Plato often surprised me by his humor and ability to be dramatic. He is concerned with how to argue and dramatizes the very human emotions that occur in arguments. I would love to see some of his dialogues--especially the Symposium--turned into movies or plays.

Regarding this edition of the Plato's works: the introductory notes and occasional footnotes were helpful, but I often went to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or other editions of certain dialogues that I own (like Bloom's translation of the Republic) for help in understanding certain ideas or passages.

Incredible book, changed the way I thought of things and I would stop and think for ages every couple of pages. A book u can read over and over and keep learning from

A guide to thinking deeply, a thing we do far too infrequently.

Amazing.

This is the authoritative translation of Plato's works. It is also very readable.

Amazin!

Crackin' read.

If you're looking to read Plato in English then this is the book for you. It is the only edition to include everything passed down under his name from antiquity: the entire canon of Thrasyllus, one or two other pieces like Definitions and the epigrams from the Greek Anthology. All other editions make editorial decisions about what is and is not by Plato. Obviously, not everything in here is by Plato. In some cases we know the names of the people who actually wrote certain works, but in the case of something like Clitophon I see no reason why it couldn't be a genuine work. Either way, the spurious pieces give you a wider idea of the philosophy of the Greeks. Some are very good. Others, if nothing else, make clear just how difficult the dialogue form was and just how good Plato was with it.

If I have one quibble it's that not all the translations are as good as they could be. Not that they appear inaccurate, but take the translation of Republic. Some twenty-odd years ago I read Robin Waterfield's translation. It was that book that got me into Plato, philosophy and Greek literature in general. There's a zing and pzazz to the writing that all the best translations share and which must be there in Plato's Greek. The offering in this volume is a plodding affair. If that had been my introduction to Plato I think I would have been put off for life. Also, the tone in some of the other translations is just a little bit off. But most of the translations are fine and some are very good.

It's also a well made book, printed on beautiful paper. I spilt Ribena on my copy.

Reading it whole was a bad idea, I started skipping parts when I reached Laws, but it was a very enjoyable read and exactly what I was looking for to get me going into philosophy. It's very interesting to see how dependent our reasoning is on the modalities we notice around us: in Plato's dialogues, Socrates thinks in terms of mixing Forms, properties of elemental parts carry over to their composite almost without change, the way he constructs the various Form structures, and so on.

The conversation in between Socrates and other intellectuals is fantastic, I would like to join them. Sometimes I will type some comment to some conversation describe my point of view toward the philosophy. There's a lot of way of life to talk about. Socrates really love the young handsome men to gratify him.

Student to Plato, Welfare.
(A pseudo-scholar's review)
Whew! I have just finished reading your complete works, great Athenian. Your wisdom and prescience reaches us across the ages; it's been twenty-four hundred years since you walked the Earth. This volume contains your opera omnia, plus works ambiguously authored by you (presumably from your students and followers) and they are sometimes impressive on their own as a reflection of your influence. If you could see across time, you'd see the works of so many great "Western" (as this thought and culture came to be known) philosophers, as they are recognized as brilliant, who are merely elaborating on your theses.
Being that your work is invariably an investigation of behavior and culture, and seeks to find the truth in matters of consequence through a vigorous questioning into the roots of human nature, it follows a logical path. Any wise and virtuous man would go about this business the same way, whether he lived in your day, or before, or after you.
Were you the first to scientifically approach an investigation of the nature of justice and virtue, or simply a messenger (the first to write this process for posterity to see)? Why did you invariably represent yourself as Socrates? It seems your intention was to credit the great wise man who left no written record of his own, and who clearly had tremendous influence on you. I can tell you that many have seen things the way you and Socrates did.
Starting with your most brilliant student Aristotle, many Greek students of your Academy would carry on your work. (In encomium a brilliant painter named Rafael in the 15th century would paint a depiction of you and Aristotle walking through your Academy--one of his finest works.) "Aristotle and the Stoics both made use of fourth century [B.C.] Academic ideas in working out their own philosophical positions." (Hutchinson, p. 1677)
Later, the Romans literally hijacked the entirety of Greek philosophy and culture and professed it their own, though one them, Cicero, credits you somewhat properly. (Another man, quite a few centuries aft Cicero, who is rightly considered the greatest linguist--or sophist, as you might have called him--named Shakespeare, mocks the Greeks reproachfully in his least-inspired play "Troilus and Cressida", and seems to have bought full into a concept of Roman glory due to pseudo-ownership of the Platonic and Greek philosophy.)
However, many centuries after your time--the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries in fact--men named Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton will advance theories that you began about 2,000 years before they were born. A great German philosopher named Kant will elaborate with brilliant concision on your logical framework. In the late 15th century a man named Leonardo DaVinci shared and pursued your interest in a scientific inquiry of animals and humans alike to find out what makes us all tick.
On rare occasions, though, you were off the mark. Your (and when I say "your" I mean the entirety of Greek culture) idea of man's superiority over women was ill-conceived, and I dare say you'd receive quite a rebuke for that these days, and not undeservedly so. For all your insight into virtue you should have seen that every person in this world deserves a fair chance and should be judged by their merit. And speaking of fairness, your institution of slavery was repulsive, and quite out of order with your symmetry of justice. I'm sure you'd see it this way today, as we are all not without faults, and to some extent or another, products of our environment. A wise man realizes when he's made a mistake, and a virtuous man admits his mistakes. You were certainly both, sir.
In Theaetetus the question is put: how can we be sure we truly know anything? (This is a most prescient work and is among many of yours which advance the scientific theory.) This particular work examines what would eventually be epistemology. It's an exercise in logic, a fascinating exploration of our perceptions, and a discipline in reasoning.
In Parmenides it took extreme patience to get through many of the passages. What seems like (excruciating) semantics is really critical, analytical thinking. "You must work hard even to find out what the author of a Platonic dialogue is saying to the reader" says John Cooper in his introductory essay. I found it often like test-proofing mathematical equations. (Selling it big time, aren't I?? Well, it's not for everyone.) Someone would say in the 19th century "It is the essential mark of the true philosopher to rest satisfied with no imperfect light, as long as the impossibility of attaining a fuller knowledge has not been demonstrated."
I could go on and on, as I took copious notes, but "Proclus says, 'Let this then be the start of philosophy and of the teaching of Plato, viz., the knowledge of ourselves.'" (557)
Question everything.

I've always been the unabridged-type guy. Plato has given me a new appreciation for the "best of" albums and anthologies. Understanding how early in the history of civilization he was working, and cutting him slack for the word games and sophistry, it still was an unsatisfying read. Many times, I wanted to argue with him myself. E.g. We cannot discuss things we do not know. We do not know the future. Therefore having a discussion about the future is not possible.

Read:
Euthyphro
Apology
Crito
Phaedo