Plato: Complete Works

It's Plato.

made me think too much! philosophy just spurs on more questions.

I've read up to The Republic, which I've already read. I'm not sure what's after that. High Point: Crito.

I don’t think I have ever had a more satisfying reading experience than this book of the complete works of Plato and some that aren’t but at one time were believed to have been written by Plato.

The introduction by the editor to each book are welcomed and gives the reader an indication of what is to come. The editor says, for example, Alcibiades almost certainly wasn’t written by Plato and the reader can tell because it has a clear overall message with a coherent resolution and that is not Plato’s way, but belongs in this collection just in case and besides works incredibly well as a follow up to Symposium and is just as edifying. A small trivia point, symposium in Greek means drinking party, so the next time you are forced to go to a symposium just remember that it’s not a real one since you don’t get to drink booze and pontificate, but, rather, you have to listen to others bloviate and if your lucky the most you can have is a cup of coffee and the satisfaction that us moderns are doing symposiums all wrong.

There’s a reason why I see a lot of people react negatively to perhaps the greatest book ever written or at least arguably the most influential, Plato’s Republic. In the absence of the context of what Plato was writing elsewhere before and even after he wrote Republic and his time period he was living in and what he is really all about Republic can seem weird and nonsensical and the novitiate can miss its importance and relevance to the human experience.

Like most people, I’ve read my Plato from time to time and I would do it in a scatter shot approach and read whatever of his that would cross my notice and therefore would not get the coherence that Plato requires. This book provides a much-needed cohesion to my previous Plato wanderings. I did not realize how important Homer was to Plato and I’ve started reading Hind’s graphic novel on The Iliad to plug up some of my holes on the true Gods, Greek history and its meaning and why Homer is worth understanding today.

Of all the books I have ever read the Complete Works of Plato would be on the top of my short list to take with me when I invent a time machine and go to the far distant future, because it is always satisfying and never really answers the unanswerable questions which drive us as humans (why am I here, what is true, what is deserving of my time, ….) while it always gives a road map for how one should answer those kind of nagging questions.

Plato will say within Laws ‘that all change except for evil is destructive’. That is a guiding principle within Plato. He also gets at that we are in a paradox and that irony is jealous of authenticity while showing Socrates as the true ironist (c.f. Kierkegaard), and he argues that we most of all need to cure ourselves of our own ignorance, or he asks whether or not if virtue can be taught; and he questions what is real from appearance, being verse becoming, what is justice, and about a hundred other such other worthwhile considerations.

At times, especially within Gorgias and Protagoras and a couple of other books, I felt like I was reading Nietzsche, and within other books such as Timaeus and Republic one gets Plotinus, the most important writer ever. Oh heck, I could go on, because the connections between later writers and what is within this book overwhelms who we are today. Just an odd note, the least satisfying of all the books to me was Laws, it went on and on and Plato was taking himself seriously and wanted to make the Republic less of a metaphor about justice and more about how a real republic should be formed while laying a foundation for a divine power that will later be reconciled with a Christian world (the soul comes before things and reason moves the universe of things). Overall, it’s easy to see how Christianity latches on to the complete works of Plato and makes the Pagan Plato one of their own.

I’ve been concurrently reading Livy’s History of Rome and the contrast between Plato and Livy is remarkable. On almost every other page Livy will speak about liberty (freedom) as the ultimate virtue for the Romans and Plato speaks about justice as the ultimate virtue for the Greeks, and Plato thinks that if we can just learn what justice is we can become virtuous all the while never quite realizing that if we can ask the question about something that it doesn’t really mean it necessarily exist (who won the Cubs game last night? maybe, perhaps, the Cubs just didn’t play last night!).

I would say that if you ever get the urge to read a modern-day self-help book, or a book on religion just do yourself a favor and read (or even better, reread) this book. You won’t regret it and you will learn something about who we and you are today. By the way, Plato is just a good writer and explains the world deductively. Aristotle is a bad writer and explains the world inductively. Regretfully, Aristotle with his bad writing is also worthwhile for today’s audience, and I will try to read his complete works soon.

It's practically a Bible.

NB I did NOT read this kindle book, but did read the Compete Works of Plato translated by Jowett, however, it was so long it was printed in more than one volume, this is the one I chose to use; in fact, I read more than 31 books, but not many more.

This rating is an average rating. There are several works that are 4 and 5 star works; make no mistake, Plato was extremely bright. But there is also a lot of drivel, and much of this is written like arguments with one of those people who just LOVE to argue and think that if they win an argument that makes the right (logic doesn't generally win arguments).

One of the interesting things about this, since it covers 40-50 years of Plato's life and thought process, is how he changes some of his views over time. However, some of his more inane ideas and reasoning manage to remain the same. An example of one of his major fallacies is the idea that children raised without parents by a group will raise superior citizens. Anyone with any understanding of how this works in real life (eg most orphanages) knows that this does not work. This goes far beyond "it takes a village to raise a child" into no parent should know which children are theirs, and no child knows who their parents are. This comes up in great detail in both The Republic and The Laws.

So, if you are interested in reading Plato, stick with his "greatest hits." One of the best ones is Crito, or a trilogy of three of his best is Apology/Crito/Phaedo. This isn't to say I agree with many of his premises or that there are zero fallacies in these, but they are quite brilliant despite problems (and this is ancient, archaic philosophy). My favourite is the Crito.

مفهوم سوفسطایی: تقلید نیرنگ بازانە ی مبتنی بر پندار ،یعنی قسمی از هنر ساختن تصویر های دروغین و فریبندە کە خود نوعی از هنر تصویر سازی خاص آدمیان -نە خاص خدایان -است و آن خود نیز نوعی از هنر ساختن است،کەاز راەسخن دیگران را بەگفتار متناقض مجبور می سازد

Having finally read this from cover to cover (with the exception of The Republic to which I went to Allan Bloom’s translation) one cannot help but feel some sense of achievement. The purist in me loves that the entire corpus of Plato’s works is easily accessible in one volume. But I wouldn’t recommend reading Plato: Complete Works as I have.

To read Plato, and actually digest Plato, is not an easy task. At times, I am not ashamed to admit that it’s a chore. Though the Complete Works contain short introductions to each piece, they are not thorough analyses. The footnotes are welcome but far too few and sparse to provide any significant aid to understanding context. Citing Plato as great is easy, but I question how many of us truly understand why. In contrast, when reading Bloom’s edition of The Republic it became painfully apparent how little I could appreciate Plato’s writing simply because I don’t have a full background of 5th and 4th century B.C. Athens. So much of what was written must be understood in context of the times and the people Plato is responding too. The arguments on their face are oftentimes specious in light of different values, science and presuppositions of modern times.

Each work and dialogue is probably worthy of, and has been subject of, an essay unto itself. It would be a mistake to try to make comprehensive summaries here. There is a reason that certain dialogues are more well known than others. For example, I think few readers would get much out of Cratylus which focuses on Greek etymology and whether the name of a thing reflects its intrinsic value. Etymology was a highly respected and philosophic study in ancient Greece; not so much today. There are some exceptional and foundational works that should be read if for no other reason than gaining familiarity with the core works referenced by others. My personal list would include Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Phaedrus, Gorgias, Protagoras and The Republic. I’d recommend Symposium simply as a good example of the need to read the works in context. I also plan on revisiting Parmenides when I can find a good interpretive essay to help explain it. It’s described as a challenging and enigmatic dialogue which is a vast understatement.

Some would include Laws as a necessary read as well. It seems to exist in the shadows of The Republic and I know some believe it’s an often missed gemstone. I’d disagree. I thought it tedious and lacking in any real engaging argument. Even Plato seems to abandon his dialectic form so that he can espouse his own legal code.

All in all, an excellent compilation to have on your bookshelf for reference or to impress people. However, if you are genuinely interested in understanding, I’d highly recommend buying select works individually with accompanying literature on the significance of each.