Please select one of the options above. Poll will close in one week.
Printable View
Please select one of the options above. Poll will close in one week.
I chose the Analects, which is nice, since I have much of it memorized (in the original of course), and always like discussing it. The same could be said for the Laozi, which I have memorized in part also in Italian. The others are good books, but I am out of time with reading, given the number of papers I need to write in the next little while.
I chose the Apology because it is one of the most interesting of Plato's early dialogues. It centres on Socrates defence, where he is on trial for his life, for maligning the Gods, and corrupting the youth. So it has the elements of a scintillating thriller, as well as being of central & foundational importance to philosophy. I think the others are good recommendations, but would suggest the Apology might be the best to start with. After all, the word "philosophy" comes from the Greek word "philosophia", and Socrates is "revered as inaugurating the first great era of philosophy, and therefore ... philosophy itself." [Kenny] In reading "The Analects", say, you are faced with the question, "is this a work of philosophy?", so it might be better to read that second, after a work you are *sure* is philosophy (at least as sure as you can be...)
I chose Analects because, selfishly, it's the only one I haven't read. Just ordered an Everyman's hardcover, just in case! Plus I think it would be a superb benefit to glean JBI's knowledge in this area!
I set the poll to end one week after it was originally posted, by the way. So Saturday.
@JBI:
If Confucius wins, which translation would you recommend? This is what I have available from my local library.
1) The Analects of Confucius (Columbia UP) trans. Burton Watson
2) Confucius Analects, w/ selection of traditional commentary (Hackett Pub) trans. Edward Slingerland
3) The Definitive Confucius:a new translation of the Analects (Long River Press) trans. Wusun Lin.
4) The Wisdom of Confucius (The Modern Library) trans. Lin Yutang
Just to be Mr Pedantic, for the moment, it should really be "The Apology" by *Plato*. Socrates never wrote anything, so we need to rely on Plato to get close to Socrates' vision. Experts suggests that this dialogue probably gives the most authentic representation of Socrates, perhaps the closest we can get to his actual words, and it is Socrates actually making the "apology", so "by Socrates" may not be far wrong.
Drkshadow, if this thing goes to tie-break, you realize you voted for 3 of them and should retract a vote..
That seems fair, for setting this thing up I think you should have the casting vote anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Besides reading some of The Republic, the best exposure I've had to Socrates was a book of Xenophon's work, divided into recollections of Socrates, and a defense of him before the jury.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
I share your love of Socrates' wisdom; reading Xenophon's work was incredible. Socrates
was truly a brilliant person and fully self-realized human being. I had a somewhat confirmation of many of my beliefs as to how the world works, how to do good, and how to be happy. . . I found Socrates' teachings more similar to the Buddha's than anyone else.
Emerson in his lectures under the title "Representative Men," however, lists Plato but not Socrates, and I'm wondering if that's because he wrote his philosophy down, or if Emerson felt Plato was a better representation of the philosophy or a more evolved philosopher or for another reason.
I voted for Socrates as well.
The Collector's Library compilation On Socrates features our greatest access points into Socrates's life, from Plato, Aristophanes, and Xenophon.
http://www.amazon.com/Socrates-Colle...dp/1905716729/
My only complaint is with the production of these Collector's Library volumes. Quite small in form factor and cheaply bound. Still, a nice little compendium.
All of Plato fits into one volume. I think it's well worth getting one of these nice hardbacks:
Complete Works by Plato, trans. John M. Cooper, D. S. Hutchinson
The Collected Dialogues of Plato, trans. E. Hamilton, H. Cairns
I'm not sure that the Republic is the best dialogue for understanding Socrates. The experts indicate that Plato uses Socrates to push his own ideas, more than usual, in this dialogue. So the theory of Forms, and other metaphysical speculations, are more prominent. Not that I'm saying it's a bad piece of work, far from it, there are many great ideas in there and it's very readable. But the experts, from the little I've read, seem to think that "The Apology" is the closest Plato gets to portraying the real Socrates, but even there he pushes some of his own views*. I haven't read Aristophanes, so it would be great if those who have could chip in with comparisons between Aristophanes' account of the trial and Plato's. Some works I've read recently that have a lot to say about Socrates are:
Anthony Kenny: A New History of Western Philosophy
SOCRATES A Very Short Introduction by C. C. W. Taylor
Pursuits of Wisdom: Six Ways of Life in Ancient Philosophy from Socrates to Plotinus John M. Cooper
Be warned, Taylor & Cooper are difficult! Kenny is superb, and is now my favourite overview of Western Philosophy, is very good on Socrates, and might be all one needs as background and orientation for any major philosophical figure in the Western tradition. (The Oxford University Press Hardback ISBN-10: 0199589887 has superb production values, good binding, acid free paper, etc.)
* "Plato never claims to have been present at any conversation which he depicts. He does indicate that he was present at Socrates' trial, which I take to be the truth, but that did not justify taking the Apology as a transcript of Socrates' actual speech. It follows that what is narrated, for example, that Socrates argued for the immortality of the soul from the theories of Forms and of Recollection, is part of the dramatic fiction." Taylor [paraphrase] p.39
Well, it looks like The Apology won
Coincidentally, I'm finishing up Paul Johnson's biography on Socrates!
Not an author I'd trust in general, and especially not after reading this review:Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisvia
http://www.newrepublic.com/book/revi...s-paul-johnson
"Johnson’s effort to turn Socrates into a genial conservative who defers to all the familiar pieties runs into trouble when one looks closely at the actual Platonic dialogues, which Johnson spends almost none of his time examining. He writes as if Socrates had never asked the pressing questions of the Euthyphro: are actions good because they are pious, or pious because they are good? What if some good actions defy conventional piety, and some pieties are harmful? For Socrates the virtues are a problem, not the easy solution Johnson sees in them."
Halfway through this short book it did occur to me that Johnson constantly strayed from a focus on Socrates. There was a lot more focus on historical events and persons before and around the time of Socrates, and a very selective picking of our only access points into his life. In the end, the book focused solely on Socrates's moral absolutism and used that as an axis point for speculative biography.