that time and the seeming change in doctrine implies that Plato changed his mind etc etc.

I think this is a horrible interpretative method due to both its laziness as well as its ignorance of the dramatic context. I'll elaborate as to why I think so.

Lets take the example of Plato's Republic and Laws. No reader of the two dialogues would deny that the things being said here are different. However, to say that they are different is one thing but to say that they are different due to development is another. The proper method to read Plato, I think, is by reading each dialogue as its own microcosm, being interpreted in its own terms. The Platonic vision of philosophy only becomes clear when a sort of macrocosm is achieved when after each dialogue is interpreted individually and then relations are found in between them. I'll elaborate on this later. So, one should read the Republic in its own terms, the Laws in its own terms, and comparisons are to be made. Developmental approaches don't do this. Developmental readings only come when first a strict chronology of dialogues is established and then older stuff are interpreted in light of the new. With the case of the Republic and Laws, it is typically held that the Laws was written later than the Republic. So, interpretation of the Laws then becomes an interpretation of the Laws with respect to the Republic full-stop. A very crucial step, I think, of interpreting a dialogue as its own microcosm is missing. Also, the dialogue between dialogues where Laws is read in light of the Republic and the Republic in light of the Laws is lacking. This is why I call it lazy. Calling for a development is simply blurring the whole Platonic vision of philosophy.

Another consequence of the developmental approach is an ignorance to the dramatic context. Only when you interpret a dialogue as its own does the drama become important. You pay attention to why Socrates (or someone like the Athenian Stranger) says X or Y to this specific character precisely because you have no other dialogue to fall back to. You then realize that what is said is context-specific, or that it is only saod because the interlocutor is in a certain way. For example, the question of piety only makes sense when asked to an impious man like Euthyphro. This is Platonic eros and writerliness in action. Once you pay attention to the drama you then see that what explicitly seems as a doctrine that is fixed in all dialogues is actually something very context-sensitive. Dramatic approaches do not do this as they only interpret dialogues in light of supposedly older ones and not as its own.

(cont.)

ty for this ^_^

(continuation of previous post)

Recall how I previously mentioned that this approach rests on a defined chronology of writing. It has been said that the chronology was established by stylometric analyses post-WW2, by analyzing the use of language in the dialogues (iirc it was computerized). There have been quite a number of peer-reviewed articles published that show the faults in this analysis. I wont get into it since its boring scholarly talk but just know that it isnt exactly as widely accepted as its once was. A quick study of the reception history of Plato would also lead one to realize his coherence. Heck, even you admit there to be no defined chronological order, albeit only the starting point. Now, if this assumption underlying Platonic developmentalism is undermined then this method is bunk.

Obviously Plato changed his mind, its a fact of human nature. But from what idea to what other idea I do not know and is really irrelevant since they would automatically be obscured with this approach. The interpretation of the dialogues themselves would show us that Socrates, or whoever, said certain things in certain contexts and must be interpreted in light of that context. Only the things said with similar contexts may then be used to determine the coherent philosophy of Plato. This is what I meant when speaking of the microcosm-macrocosm method of reading Plato and why differences are irrelevant since they make no positive contribution to the discovery of the system.

Honestly, my biggest gripe with this is that its such a modernist way of reading an ancient philosopher. This of course does not imply that Plato is forever trapped in his own history but his attempts to solve perennial philosophical problems can only be fully understand once we immerse ourselves in his historical place.

Just a final note that I do not claim any pretense to knowing Plato's exact philosophical vision. I am simply elaborating my method of reading derived from my study of other commentators.

Thanks for being the only redeaming post in this thread.
Sure feels reddit around these parts these days.

alphabetically

Plato should be read only subject to the following word order transformation:

Let n=word number in original. Then our new order is n'=n-1 for odd n>1 and n'=n+1 for even n. Let (1)'=2.

Cuz he's a big guy

I'm reading in the order suggested by this chart, is it good?

Read Parmenides and just Parmenides.

Get Oxford complete works and read it front to back with a nice big gallon of coffee or tea. Just plan for a weekend that you're going to read it and mark it on your calendar and just read that fucking thing front to back until your mind goes numb. Anyone that doesn't read front to back in one day is an idiot

Good posts. I'll keep the loose anthology structure in mind when I get to him.

it's pronounced play-ton

I dragged myself into reading The Republic only to find out how dated and useless it is, even Symposium just demonstrates how fucking gay the Greeks are. Bottomline if you want to read Plato go on sparknotes, cliff or stanford.edu to get a rundown.

Looks like it might be overkill with the presocratics, unless, that is, they in themselves are of a major interest to you.

Apology
Crito
The Republic
Meno
Statesman
Theaetetus
Phaedo
Symposium
Philebus
Gorgias
The Sophist
Timaues

I've found this website a while ago. What's your opinions on the order?

plato-dialogues.org/email/950404_1.htm

...

Well, obviously reading =/= understanding. If you really think The Republic is dated you didn't understand it at all.

His interpretative guidelines are pretty much solid and I agree with his general points. I think he gives Aristotle too much shit, though, but thats for another topic.

As for order, I really think that the Apology is the best introduction as *all* dialogues should be read in light of Socrates' trial and death. But after that, it really doesn't matter. Just read what interests you by checking wiki entries for the topics touched upon by the dialogues. Eventually you'll find some preferences and focus on getting an in-depth understanding on those.

His inclusion of the First Alcibiades aa the entry point is probably because most ancient commentators and teachers of Plato regarded it as the best entry point as it highlights further "themes" in future dialogues. Another good suggestion, too.

I would also advise that you read the Phaedrus somewhat early as it gives a very good account on how the Socratic method works, which is how Plato does philosophy.

Good luck on Plato, user. He's one of the wisest and literary of philosophers, so I'm sure you'll find something you like.

Could you guys recommend some good, easy enough 10-50 page writings on the 5 common entry dialogues (apology, euthyphro, crito, meno, phadeo)?

I'll co-sponsor this list. Add Critias to the last group though for context

just don't read Parmenides. It kills philosophy

wrong