Do I start here?

[Anonymous No.18741578]

Serious question.

[Anonymous No.18741582]

>>18741578
Id suggest starting with the greeks

[Anonymous No.18741589]

>>18741578
you can. But remember that the dialogue is not about politics but about psychology and how to achieve enlightenment

[Anonymous No.18741600]

>>18741589
Thank you, I’ll keep that in mind.

[Anonymous No.18742814]

>>18741578
Start with the trial and death of Socrates. Also read Meno before the Republic

[Anonymous No.18742826]

It's boring

[Anonymous No.18742925]

>>18741578

[Anonymous No.18743236]

>>18742814
This. Honestly, just get the Hackett omnibus edition and read the dialogues in the order presented there.

[Anonymous No.18743282]

>>18741589
>psychology
Definitely not.

[Anonymous No.18743300]

>>18741589
Philosophy, not psychology

[Anonymous No.18743310]

Read Symposium but don't be surprised by all the gayness

[Anonymous No.18743449]

>>18741578
No.

[Anonymous No.18743478]

>>18741578
>republic
>not entire bibliography
I bet 90% people here read only Republic and went full DUDE PHILOSOPHY I'M I ROIGHT

[Anonymous No.18743498]

>>18741578
Start w the Sumerians
Read the code of Hammurabi
Then early Greeks
Then Death of Socrates
Then you can do Republic

[Anonymous No.18743528]

>>18741578
Plato was one of the first to ask the big questions, but his answers are way off at some points. That makes him a pioneer, and even when he's not making sense it's still interesting to read it. But it's in no way essential, just read what interests you.

[Anonymous No.18743581]

>>18743449
>Locke
Do I really have to?

[Anonymous No.18744473]

>>18743449
Good post with useful advice. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.18745062]

>>18743310
I barelly managed to read it through all the pedo shit. Made me sick

[Anonymous No.18745248]

>>18743528
>but his answers are way off at some points
It is important to recognize that the quality of the discussion and “answers” that you refer to is highly dependent on the level of the interlocutor in the dialogue. When Socrates gives a weird answer it is often due to a dialectical break-down. This loss of communication is often masked by an ironic conclusion (or non-conclusion), for example, that we have not answered the question or perhaps the answer is unknowable. We need to be careful not to take this at face value, and investigate possible reasons for this result.

The break- down occurs most typically because his interlocutors do not understand how to engage in true philosophical discourse. Socrates often fights fire with fire by appearing to argue as his interlocutors do. This is a ruse.

[Anonymous No.18745327]

I'll read some other Plato first, but you can read it and then later fill out the holes with the rest of the dialogues

[Anonymous No.18745345]

>>18741578
Charmides, Lysis, Hippias Minor, Laches - start with these

[Anonymous No.18745383]

>>18741589
>>18741600
>>18743300
>>18743282
>it's about psychology not politics!
is the midwit take. The truth is that it's about both politics and philosophy. Plato clearly did have political ambitions considering he accepted an invitation to Syracuse to tutor and advise the heir, Dion, and to raise him as a philosopher king. How did it turn out? Dion was passed over for the crown in favor of his nephew, who banished and later assassinated him and sold Plato into slavery.

[Anonymous No.18745434]

>>18741578
It's hard reading translated prose from 2000+ years ago written in a different language, at least in my experience. Maybe I just got filtered but I'd highly recommend reading along with some annotations or in a setting where you can discuss it with others. This doesn't just go for Plato/Aristotle/Aurelius but that approach may be especially helpful with these works in specific given their contexts.

[Anonymous No.18745977]

>>18741578
No. Start with the Straussians. I recommend Leo Strauss's Natural Right and History, Persecution and the Art of Writing, On Tyranny, and The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism