dear_old_world's review against another edition
challenging
slow-paced
2.5
The more I read Plato, the less I like his version of Socrates!
As much as I appreciate the notion that we should examine our own assumptions about the world - and indeed challenge those of others - I actually don't agree with this claim I keep seeing in the introductions that Socrates treated people as equals. In fact I find him incredibly condescending and feel he would have more luck if he toned it down a bit. Sometimes he himself makes very bold claims as if it's fact which seem blatantly misguided and he twists the claims that people make. At one point I found myself rooting for Protagoras - which I'm not entirely sure Plato intended - because he called Socrates out on this. It's also annoying how each dialogue seems to go in circles. I'm not sure if I'll actually be able to ge through the rest of the dialogues if Socrates remains this insufferable - I'm hoping in the later dialogues there is a greater focus on Plato's philosophy itself rather than the method of dialogue.
Meno is the more interesting dialogue of the two. The idea that we are remembering knowledge when reasoning about maths and logic remains an interesting one.
As much as I appreciate the notion that we should examine our own assumptions about the world - and indeed challenge those of others - I actually don't agree with this claim I keep seeing in the introductions that Socrates treated people as equals. In fact I find him incredibly condescending and feel he would have more luck if he toned it down a bit. Sometimes he himself makes very bold claims as if it's fact which seem blatantly misguided and he twists the claims that people make. At one point I found myself rooting for Protagoras - which I'm not entirely sure Plato intended - because he called Socrates out on this. It's also annoying how each dialogue seems to go in circles. I'm not sure if I'll actually be able to ge through the rest of the dialogues if Socrates remains this insufferable - I'm hoping in the later dialogues there is a greater focus on Plato's philosophy itself rather than the method of dialogue.
Meno is the more interesting dialogue of the two. The idea that we are remembering knowledge when reasoning about maths and logic remains an interesting one.
eely225's review against another edition
5.0
The dialogues are well paired, and I'm glad to have read them in sequence, both for my first time. They each occupy a central concern of Plato, and probably Socrates too, that of whether virtue can be taught like any other element of knowledge, or whether it is somehow inherent in some but not in others.
The dialogues come to few conclusions. The ones they do come to are not necessarily neatly proven (for instance how no one learns anything, but merely remembers what one already learned in past lives). Instead, both dialogues serve as a model for the process of education. This is not unique in the dialogues, but they demonstrate how Socrates would use inquiry and a precise definition of terms in order to uplift all parties in conversation. He was convinced that by maintaining an honest, direct dialogue, two people could learn something that neither knew at the outset. For the educator, this itself is an important demonstration. Furthermore, the inquiry into what can and what cannot be taught is useful for the educator who sees themselves as bearing the burden of a child's entire life; there are some things you cannot hold yourself responsible for.
Ultimately, I was honestly surprised at how accessible the dialogues were. That has something to do with translation, surely, but Plato, in this case, does not fly so far over your head that he must be brought down. Rather, the clarity of Socrates' inquiry and the time he takes to understand what he is talking about take the reader with him. It is a dialogue of improvement by participation that is much more accessible than anything over 2000 years old has any right to be.
The dialogues come to few conclusions. The ones they do come to are not necessarily neatly proven (for instance how no one learns anything, but merely remembers what one already learned in past lives). Instead, both dialogues serve as a model for the process of education. This is not unique in the dialogues, but they demonstrate how Socrates would use inquiry and a precise definition of terms in order to uplift all parties in conversation. He was convinced that by maintaining an honest, direct dialogue, two people could learn something that neither knew at the outset. For the educator, this itself is an important demonstration. Furthermore, the inquiry into what can and what cannot be taught is useful for the educator who sees themselves as bearing the burden of a child's entire life; there are some things you cannot hold yourself responsible for.
Ultimately, I was honestly surprised at how accessible the dialogues were. That has something to do with translation, surely, but Plato, in this case, does not fly so far over your head that he must be brought down. Rather, the clarity of Socrates' inquiry and the time he takes to understand what he is talking about take the reader with him. It is a dialogue of improvement by participation that is much more accessible than anything over 2000 years old has any right to be.
megan_marlow's review against another edition
4.0
read for uni, both were interesting, look at how we can learn anything and whether we can learn virtue
noonebutchels's review
4.0
Plato is so refreshingly easy to read! It's a welcome change to be able to read a small piece of philosophy without having to stop in the middle of every sentence, while still being able to remain confident that you're absorbing what the author is saying. Loved Meno!
leecalliope's review
2.0
It wasn't that bad. I just thought it lacked focus. Which is. Not something you're allowed to say about Plato, but. Socrates really doesn't seem to be leading the discussion. They move from point to point, ostensibly seeking the definition of virtue without realizing that virtue is something which has to be defined. A lot of Socrates's arguments rested of what were in my opinion flawed premises, which severely devalued the book. Also, I continue to believe that a priori knowledge is a cop out, and I was frankly disappointed to hear that Socrates disagrees.
This is the poorest review of anything I've ever written. But. Yeah no not my favorite.
This is the poorest review of anything I've ever written. But. Yeah no not my favorite.
More...