You seem to think that philosophers are the ones to turn to for 'significant readings of Plato's dialogues'. I wish to inform you that this is not the case (or not necessarily the case).
So perhaps my initial phrasing was not the best. However, I think the OP is relatively clear that I am looking for a list of commentaries on Plato, in which the 'significance' of any is clearly a contentious issue. Your suggestions so far have been "Jowett, Jowett and Jowett". Yes ok, I accept that he has written a commentary and I do actually have a two volume Jowett translations.
Melchior wrote:
1) If you want to read Plato, don't start with the people you mentioned. Read Jowett's translations of Plato and Jowett's commentaries before you read anything else. Why? Because he translated all of Plato's dialogues (three times!) and wrote commentaries about all of them. It is a monumental work of scholarship, never equaled.
See the problem here is that this has nothing to do with my original post. I did NOT ask for commentaries to read INSTEAD of reading Plato. I just asked for a list of commentaries. It is really beside the point of whether I am reading or am not also reading Plato's dialogues themselves.
As it happens I am reading the dialogues themselves. However, I am interested in ALSO reading, just AFTER reading the dialogue itself, where and what has been taken up as a focal point in later philosophy - much as one does in a Philosophy class / seminar.
- First you read read the Primary Text
- Second, you skim-over /read a few contemporary commentaries or interpretations. Personally I find it interesting to know what particular points / ideas have served as focal points for later philosophy and thinkers, whether you agree or disagree with their focal points it can be useful as a foil against which you can interrogate your own understanding of the text.
Melchior wrote:
2) If you regard Heidegger, Foucault, Derrida et al. (not 'etc.') as 'representative' philosophers in any sense of that term, you need to be corrected. They certainly are not. Where did you ever get such a ridiculous idea?
OK - so who would you cite as more representative of 20th Century Philosophy? ( although I did suggest I meant "Continental Philosophy").
I have no idea why you even asked this question. The question is who is worth reading, and nobody after Kant is really worth reading. Why do you believe contemporary thought is more important than that of the old guys? You have to start at the beginning if you want to study philosophy (and by no means am I urging you to do that). You're doing it backwards. Start with the ancients and work forward. The two-volume Jowett cuts out a lot of the commentaries. I would not use that edition. The one to use is the 3rd edition, published in 1892. It is available in the used market and online.
Unlike some fields, where a knowledge of what came long ago is of little or no value (e.g., medicine) philosophy is entirely an historical discipline. It starts with the Greeks and goes forward from there. But you mustn't start with 20th century 'commentaries' on the Greeks. That's probably the stupidest thing I can imagine.
Melchior wrote:
You don't need to know about anything after 1892 to study Plato. He wrote in ca 350BC.
Why do you presume that I want to study Plato? I'm really not that interested in just studying Plato. I"m interested in studying the canon/tradition of "western philosophy" which happens to include a lot of writing that occurred AFTER Plato but engaged with various aspects of his writings and thought.
This self-righteous nonsense that one only needs to read Plato is absurd.
If you are reading Phaedrus anyway why not also read Derrida's "Plato's Pharmacy" while it is still fresh in your mind? Given that I will probably want to read the Derrida at a later date anyway?
Based on your questions, it seems you haven't a clue what you are doing.
I have no idea why you even asked this question. The question is who is worth reading, and nobody after Kant is really worth reading. Why do you believe contemporary thought is more important than that of the old guys? You have to start at the beginning if you want to study philosophy (and by no means am I urging you to do that). You're doing it backwards. Start with the ancients and work forward. The two-volume Jowett cuts out a lot of the commentaries. I would not use that edition. The one to use is the 3rd edition, published in 1892. It is available in the used market and online.
Unlike some fields, where a knowledge of what came long ago is of little or no value (e.g., medicine) philosophy is entirely an historical discipline. It starts with the Greeks and goes forward from there. But you mustn't start with 20th century 'commentaries' on the Greeks. That's probably the stupidest thing I can imagine.
Your inability to actually read and argue based on my points and rebuttals above is astounding given that this forum claims to be about "philosophy". None of your responses actually engage with what I have said I want to do. Which is actually for me to "return" to reading more Plato after doing an undergrad degree in which we read only bits and pieces of Plato and Aristotle.
I think its actually contentious whether one really needs to spend much time reading Plato today. Certainly in say mathematics one seldom reads Pythagoras or Euler's original texts. And I do not find that a purely chronological reading even one authors work is the most rewarding or stimulating approach to philosophy today. Given the wealth of texts written over the last 2000 years, I personally find a more hermeneutical method reading across the ages often seems much more rewarding and revealing.
After a cursory reading of a few dialogues it is really much more exciting to move on to something else. This History of Philosophy without any gaps podcast http://www.historyofphilosophy.net/ is certainly very interesting and has been quite useful for me to gain some cursory knowledge of various ancient philosophies there is just not enough time in ones life to extensively read ALL of philosophy.
I have no idea why you even asked this question. The question is who is worth reading, and nobody after Kant is really worth reading. Why do you believe contemporary thought is more important than that of the old guys? You have to start at the beginning if you want to study philosophy (and by no means am I urging you to do that). You're doing it backwards. Start with the ancients and work forward. The two-volume Jowett cuts out a lot of the commentaries. I would not use that edition. The one to use is the 3rd edition, published in 1892. It is available in the used market and online.
Unlike some fields, where a knowledge of what came long ago is of little or no value (e.g., medicine) philosophy is entirely an historical discipline. It starts with the Greeks and goes forward from there. But you mustn't start with 20th century 'commentaries' on the Greeks. That's probably the stupidest thing I can imagine.
Your inability to actually read and argue based on my points and rebuttals above is astounding given that this forum claims to be about "philosophy". None of your responses actually engage with what I have said I want to do. Which is actually for me to "return" to reading more Plato after doing an undergrad degree in which we read only bits and pieces of Plato and Aristotle.
I think its actually contentious whether one really needs to spend much time reading Plato today. Certainly in say mathematics one seldom reads Pythagoras or Euler's original texts. And I do not find that a purely chronological reading even one authors work is the most rewarding or stimulating approach to philosophy today. Given the wealth of texts written over the last 2000 years, I personally find a more hermeneutical method reading across the ages often seems much more rewarding and revealing.
After a cursory reading of a few dialogues it is really much more exciting to move on to something else. This History of Philosophy without any gaps podcast http://www.historyofphilosophy.net/ is certainly very interesting and has been quite useful for me to gain some cursory knowledge of various ancient philosophies there is just not enough time in ones life to extensively read ALL of philosophy.
But philosophy is best approached historically. If you cannot accept that, too bad. It's true. What you 'want to do' is irrelevant. Like a petulant two-year old, you think what you want matters. Grow up.
Melchior wrote:
But philosophy is best approached historically. If you cannot accept that, too bad. It's true. What you 'want to do' is irrelevant. Like a petulant two-year old, you think what you want matters. Grow up.
So you believe you should simply start at the beginning and work through all philosophy chronologically? And if you only get up to year X in your lifetime well that's all there is for it. too bad. One simply cannot possibly read philosophy out of order.
And this is the "best" approach? What exactly is this "best" ? how is it determined?
You seem to sugges that there is an "absolute" or universal "best" that is completely independent of what "I want to do". That only children believe that they can set their own goals?
Is that due to a kind of immanent teleology? I presume you would disagree with Max Weber's ideas about instrumental rationality then?
Melchior wrote:
But philosophy is best approached historically. If you cannot accept that, too bad. It's true. What you 'want to do' is irrelevant. Like a petulant two-year old, you think what you want matters. Grow up.
So you believe you should simply start at the beginning and work through all philosophy chronologically? And if you only get up to year X in your lifetime well that's all there is for it. too bad. One simply cannot possibly read philosophy out of order.
And this is the "best" approach? What exactly is this "best" ? how is it determined?
You seem to sugges that there is an "absolute" or universal "best" that is completely independent of what "I want to do". That only children believe that they can set their own goals?
Is that due to a kind of immanent teleology? I presume you would disagree with Max Weber's ideas about instrumental rationality then?
Each philosopher built upon (or criticized) the work of his predecessors. It's impossible to read Kant, for instance, without understanding many of his predecessors. Whether you agree with me or not is irrelevant. I don't give a damn. You need to learn Greek and Latin too. As far as Weber is concerned, I don't know a thing about him.
