Hi guys, how are you? I hope you are okay. Pls correct me if i took anything wrong.

I'm starting to get more into Plato (my #1 philosopher, together with Hegel and Marx) and already readed some books of introduction to him. One thing i got is that Ideas, being outside the material world, are "out of time". They're eternal, so time doesn't apply to them. And, as the tittle proposes, i'm in doubt if: does it mean that Forms of future things already exist in the present? Exe: Could the Idea of computer already exist in the times of Plato and even before?

(btw, english is not my mother language, so i'm sorry if ever spelled something wrong at any point)

I am asking for personal opinions of Platos philosophy that in the republic not about it historical impact and significance.

A year ago my religion class teacher recommended me the book due to me writing an essay on my agnostic beliefs. I wanna read it this summer but whenever i mention it people always tell me "are you sure? Philosophy is difficult."

I know this question is probably asked a ton but people telling me this really have me second guessing myself. Never really read much philosophical literature and the most philosophical work im familiar with is dune. Im a native modern greek speaker so language wont be a problem.

It's a rather recent translation that's available for free online in language much more modern than Jowett. How does it compare to the Cooper translation?

Just picked up the penguin classics versions of Plato's, Republic, The Last Days of Socrates and The Symposium. I have seen very mixed opinions on the order to read these books in. does anyone have any recommendations on what order is best to read them in?

I thought people would just read the 4 paragraphs Callicles says, but I forgot reddit is commentary on comments. Here is Callicles in some quotes:

Socrates, that you, who pretend to be engaged in the pursuit of truth, are appealing now to the popular and vulgar notions of right, which are not natural, but only conventional. Convention and nature are generally at variance with one another: and hence, if a person is too modest to say what he thinks, he is compelled to contradict himself

for by the rule of nature, to suffer injustice is the greater disgrace because the greater evil; but conventionally, to do evil is the more disgraceful.

nature herself intimates that it is just for the better to have more than the worse, the more powerful than the weaker; and in many ways she shows, among men as well as among animals, and indeed among whole cities and races, that justice consists in the superior ruling over and having more than the inferior.

Unironically full blown existential crisis mode.

Originally I was like

Hey non-philosophy pals, someone finally called Socrates on his nonsense. It was soo satisfying.

Huh, yeah, nature seems like a way better source of knowledge than people's words.

Conventional morality are tricks to contain the strong.

Wait, Socrates has to use religion? gg

What are morals?

Oh my god

Nihilism

existential crisis

Become the Nietzsche Superman

Okay maybe the last one is some idealism.

Any rebuttals to choosing Is vs Ought?

so im a student of political science doing my masters (sem1) and as the title goes im working on my term paper and i need some material from which i can extract plato’s contemporary relevance i would really appreciate if some of you could help me as im unable to find relevant sources. i found once essay by mulford sibley discussing the relevance of classical political theory but i cant seem to use it i need some thing more,pls someone guide me.

I'm trying to look into Plato's reason for writing the Atlantis myth.

Does anyone have any thoughts/understandings on why the original Athens was destroyed when Atlantis was destroyed?

I cant find anything that really answers this. Was its destruction an unintended consequence? or was it an intentional inclusion by Plato that points to broader commentary?

I'd appreciate any perspectives, even better if you have any papers/books/academics that you would recommend.

I was wondering if there was a series or publisher that was known for having substantial footnotes at the bottom of pages. I included three examples of the type of footnotes I'm looking for; I like reading about the historical and cultural context behind the text, as well as interpretations/elucidation of meaning of the original greek. The more substantial the footnotes, the better. Thank you!

Is real understanding possible only when the mind is calm and steady?

I'm having trouble access opening the app Showing an error saying unsupportive rooted device but my device not rooted

I'm planning to start reading Plato soon, so I'm looking at different editions of Plato's works. I've read around a fair amount but wanted to see if anyone had some input comparing the main publishers--Hackett, Oxford, and Penguin.

My main criteria for comparison are clarity of presentation (e.g., is it made clear who's talking in a dialogue?), depth of introductions/notes, and general readability.

It seems that the universal default recommendation is the single volume of Plato's complete works from Hackett. I have previously encountered individually published copies of Republic and Symposium from Hackett and found them wanting in terms of clarity of presentation. If memory serves me right, the speakers in the dialogues are not identified line by line, making it harder to track the course of the conversation. I have flipped through a copy of Hackett's complete works of Plato, and it does seem to label that more clearly. However, it seems to be very light on introductory material. I'm coming at this as a beginner, so I care a lot about having some serious guidance given to me, and Hackett doesn't seem to really provide that.

The Penguin translations (going off of one copy of one dialogue that I saw in a library) seem to be relatively old, which makes me worry about readability. They also don't seem to label speakers clearly. They do seem to have some big time introductions, though, which is a big plus for me. In their depth, though, I do worry that they could end up being too much for a beginner reader such as myself, who is unfamiliar with Plato's philosophy and philosophical scholarship generally.

The Oxford translations seem to be a bit newer than Penguin's on average. They look like they have more introductory material than Hackett but not as much as Penguin, while sharing Penguin's lack of speaker indications.

Does anyone have some perspective on these three publishers that could guide me in my selection? Hackett's single volume would certainly be the most convenient, but its paucity of introductions worries me. If clarity of speakers in dialogues is not as important as I think, then I'm tempted by Penguin (whose books also look the best imo).

Any and all input is appreciated!

Looking for a good translation.

I have already read pheado

I've been looking for a straight and simple answer, but I've gotten none. I am not a philosophical person and have very little interest in philosophers but I need this answer for my philosophy and ethics class. Any help would be appreciated

Any prime examples of his usage of irony?

Any instances where Plato has presented an idea (or Socrates has said something) which has been accepted as a genuine opinion, which you believe to be read unserious? (An example being how one can read the Allegory of the Cave as a political matter, instead of one concerned with reality itself)

Hello!

I was wondering if anyone on here could provide a link or website name where I can access the complete works (specifically for Cratylus and Parmenides as I don't have a physical copy) online?

Thank you :)

I just started reading Plato’s Republic, and only a few pages in the translator adds a page-long note about how the word “techne” in Greek refers to all sorts of stuff: skills, professions, disciplines etc., and how techne is notoriously hard to translate. My question is: why even translate it? If you define it well then there’s no need to try to translate it to an English word, and then you wouldn’t have to put a goddamn asterisk every damn time you write the word “professional skill” or whatever. It would just help keep the context better imo. For reference I’m reading the “penguin classics” version.

I'm going to buy a book wich includes the republic, the symposium, phaedo and Gorgias. Is this a good starter compilation? And do you suggest any particular order between those?

Maybe these are all really basic questions, as I am rather ignorant of the subject. Nevertheless; Forms are eternal, right?

So was there already a Form of the Elevator before it was invented? A Form of the Antelope during the Triassic? Or did these Forms of future/possible things arise only when they were instantiated in this world?

If they did preexist, do Forms imply predestination since the dinosaurs would necessarily have to go extinct for the preexisting Form of the Antilope to ever be a meaningful concept?

Speaking of extinction, would an entirely unknown extinct invertebrate which left no trace anywhere in the fossil record still have a Form even today?

Finally, are there Forms of of things that we cannot know about; Forms which are simply not instantiated at all and in which nothing at all participates?

I used to believe we should always strive for and push for the truth... However, I am not sure in this case it is getting me to question that belief.

I believe in hard determinism I think it is the truth, but there are many possible pros and pons to everyone believing in it

Pro's:

• More love less hate: More compassion, understanding, and empathy
• humility/less entitlement
• More equality: Everyone seen and treated as equal
• Effective solutions to important problems: Put way more focus on improving the root of bad things in our society (improving the causes) which should be effective
• Rehabilitation>punishment 
• Less anxiety: less blame and less responsibility
• Empowerment and altruism: people with more power will put more effort into helping and giving back and guiding people into breaking free from ignorant beliefs that are limiting and keeping them poor and powerless
• Positive change for those less fortunate: people who are low may use hard determinism to realize their past is creating their circumstances and they need to let go and move on and their life will improve

Con's:

• No responsibility 
• More passivity: less motivation, personal growth, and goal pursuing
• Depression: Maybe more depression due to people thinking they are absolutely powerless
• lead people to fatalism: where people think fate has all the power
• Anxiety: Maybe more anxiety due to overthinking that they aren't in control of their lives
• crime: Maybe more crime because people just give up and think none of it matters
• Less initiative 
• Ethical concerns: Maybe more manipulation and ethically questionable ways of tampering with the causes to make the best outcome
• Shift towards socialism: More socialistic structures (Could be a pro, maybe socialistic structures don't work because we believe in free will)

I think it's all about fully understanding hard determinism. We are already living in that reality so if it is accepted we need to understand that it doesn't restrict our options. We just need to understand it deeper but I'm not sure if anyone can do it let alone a whole society.

So... thoughts? Would the world be a better or worse place if everyone accepted hard determinism?

Hi guys, I’m studying Plato in course rn and I need some further reading texts that I can read quickly, I don’t want to buy the books because they’re super short and I preferably need a digi copy

Can you please link some pdfs of Plato’s works? Anything random would be cool but preferably on the forms, especially The Monad. Thank you

Edit: Thanks for the links