Cratylus is what I imagine to be the same discussion parents go through when naming their kid, but far, far less interesting and involving a few less uncles.

The etymology aspect can be interesting, and there's certainly insight to be gained from Hermogenes' and Socrates' discussion regarding who or what decides the value of a word and what it means.

Especially as the world gets bigger and languages continue to popup, whether or not an object has a true word or meaning can be an especially important topic.

It's a shame then that towards the end of the discussion it gets immediately less interesting and more repetitive/time-locked. The discussion of the meaning behind the god's names works well for maybe one or two as examples, but the entire pantheon is a bit much.

Hermogenes is teenage me about the meaning of words, Cratylus is like my parents about teenage me about the meaning of words, and Socrates splits hairs with and trolls both because he’s an asshole.

¿A qué tanto se anticipaba Platón que ya se interesaba por los juegos de palabras?

At times thought provoking. However, this read more like Socrates showing off his knowledge of etymology (knowledge of etymology was highly valued at this time) than that of a work of philosophy. The point of this investigation can be found when Socrates tells Cratylus "that's why every man must think a lot about the first principles of any thing and investigate them thoroughly to see whether or not it's correct to assume them." In other words, we should all think critically.

"Eros (erotic love) is so called because it flows in from outside, that is to say, the flow doesn't belong to the person who has it, but is introduced into him through his eyes. Because of this it was called 'esros' ('influx') in ancient times..." (137).

"[A] name is a vocal imitation of what it imitates, and that someone who imitates something with his voice names what he imitates" (140). "[A] name is a way of expressing a thing" (149).

Read this earlier this year, forgot to mark as read. This dialogue was quite entertaining — a discussion of the nature of names. I really like Plato.

I like wise Socrates,not intellectual Socrates.This book was a bit more informative than philosophical so I didn't like it that much but wasn't that bad.That's why I give it a 3/5,because I'm not into ontology and etymology but still like Socrates.

"Aliens!! [gave us certain words I can't understand the etymology of.]"

Jowett's introduction is probably a much better course on linguistics than Plato's dialogue is (though the substantial paraphrase of the dialogue contained in the introduction is a tad annoying), but there are some fun bits in what looks suspiciously like a simple form of mysticism more than linguistics. And I'm closer to getting to pat myself on my back for having read Plato.

Philosophy is like detective fiction. To accept the brilliance of detective reasoning, you have to ignore the multitude of plot holes or very weak connections that exist in every link of the reasoning. That's why I didn't like Knives Out and stopped watching popular movies, because the combination of coincidence and weird personality is so unlikely. I prefer realism.

This socratic dialogue is about the uselessness of the study of language and is thus advocating for the study of the things instead. A very long part is of the dialogue is about ancient greek words and the letters used in them.

Antik Yunanca yazılmış, isimler üzerine olan bu diyalogda geçen isimlerin dilimize çevrilmemiş halleri de dipnotlarda verilseymiş iyi olurmuş, birçoğu vardı ama bazıları eksikti.

Speculates on the linguistic origins of many Greek words. The last several pages are the best when it discusses the dream of Socrates about the good the true and the beautiful.