Just watched this short lecture about Plato’s takes on sex/gender/families.
He arguedd society should get rid of biological families, have people reproduce through orgies, and then have all children be raised by the state.

I wonder how this would play out in our modern societies… I think it would make for a fairer world. and more fun!

In Burnet's edition of Plato's "Philebus," at 34b6, there is a reference to "Turr." I am unable to figure out whether that refers to a MSS or an Editor. I have exhausted my Google Scholar, Google Books, Google Search skills. The only possible match I could come up with is "Johannes de Turrecremata". But I was unable to check this. I would be extremely grateful for any advicr or help!

Hello, I am an art student seeking seeking to explore the idea of the tripartite soul through art, I’m thinking 3 abstract transparent layers each depicting an aspect of the soul, logistikon, thymoedies and epithymetikon. I just wanted to post on here and ask if anyone has any insights or advice, I honestly don’t much about Plato I just thought exploring this idea could be interesting as my brief is based on the Aristotle quote ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts’. So yeah if anyone has ideas on how I could best represent this, and ideas I could incorporate that would be much appreciated :)

thank u

I'm doing a fun thought experiment on how Plato would fare as a modern day influencer.

It started off as a parody and I even built a fitness/lifestyle influencer page for him.

But I'd like to evolve this into something that actually reflects how his thoughts and values would interact with todays media. So I'm looking for insights both from people who are well versed with his works and from those who know nearly nothing about him.

If you've got 5 minutes to spare, please help my research by sharing your thoughts through the link in my comment.

"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. "

I think this is the most profound words Plato wrote IMO.

We give him credit for being an Idealist, but right here he is well aware of Reality. Further, Plato's Socrates doesnt really beat Callicles in Gorgias. Socrates gets a few blows questioning what doesnt it mean to be "The Best", but ends up resorting to a religious prayer of sorts at the end.

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

If the society Plato envisioned in his republic was actually implemented in real life what problems would this society face and how would it need to adjust itself?

Are the virtues themselves forms? Or are they something separate? Does it explain this anywere?

Edit: I think I'm even more confused now. I will try to look it up.

As far as I am aware, the events in the Timaeus take place the day after those in the Republic. Timaeus also seems to have heard the entire discussion. So how come Timaeus (and also Critias and Hermocrates) aren't mentioned in the Republic?

I read Jowett's translation and that part in book 4 of Laws where he launches into a tirade against how maritime people are rowdy and corrupt and that the sea will give all sorts of turmoil and what not.

What's going on here? Isn't Plato that same young Aristocles hanging out in the gymnasium, running with his mates and talking about philosophy, eating dainties that came over from the port of Piraeus?

Why does he have such a hankering hate for maritime cities when he grew up in the old city of Athena?

He does indeed illustrate the point on the 'folly of the Athenians' we can say, but he also owes many things to Athens too.

Does anyone know where Plato references ethical supernaturalism in any of his texts?

Thanks.

I saw this in a YouTube video just wanted to confirm and find out a bit more thanks for any help

I am currently writing a university paper on Plato's Republic. I am having trouble deciding who to credit for ideas. I know Plato recorded Socrates having these conversations and then wrote them down but who do I credit for ideas? For example, when discussing the social order presented as ideal in the just city, would I write "Plato's ideal social order" or "Socrates' ideal social order"? I know that Plato likely took some liberties in writing these conversations down and that there are plenty of questions around the legitimacy of Socrates in Plato's writings, but who do I credit for ideas in a paper? Wouldn't they technically be Socrates' ideas and not Plato's?

Thanks!

I'm preparing for my MA comprehensive exams and Plato's Phaedo is part of the reading list. Was fully immersed as I read it for ~3 hours straight. Didn't expect to cry towards the end?? I never thought reading a philosophy book would make me sob this way, like it made me feel so sad but also a little amused at myself :)) please tell me I'm not the only one lol

(reading Derrida's V&P made me cry too but in a totally different way if you know what I mean haha)

So over the past few months I have read Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo (all these in the same book), and the Republic. I really enjoyed these, and I want to get more into Socratic dialogues.

Which work of Plato should I move onto now? What are your guys' favorites? I am thinking Symposium, but I also want to hear what you guys think

Probably splitting hairs here, but there is a “5 dialogues” book by Hackett, and there is a “5 great dialogues” book by Walter J. Black. They have some of the same dialogues, some different. Anyone recommend one over the other?

Plato says that everything has a perfect form in a reality where everything is perfect and in its true form. If that is the case, then everybody imagines this "perfect reality" differently. Do you think Plato made this theory knowing this ultimate perfection of a form cannot be reached because he knows that it is still good that people will still always strive to be better and better?

I'm not a professional, I have only started studying philosophy now in high school and it got me curious. From my understanding I think that everyone has different ideas of a perfect form which is really a good thing. It means that everyone will always try to make things more "perfect". Take a pencil for example, we don't have the perfect form or it would never break, wear, scratch, etc. There must exist a perfect form of a pencil but we can never reach it, but does Plato think that's a good thing? Did he accept that? Or does he believe that there is a way to have the true form.

I would argue he doesn't as to really achieve the true perfect form of something, you would need to really know what it was to know that you have attained the same thing, but since the true "perfect" form is really a construct of every individuals mind, that is impossible.

And in relation to his allegory of the cave, from my understanding it shows the ignorance of some to not want to discover more. I think it means that there is always something more, similar to how his theory of forms, in essence, is that there is always something more "perfect".

There is so many wormholes to dive into when you think about it I'd love to hear other perspectives as I am just a beginner too!