“Is there a good or ‘best’ order in which to read the Dialogues of Plato”

Socrates and Plato – Bite Size Chunks – No. 4

(Posted by James Head - Autumn 2011)

Someone recently asked the following question on a Face book Group:

'I have been itching to really read the dialogues of Plato. And I finished “Alcibiades I” last night; which has me wondering what would be the best order to read the other dialogues? Thanks!'

My reply was as follows:

Well M -  " Alcibiades 1" was a great place to start - since apparently that is the book that new students to Plato's academy always studied first - especially in the academy's later years when people like Proclus were running things. I hope you got loud and clear the message of "Know Thyself" from Alcibiades 1 :)

As to what order - my natural instincts are to use your gut feelings as to what to read next, or wait for people's recommendations. With this in mind I will recommend you read "Symposium" next - and I have reasons for doing that.

I am writing to a very knowledgeable friend on Plato this morning  – Tim Addey, a founding member of the Prometheus Trust – and I will also ask him if he has any advice about the order in which to read the dialogues. :)

Tim Addey replied as follows:

Dear James,

In the late academy they had an order of study divided into 10 dialogues for what one might describe as "graduates" and then 2 further ones for "post graduates"; they ran -

First Alcibiades - for the reasons already discussed

Gorgias - because it allows us to understand the social structure we find ourselves in

Phaedo - because it shows the philosophic life to come, and purifies us from over-attachment to outer concerns

Cratylus - which begins our intellectual training by discussing words and names, from which everyone who investigates ideas must start

Theaetetus - which is about knowledge, and whether it can be found in sense perceptions

Sophist - which clarifies the relationship of ideas to each other

Statesman - which deals with natural philosophy

Phaedrus - the first contemplative and theological dialogue

Symposium - the second contemplative and theological dialogue

Philebus - in which Plato treats of the Good which is beyond all things.

Timaeus - the "perfect" cosmological/physical (in the broadest sense) dialogue

Parmenides - the "perfect" theological dialogue

This is according to the Anonymous Prolegomena to the Study of Platonic Philosophy - a late 5th century primer written by a teacher either in the Athenian or the Alexandrian academy.  He notes that the Republic, the Laws and the Letters should also be studied in order to consider what he calls the ideal, the adapted and the reformed states respectively.

The Prometheus Trust has recently run workshops on the Phaedo, the Symposium and the Phaedrus, because these are more accessible to modern thinkers - the thought-life of the public in the ancient world resting on various assumptions now no longer common. 

As you know we have two dialogues, the First Alcibiades and the Symposium in "Students' Edition" paperbacks with some supporting essays and extracts from Plotinus and Proclus; we hope to have a new SE paperback on the Sophist out next month, at which point we'll turn our attention to one on the Phaedo and then another on the Phaedrus.

If I was advising a reader studying on his own, I'd probably suggest a reading of these in the following order: Alcibiades, Phaedo, Phaedrus, Symposium, Sophist.  After that, I'd read the Apology, the Meno and then the Republic.

Hope that helps.

Best wishes, Tim.

Should We Be Cautious With Some of Plato’s Ideas?

Socrates and Plato - Bite Size Chunks - No 3
(Posted by James Head – Autumn 2011) 

This may sound a shocking thing to say or perhaps admit - but it is my impression after some 20 years of part time deliberation on various philosophical matters; that the secret (if there is one) of living a good and happy life is perhaps a little simpler than perhaps many great philosophers like Plato and his philosophical descendants such as Proclus make out. My reasons for saying this are as follows.... We should keep in mind that while Proclus wrote many long detailed commentaries on the dialogues of Plato (which are for sure of great interest, help and academic value for those with an interest in an in depth study of Plato and his philosophy) – that Socrates, a philosopher with no less statue or reputation than Proclus, chose to write nothing at all for a wider audience if our records are correct. 

This suggests to me – that the illusive “good” and happy life (surely a prime concern for all true philosophers who are trying to walk the path) – discussed regularly by Socrates, Plato and later Platonists like Plotinus and Proclus - may be a great deal simpler than many commentators today would have us believe. In any case, we are obliged to take a view more akin to say Proclus who wrote a great deal; or to Socrates who wrote little or nothing at all.

In my view, it is important that at a very early stage of our own exploration of – let’s call it for convenience the Socratic/Platonic philosophic tradition - be clear and sure what our motives are for our study – and readily accept that different people may by studying the texts and philosophy for various valid yet different reasons. Some (most perhaps) will be studying from an academic interest, while others like me (fewer most likely) will be studying Socrates and Plato for the simple truths they have to tell us about religious and spiritual matters and how best to live this short human existence on earth – which Socrates suggests is only a part (and a lesser part at that) of our total immortal existence. For Socrates claims that we ourselves are in fact souls (with bodies just attached) that will go on forever in one way or another – and that the most important thing to do during this short human existence is to take care of our soul’s well being; rather than worry too much about material wealth and the gratification of most bodily pleasures. Now, my point is that for the purely academic student of Socrates/Plato – this primary motive of mine just expressed will be of little interest or consequence – although of course it was of prime importance to Socrates and to a large extent his students such as Plato.

In addition to 'students' who study Socratic-Platonic philosophy primarily for “spiritual” motives like me, and those who study purely for academic purposes like perhaps most readers and commentators on the subject, there is another group of students for us to be aware of and give short consideration to. (By 'students' I mean anyone who is trying to understand the ideas of Socrates and Plato further - be they learned university Professor or teenager reading Plato for the first time.) This other group of students are those who search for wider relevance to modern life in Plato’s writing particularly on various political and social matters – including Politics, Statesmanship and how to run the “ideal” State – and how these ideas might be relevant to the affairs of a modern society like ours today. This latter group of students may be divided into two broad categories in my view; those students (like me at times) who will see a few “general” ideas or words of wisdom to keep in mind for the political and social scientists of today, whilst others will see clear literal advice and recommendations that we can deduce from Plato’s writings in his times on how we should organize and do things today. I am 'very' cautious of this last group of students of Socrates and Plato - very cautious indeed of their good sense or motivation.

I do not want to labour the above point unduly; but clearly, the various reasons and motivations for a student’s study of this detailed and widely written about and commentated upon philosophic tradition are relevant to the way the particular student goes about this study. Probably, most “students” will have several reasons for their study – but clearly these reasons will have different priorities from student to student. Speaking on a personal level - and only by way of example - while I am interested in all aspects of Socrates and Plato to a greater or lesser extent; my main priority as I have already stated is to understand the spiritual world I live in today better and what my place is in it. To quote a Delphic or Apollonian maxim I wish to “Know Myself” better – what I truly am – and what I should truly try to be in order to live the best life available to me. The benefits of various democratic political or educational systems as discussed by Plato are – although important and interesting – of secondary importance to me. 

This primary “spiritual” motivation of mine and others like me – gives us an advantage I believe when we study privately or choose to comment publicly on Socrates and Plato. For when it comes to my own spiritual beliefs and well being; and when decisions are made by me on how best to live my life; it is me who is the master of my own destiny and indeed my own “expert” and judge on my life and beliefs; as with similar like minded souls. We can agree or disagree with Socrates and Plato on these divine and spiritual matters simply on the personal feelings and beliefs we have, and this should not provoke criticism from others for so doing. However, this is not the case for those people who choose to comment on Plato’s ideas on things such as political and social science. 

Clearly, to be able to comment in some kind of serious or authoritative way on these matters we would of needed to have studied ourselves in some way the principles and core ideas of political and social science if we are to make well informed comments in this area. An obvious example is that I do not question (or feel myself able to question or comment) for the most part on the advice given by a doctor or surgeon to a friend these days since I have had no formal medical training myself. At most, I might advise the friend to get a “second opinion” from another well trained and experienced medical professional – but I am not going to start offering medical advice myself. In similar fashion, I cannot take a medical book from ancient Athens 500 B.C. and start recommending its ideas for adoption by the medical profession in the 21st century. Of course not; and it would be ludicrous to suggest otherwise.
 
Surely the above medical example suggests we should be very cautious also when reading political science or indeed any other scientifically based writing from ancient Athens and then recommending its ideas for adoption in modern times. These principles apply surely (or do they?) to political matters and matters of social science and public administration. How can I judge whether Plato’s idea and recommendations on these matters were even sound for his own world and time; let alone whether they are still good and sound and appropriate for our own time and particular place; if I do not have a sound grasp of political and social science myself ? One is entitled to disagree with this question of mine of course – but I do feel that the question is one we are obliged at least to ask ourselves if we enter the realm of recommending or otherwise Plato’s more practical and worldly ideas. A more specific example to illustrate my point is that the Athens city Plato lived in had some 20,000 “citizens’ only although the total population was perhaps as many as 200,000. Although not the biggest city at the time for sure – the Athens of Plato’s day was a big European city by anyone’s reckoning at that time. Athens today has some 5 million citizens, and London double that. Plato’s political and social ideas for Athens were based therefore on a population of just 4% of what it is today. I mention this just to highlight the difficulties of studying Plato’s “specific” political and social ideas and then simply supporting the ideas as useful or relevant today (perhaps with a spot of quick maths on certain numbers) without careful analysis by properly well qualified modern political scientists and administrators. We lovers of Plato (including even many renowned experts on his texts) can surely leave ourselves exposed to justified criticism today when we simply recommend Plato’s ideas in these areas as having merit today when we ourselves may have little or no experience in political science, politics, social science, political administration or even party politics which allows the opportunity to implement any political idea - good or bad.

Some readers of this piece (perhaps most) may not agree with me on this; but I hope that most readers will at least except that the danger I have mentioned with commenting on these areas of Plato “as relevant or useful for our modern times” could and might exist. It might therefore be better therefore for us to keep to the more “general” ideas and advice that Socrates and Plato gave us in these matters.

What Was Socrates ? What Did He Mean By The Word "Philosopher" ? - The Myth of The Cave (Republic)

Socrates & Plato - Bite Size Chunks - No. 2 - "The Cave"

(Posted by James Head - Autumn 2011)

'The Myth of the Cave'
Written 360 B.C.E (Plato)
Translated by Benjamin Jowett


'WHAT' was Socrates may seem an unusual or obvious question. However, if we simply say that Socrates was a 'philosopher' then we may be missing the point a little - since it seems to me (and I am sure to many others) that Socrates uses the word "philosopher" to mean something rather different - perhaps rather more - than what the word has come to mean in modern usage (?).

In this famous myth, The Cave, where Socrates describes in just a couple of pages one prisoner escaping from a dark cave - Socrates in my view clearly describes what he thinks it means to be a "philosopher" - and therefore is being to some extent auto-biographical.  Therefore I believe we can learn "what" Socrates was – and what he was really about - by reading this short myth. We should also notice how (in the case of Socrates' own life at least) the outcome for Socrates the philosopher is the same as that of the prisoner in the cave - and therefore almost prophetic......

(This translation is by Benjamin Jowett)

---

Plato - Book VII of  The Republic

The Allegory of the Cave (Socrates is speaking with Glaucon)

[Socrates:]  And now, I said, let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened or unenlightened: --Behold! human beings living in a underground den, which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the den; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets.

[Glaucon:]  I see.

And do you see, I said, men passing along the wall carrying all sorts of vessels, and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various materials, which appear over the wall? Some of them are talking, others silent.

You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange prisoners.

Like ourselves, I replied; and they see only their own shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave?

True, he said; how could they see anything but the shadows if they were never allowed to move their heads?

And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would only see the shadows?

Yes, he said.

And if they were able to converse with one another, would they not suppose that they were naming what was actually before them?

Very true.

And suppose further that the prison had an echo which came from the other side, would they not be sure to fancy when one of the passers-by spoke that the voice which they heard came from the passing shadow?

No question, he replied.

To them, I said, the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images.

That is certain.

And now look again, and see what will naturally follow if the prisoners are released and disabused of their error. At first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive some one saying to him, that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he has a clearer vision, -what will be his reply? And you may further imagine that his instructor is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring him to name them, -- will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him?

Far truer.

And if he is compelled to look straight at the light, will he not have a pain in his eyes which will make him turn away to take in the objects of vision which he can see, and which he will conceive to be in reality clearer than the things which are now being shown to him?

True, he said.

And suppose once more, that he is reluctantly dragged up a steep and rugged ascent, and held fast until he 's forced into the presence of the sun himself, is he not likely to be pained and irritated? When he approaches the light his eyes will be dazzled, and he will not be able to see anything at all of what are now called realities.

Not all in a moment, he said.

He will require to grow accustomed to the sight of the upper world. And first he will see the shadows best, next the reflections of men and other objects in the water, and then the objects themselves; then he will gaze upon the light of the moon and the stars and the spangled heaven; and he will see the sky and the stars by night better than the sun or the light of the sun by day?

Certainly.

Last of all he will be able to see the sun, and not mere reflections of him in the water, but he will see him in his own proper place, and not in another; and he will contemplate him as he is.

Certainly.

He will then proceed to argue that this is he who gives the season and the years, and is the guardian of all that is in the visible world, and in a certain way the cause of all things which he and his fellows have been accustomed to behold?

Clearly, he said, he would first see the sun and then reason about him.

And when he remembered his old habitation, and the wisdom of the den and his fellow-prisoners, do you not suppose that he would felicitate himself on the change, and pity them?

Certainly, he would.

And if they were in the habit of conferring honours among themselves on those who were quickest to observe the passing shadows and to remark which of them went before, and which followed after, and which were together; and who were therefore best able to draw conclusions as to the future, do you think that he would care for such honours and glories, or envy the possessors of them? Would he not say with Homer:

'Better to be the poor servant of a poor master, and to endure anything, rather than think as they do and live after their manner?'

Yes, he said, I think that he would rather suffer anything than entertain these false notions and live in this miserable manner.

Imagine once more, I said, such a one then coming suddenly out of the sun to be replaced in his old situation; would he not be certain to have his eyes full of darkness?

To be sure, he said.

And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the den, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable) would he not appear ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went, and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.

No question, he said.

This entire allegory, I (Socrates) said, you may now append, dear Glaucon, to the previous argument; the prison-house is the world of sight, the light of the fire is the sun, and you will not misapprehend me if you interpret the journey upwards to be the ascent of the soul into the intellectual world according to my poor belief, which, at your desire, I have expressed whether rightly or wrongly God knows. But, whether true or false, my opinion is that in the world of knowledge the idea of 'the good' appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right; parent of light and of the Lord of Light in this visible world, and the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he who would act rationally, either in public or private life, must have his eye fixed.

Is the ‘Socratic’ and ‘Platonic’ Philosophical Tradition the Same Thing ?

Socrates & Plato - “Bite Size Chunk” – No. 1

(Posted by James Head - Autumn 2011)

Is the ‘Socratic’ and ‘Platonic’ Philosophical Tradition the Same Thing ?

People often talk about the Socratic-Platonic philosophical tradition as if they are the same thing – and that Socrates and Plato were similar men with similar outlooks on most things – that is – most things political, practical, and spiritual. Is this a correct assumption?

Well, as you may know, Socrates for one reason or another decided not to write anything down for public use or publication himself - although I am sure he jotted a few points down on the back of napkins, envelopes or whatever sprung to hand in those days for his own use. Ninety five per cent of what we know about Socrates we know from the writings of Plato who was the student and considerably younger friend of Socrates.

Now it is a well known academic argument (or discussion at least) as to how accurately Plato recorded the words of his mentor Socrates in his books– usually short “dialogues” between Socrates and various other people. On one side there are those who think Plato put a lot of his own words and ideas into Socrates’ mouth; and on the other side there are those modern day readers like me, who like to think that if Plato had a lot of respect and affection for Socrates, then he would generally be unlikely to put words into Socrates mouth that were not his but rather Plato’s own ideas and opinions. I also feel this approach to be mostly correct since Plato was not a “nobody” in Athens - but came from a very influential family as I will comment on shortly – and was perfectly capable and had the resources to publish his own books and papers, open respected academies etc - without relying on or having the need to put his words into the mouth of Socrates who seemed to be loved and despised in equal measure by the people of Athens. (On the other hand - since Socrates had in fact been put to death for his ideas by the state - perhaps it was 'convenient' to include his own ideas and views in the merely 'reported' words of Socrates. (?) )

However, this idealic and perhaps rose tinted view of mine is unlikely to be completely true… and it does seem that Plato did use Socrates as a mouth piece for some of his own ideas “to some extent”. This therefore makes the discussion very complicated and largely a matter of opinion as to where to draw the line between what Socrates “actually” said and thought – and what Plato records him as saying and thinking.   

The above points said, it does seem generally accepted these days that the earlier writings of Plato – more soon after the execution of his friend and teacher Socrates – are more accurate accounts of what Socrates actually said and thought than the later writings of Plato. The writings of Plato are therefore usually collected into early, middle and later writings – with the later writings being regarded as more “likely” to include Plato’s own ideas; whereas – the earlier writings are regarded as being more accurate records of what Socrates actually said. The truth of course will never exactly be known, and of course one should not assume that ‘nothing’ Plato records Socrates as saying in the later dialogues is not accurate; in the same way that Plato might not of slipped the odd idea of his own into the earlier writings. This all makes for a rather ‘veiled’ Socrates – and to some extent this is part of the appeal of him. That is, whether consciously or not, we all have to create our own unique Socrates in our own minds - and have our own unique feelings and opinions about him.  Perhaps this is no bad thing…..

Socrates also crops up in the writings of Aristophanes (The Clouds) and the writings of another contemporary Xenophon, although as mentioned above, the great majority of what we know about Socrates we know from Plato’s dialogues.   

Does any of this matter if Socrates and Plato were similar men and thought similar things? Well in a way I think it does – or certainly it is a point to keep in mind when we refer to a Socratic-Platonic tradition rather than refer to these great names separately.

Socrates after all spent much of his time wandering around the ancient Agora (market and meeting place) of Athens – often without shoes, un-bathed, and wearing an infamous old coat. Plato on the other hand came from one of the richest and most powerful families of Athens – and was in a position to open and run his academy as a full time occupation as far as we know. How different in background and way of life can two men be? How similar can the political and social outlooks of these two men be? Is this not like assuming that every schoolboy who has a high regard for his history or geography teacher also shares his teacher’s political views and spiritual outlook? Or is this simply to trivialize the argument or play Devil’s advocate on my part?   

So to draw this first email or “bite size chunk” to a close I should like to remind people that Socrates wrote nothing himself – and he no doubt had good reasons for this – preferring the special qualities of an oral tradition. The great majority of what we know about what Socrates said and thought comes from the writings of Plato. There is a healthy debate about how accurately Plato recorded Socrates’ words and ideas as oppose to put his own thoughts and words into the mouth of Socrates. Whatever our view on this matter is, the truth is unlikely to ever be known for sure. However, it does seem likely and is agreed by most academics, that the earlier writings of Plato certainly more accurately record the words and thoughts of his teacher and friend Socrates. When reading ‘middle’ and ‘later’ period Platonic writings we should give consideration to the fact that Socrates and Plato were not the same man, were born to different families, and had very different upbringings. This allows for the possibility of a difference of opinion between the two men on a wide range of issues in adult life – although for sure they had similar views on some things. We are therefore forced to create our own unique opinion of Socrates and Plato and how similar men they were. This should not be seen as a big problem – but rather part of the appeal of the thoughts and ideas they shared with us.

Links:

1) This link shows all the works of Plato and arranges them in early / middle / and later writings and explains the significance of this as I do above. It is worth just browsing the list to get a feel of the volume of work and time scales involved.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/plato/index.htm