I think that to understand an author's mode of thinking and what message he might intend to convey it would be useful to read all or most of his dialogues but especially those containing terms like "eidos", "idea", "paradeigma", "theophiles", etc., and see how he uses them and in what sense.

BTW, I don't think it would be entirely wrong to refer to Plato's disciples and followers as "Platonists". In any case, the way they read his dialogues may actually help us to better understand and interpret them. IMO There can be no harm in looking at a text from various angles.

You are getting some really awful advice.

Cicero said:

‘Socrates was the first to call philosophy down from the heavens… and compel it to ask questions about life and morality’ (Tusculan Disputations V 10–11).

It is not the Forms but to the human things that Socratic philosophy is about. No matter how metaphysical it is always the human things that ground the dialogues. "Know thyself". "The unexamined life is not worth living". It is through the human things that he regards the rest.

As for dialogues: The Apology and the Phaedo are most often used in both introductory and higher level classes. I also used the Republic but many students found it daunting. If you are reading it on your own a good commentary is very helpful. In my classes I used and recommend Bloom's translation and his introductory essay and notes.

See my other thread on Socratic Philosophy for more.

As you can see, @Fooloso4 is using Cicero to interpret Plato. :grin:

My own suggestion would be to read Plato's own statements according to which the soul is immortal and divine and therefore the most important part of man.

Plato's theory of soul

"However, since the soul turns out to be immortal ... these are the reasons why a man should be confident about his own soul ... if he is one who in his life ignored bodily pleasures and adorned his soul not with an adornment that belongs to something else, but with the soul's own adornment, namely, temperance, justice, courage, freedom, and truth, and thus awaits the journey to Hades as one who will make it whenever destiny calls ..." (Phaedo 114d - 115a).

No matter how metaphysical it is always the human things that ground the dialogues. "Know thyself". — Fooloso4

That was one of the inscriptions on the Temple of Delphi. Per legend, Socrates visited it and spoke to the oracle.

Are mystical prophecies part of the human things you're talking about?

The dialogue Charmides talks about the inscription. I do not recall the details. If I get a chance I will look it up, but part of the discussion was about the inscription being written by man and, if I remember correctly, the question of authorship and how it is to be understood.

The prophecies are part of the human things in so far as the prophecy is about human beings. As to their origin, I suspect that has more to do with the assumptions you bring to it.

As to their origin, I suspect that has more to do with the assumptions you bring to it. — Fooloso4

Or you could learn from a scholar who specializes in ancient Greece.

Or you could learn from a scholar who specializes in ancient Greece. — frank

In fact I have. A scholar whom many consider one of the best - Seth Benardete. You may have someone else in mind. Who I find persuasive and who you find persuasive has a great deal to do with our assumptions about the relationship between the human and the divine.

Good. So it's not "more to do with the assumptions you bring to it." We rely on experts.

So it's not "more to do with the assumptions you bring to it.". We rely on experts. — frank

It is both. If I find Benardete persuasive and you find someone else persuasive instead, then that has to do not only with them but with us.

I don't think there's any substantial debate about the Oracle of Delphi.

You asked:

Are mystical prophecies part of the human things you're talking about? — frank

Socrates was accused of atheism. If he did not believe in the gods then he would have regarded the mystical prophecies as human inventions.

Socrates was accused of atheism. If he did not believe in the gods then he would have regarded the mystical prophecies as human inventions. — Fooloso4

Could be. We really don't know.

Socrates was accused of atheism — Fooloso4

He was actually accused of perverting the youth by teaching them or preaching them atheism. His own atheism was collateral damage.

He was found guilty of failing to show respect for the gods.

Who I find persuasive and who you find persuasive has a great deal to do with our assumptions about the relationship between the human and the divine. — Fooloso4

I would say that even more important is evidence. The opinion of so-called "scholars" isn't worth much without evidence, don't you agree?

Anyway, are we still discussing the dialogue and your lack of evidence, or have you run out of ideas?

Could be. We really don't know. — frank

We don't. And that is why I said I suspect the answer to your question has to do with the assumptions you bring to it.

Socrates was accused of atheism. If he did not believe in the gods then he would have regarded the mystical prophecies as human inventions. — Fooloso4

He was actually accused of perverting the youth by teaching them or preaching them atheism. His own atheism was collateral damage. — god must be atheist

Don't know if you guys are being sarcastic or not, but Socrates was neither an atheist or formally/expressly charged by the Athenian state for teaching "atheism"; taking "a-theism" in the most literal sense of the word, as one who denies or disbelieves in the existence of any kind of God &-or gods. In fact, he'd considered himself to be sent by "God" (whom he refers to in the singular form during his hearing/trial) to the Athenians.

Socrates, as he's quoted by Plato in the "Apology," had stated during his hearing/trial, "I am the gadfly of the Athenian people, given to them by God, and they will never have another, if they kill me. And now, Athenians, I am not going to argue for my own sake, as you may think, but for yours, that you may not sin against the God by condemning me, who am his gift to you. For if you kill me you will not easily find a successor to me, who, if I may use such a ludicrous figure of speech, am a sort of gadfly, given to the state by God; and the state is a great and noble steed who is tardy in his motions owing to his very size, and requires to be stirred into life. I am that gadfly which God has attached to the state...."

See 26c

See 26c — Fooloso4

What's that?

...a secret location in Moscow.

Moscow — Banno

What's that?

Don't know if you guys are being sarcastic or not, but Socrates was neither an atheist or formally/expressly charged by the Athenian state for teaching "atheism"; taking "a-theism" in the most literal sense of the word, as one who denies or disbelieves in the existence of any kind of God &-or gods. In fact, he'd considered himself to be sent by "God" (whom he refers to in the singular form during his hearing/trial) to the Athenians. — aRealidealist

True. I think since divinity played a part in any ancient conception of the world, it isn't likely that Socrates was an atheist in the modern sense of the word. They didn't have the conceptual apparatus for that.

We know Socrates influenced the Stoics, so maybe his view of divinity was similar to theirs. And that would fit well with the passage you quoted.

In fact, he'd considered himself to be sent by "God" (whom he refers to in the singular form during his hearing/trial) to the Athenians. — aRealidealist

Not only that. He clearly says:

"Do you mean that I do not believe in the godhead of the Sun or Moon, which is the common creed of all men? You are a liar, Meletus"

Unfortunately, some appear to be of the view that all ancient texts are to be read in an atheist, and where possible (and sometimes even when not possible), neo-Marxist sense.

neo-Marxist sense. — Apollodorus

godless communists!

godless communists! — frank

To be fair to them, many aren't quite as "godless" as generally assumed. They do have their own gods and idols, as well as prophets, messiahs, promised lands, and paradise on earth, though they may not always realize or admit this.

Unfortunately, Marx wasn't very good at philosophy. That's why he had to get a part-time job as a journalist, cutting and pasting from other people's publications (when Engels wasn't writing articles for him) and was unemployed for many years. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree and this seems to be true of his followers ....

Are you Greek?

Are you Greek? — frank

Apparently, we all are:

'Speaking at a banquet in the presidential palace of Athens on Wednesday night, Prince Charles quoted the great English Poet, Percy Bysshe Shelley and said: “We are all Greeks".'

https://greekreporter.com/2018/05/10/prince-charles-we-are-all-greeks-video/

It is called a Stephanus number. It is a numbering system for citing the dialogues. Not all translations have them but you can find online translations of the Apology with them.

We're not all Greeks, but we all want to go see the Parthenon.

Once again Socrates' irony is lost on some. Socrates does not say he believes the sun and moon are gods, he asks whether Meletus is accusing him of not believing that they are gods as other men do. He then says that Meletus is confusing him with Anaxagoras. (26d) Anaxagoras had also been indicted on charges of impiety, but fled. His books, Socrates points out, were still for sale for a small sum.

In the Republic Socrates says that the sun is the offspring of the Good. (506e) Nowhere does he refer to the Good as a god.