I decided to order, "The Republic" and "The 5 Dialogues" I was just wondering if anyone can give me an opinion on these, and possibly recommend me some more philosophical books? Thanks. :)
Printable View
I decided to order, "The Republic" and "The 5 Dialogues" I was just wondering if anyone can give me an opinion on these, and possibly recommend me some more philosophical books? Thanks. :)
I am unsure of which the "Five Dialogues" consist, but one of the more common ways to approach Plato is to first read his "Sokratic" dialogues, since Plato's mature philosophy (beginning with the Republic) is profoundly influenced by Sokrates, even it seemingly takes its own direction as Plato begins to think on his own.
The Phaedo, Protagoras, Theaetetus, and Critias seem to be those most cited by Plato scholars; I am not sure, outside of that circle, whether these can be read with much profit.
If you are not acquainted with philosophy, Burnett or Copelston are useful secondary sources that provide an explication of Platonic philosophy.
Cheers,
John
I didn't like the Republic, though it did have some interesting parts. The sections about "the Forms" were a difficulty. Actually, I began to agree with what Socrates' detractors were saying.
I started with the Republic and enjoyed it - especially books I, II, III, VII and X.
If the "Five Dialogues" contain the Trail and Death of Socrates ("Apology", "Crito" "Phaedo") that would be a good place to start too.
"The sections about "the Forms" were a difficulty. Actually, I began to agree with what Socrates' detractors were saying."
Even the great pupil of Plato, Aristotle, had difficulties with the theory of Forms and Participation (Metaphysics, 990b et. seq.). Yet many of the presuppositions the theory entails have been important in the history of thinking.
Plato, like Aquinas, always made the best case possible for Other's thinking and arguments, and interestingly enough, many of the "Sokratic" dialogues end with no actual decision about the problem at hand and with the confusion still there, but with a greater understanding about the definitions and arguments being advocated.
Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Meno, Phaedo these are the 5 that are in the book I ordered. Also what other philosopher's would you guys recommend me?
Do you want to limit yourself to Greek philosophers,or are you interested in philosophy in general?
Anyway,as for Ancient philosophy,I suggest some texts by Sextus Empiricus and Titus Lucretius Carus,I found them to be very interesting. Obviously,Aristotle is mandatory if you find Plato interesting...
I would certainly read, to confine myself to the Greeks and Romans:
Epictetus: Enchiridion
Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics
Cicero: On Friendship (or) On Duties
Marcus Aurelius: Meditations
Awesome thanks for the awesome recommendations. Now, what are some good websites to order books from? :)
Well, if you want to save money, most of the Greek and Roman philosophers' works are reproduced on the web; although the translations are somewhat dated, they can certainly serve your purpose.
http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cache/p...man.html#text1
I myself prefer buying books from a bookstore, or even better, spending an afternoon rummaging around a used bookstore.
Yeah I bought the Plato books from www.half.com and I think that's where I will go through, either them or www.amazon.com or www.bn.com .
You might want to get the works in the Loeb Classical Library, which contains the critical edition of the work in the original on one side of the page and a scholarly translation on the facing page. These are often less expensive than many of the paperback translations.
Naturally, translations differ in quality, and with philosophical works even more so; I would suggest reading what reviews are available on line before deciding on which translation to purchase.Even though my own field is modern continental philosophy, I would certainly volunteer to offer my opinion on the selection, or at least check for reviews in scholarly journals for you.
[Comment: it would seem that translations made by people with philosophical credentials would be preferable, but often and understandably so they are fashioned to conform to one interpretation of the philosopher.I believe it was Whitehead who wrote that no philosopher really understands another.]
I would suggest Emerson. Emerson actually wrote an essay on Plato. It's very indulgent.
I didn't really enjoy "The Republic", although perhaps that was more because of the fact that I had to study it in a philosophy class rather than read it at my leisure. It was worth reading, though. J.S. Mill is another good one, I think. xx
Yes,Mill is good,especially if you're interested in logic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loike
Mill is somewhat neglected in philosophical circles, as is utilitarianism (his essay by that name remains the definitive "short" explanation), but no one should call his education complete without having read Mill's "On Liberty."
Mill to me seems to have more in common with Smith than with Bentham. Perhaps utilitarian is a good way to describe him, but he seems one of the central for runners of libertarianism.Quote:
Originally Posted by jgweed
His defence of complete freedom of ideas and speech, his mistrust of majority rule with its real potential for destroying minority (even of one) rights, are certainly in harmony with libertarian principles, but they also express ideas found in classical liberalism, which might find greater resonance with the ideas expressed in Utilitarianism.
One might find it difficult, at least in today's world, to reconcile Mill's urgent defence of the individual on the one hand, with any sort of realistic implementation of the utilitarian "greatest happiness for the greatest number" principle on the other. Both essays make strong cases for considering Mill's perspectives, and both are, I think, relevant to modern political discussions.
Translation is very important. Plato used a lot of technical Greek philosophical terms that have no exact equivalents in English. For example, The Republic is usually said to be about "justice", but the actual Greek word that is used (which I forget at the moment) is probably better translated by "righteousness."
This is not just a pedantic point, because many of the dialogues, especially the early ones (sometimes called the Socratic dialogues) revolve around a discussion of the best definition of a particular term, like "courage", etc.
For The Republic, I actually like Alan Bloom's edition, although I suppose it's controversial. But at least he makes an attempt at a literal translation. Avoid Cornford at all costs.
While translating Greek into English always presents a problem, in the case of the "Sokratic" dialogues, the reader is helped by the various definitions of the term proposed, and Sokrates' questioning of them.
These dialogues generally end in aporia; no final definition is reached, although many are rejected as inappropriate. At least in these early dialogues, it may very well be that Plato was more interested in showing examples of the Sokratic method than in providing philosophically satisfactory definitions of such words as "justice" or "courage."
As late as Symposium, where Sokrates narrates Diotima's words and tells his audience that he is persuaded of their truth (212b), his speech is interrupted by revelers at the door, the dialogue digresses into some personal stories about Sokrates, and ends with him discussing tragedy and comedy as the sun came up with a few who were barely awake or sober.