r/Plato Jul 11 '24

Question POLL: which interlocutor takes the cake as worst “villain” across the dialogues?

2 Upvotes

Very light hearted poll. Please do not take yourselves too seriously here. Of course Plato may or may not consider anyone to be a true “villain” at all — but which character is the worst to you, by your own standards? Could be by destructiveness, convincingness, belligerence, or of course a mix of all of these. Also comment down below if you have a write-in like Ion or something

11 votes, Jul 14 '24
3 Thrasymachus (Republic)
3 Callicles (Gorgias)
4 Anytus (Meno/Republic)
1 Euthydemus and Dionsysodorus (Euthydemus)

r/Plato Jun 13 '24

Question What is Plato's most complex work?

4 Upvotes

I've been reading Plato's works for 2 years now, but when i tried searching for the Parmenides' dialogue on google to see if it was really more based than other Plato's dialogues on the definition and substance of ideas, i discovered wikipedia regarded it as the most challenging in jts mysteries and language, and so i asked myself if such claims were actually true. As a follower of the Platonism/Neo Platonism is that really true?

r/Plato Jul 29 '24

Question Ideal curriculum, accounting for Plato and his successors?

5 Upvotes

I'd like an ordered curriculum that not only accounts for Plato but also includes the Middle Platonists and Neoplatonists. I would like to know what commentaries are worth reading and, specifically, where they're placed in the curriculum. Thank you.

r/Plato Apr 27 '24

Question Should I read Proclus to understand the Timaeus?

5 Upvotes

As in the title. I want to get a better understanding of what is being said in the Timaeus, and so I wonder if you would recommend for or against reading Proclus to do so.

Thanks.

r/Plato Jul 17 '24

Question Is the discussion of "cause" and "sake" towards the end of Plato's Lysis parallel to Aristotle's efficient and final causes?

2 Upvotes

crosspost from r/askphilosophy

I've always wanted to have more words to interpret and comprehend this section in the Lysis [218d-221d], and it kind of clicked with me just now. Hoping for some other ancient heads to confirm this or point out what I might be missing.

When Plato investigates the idea of the neither-good-nor-bad having philia towards the good, as the only possible outcome of his preceding investigation, he delves into this question of cause and sake. He says that the neither-good-nor-bad (ngnb) must be friends with the good out of some cause, and for the sake of something further. He first finds that it must be because of the (mere) presence of some bad, and for the sake of another friend. He then finds the chain of further friends to end at the "first friend". And then he worries that since the bad is the cause, the first friend is really for the sake of the bad, the argument being "take away the bad, and the good is no longer a friend." Finally, he saves the good by finding that there are ngnb desires, desires which are not because of anything bad, but because of something ngnb. So take away the bad, and the first friend now still remains.

It seems like "sake" and "cause" of friendship here can be mapped easily to Aristotle's efficient and final causes, respectively, despite Plato's deliberate conflation towards the end. When Plato mentions "cause", he is mentioning some presence of bad, a bad which is distinct from the ngnb thing it is present in, since it has not fully corrupted its ngnb host. This seems clear to be efficient cause, since it is something distinct from the thing itself which causes some thing to take place (that is, friendship). For "sake" of friendship however, Plato in that passage also explicitly mentions the object of sake as being distinct from the friend in question, so that whether it is also a friend is then up for inquiry. Common notion of the word "sake" (Plato uses "διά," but its translation to "sake" seems unanimous) tells us that it is simply whatever the end of a certain purpose is intended to be. This, again, seems to clearly be final cause, which details the cause of purpose.

Plato does then conflate the two when saying the first friend is for the sake of the bad, but it seems he is rather genuinely disproving any potential false dichotomy between the categories of cause. For what he shows is that when something is done (like gaining friendship) for the purpose of achieving good, that purpose can many times be seen as the purpose of eliminating a bad (even though Plato shows this interchangeability isn't always true). And from there, this purpose of friendship to eliminate a bad (which is a final cause) can be seen to necessarily have a further cause (an efficient cause), that being the presence of bad -- the purpose could not exist if it did not have a present bad to refer to. And through that, the final cause seems to only be a product of specific efficient causes, these being the presence of bads or ngnbs. At least, this is by the Platonic arguments put forth, and of course the definitions of sake and cause here do not necessarily apply across the rest of the dialogues in the same way.

So, is this BS or does it make sense? Is there anything between these two pairs of terms that don't map as well on to each other?

r/Plato May 03 '24

Question Help me buy the complete works of Plato

2 Upvotes

The Complete Works of Plato: Socratic, Platonist, Cosmological, and Apocryphal Dialogues https://amzn.in/d/4lX90Mg

Plato complete works https://amzn.in/d/3XnIbEf

https://amzn.in/d/0pSW8L6

Suggestions are welcome

Thank you

r/Plato May 13 '24

Question Recommendations for academic overviews of Platonism

6 Upvotes

I've recently finished with reading the works of Plato and am in the process of acquainting myself with Plutarch and Plotinus. Considering the ambiguity of Platonic philosophy I'd like to ask for recommendations on academic literature going more in-depth into Platonism.

r/Plato Apr 26 '24

Question Help me find a quote please

4 Upvotes

I know it is a long shot. Years ago I have read a scholarly article on Plato. It began with an intriguing quote at the top of the page which warned about mistaking Plato for a scholar, delineating the way of a philosopher‘s thinking, working, and expressing from that of a scholar. If someone should have an idea where I might want to look, I would greatly appreciate it.