What's the correct order to read the works in this book?

Socratic dialogues first, they're easier and introduce you to the format and some themes of the dialogues. Then everything else.

Laws is absolutely essential because of the philosophy and detail. Laws is patrician-tier Plato, which is rare because most Plato is brainlets-tier.

It’s kind of the ‘Old Testament’ of Plato. Yes, everyone agrees it’s much slower and less enjoyable than any other dialogue, but it is very rewarding having understood it

How can you insult Phaedo like this? Essential questions and arguments about life that every faggot should read and wrestle with first.

If you can’t understand Phaedo how can you even grasp rationalism

>no Symposium or Phaedrus
Don't listen to this guy
First: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo
Next: Meno, Republic, Protagoras, Gorgias
Next: Philebus, Phaedrus
Next: Theaetetus, Symposium, Laws
Next: Timaeus, Sophist, Parmenides

>Laws is absolutely essential because of the philosophy and detail

I find the Laws fascinating because it's filled to the brim with fascinating ideas.

Attached: Cr8FQK1VYAAUWZb.jpg (809x331, 60K)

Laws took longer to finish than the rest of his dialogues, but I agree that it deserves a higher status than it usually receives in his canon. I had expected something extremely boring from what I'd been told, but it isn't actually bad.

To answer the OP: probably using the tetralogies method is best, just omitting the dialogues not by Plato (unless you want to read them).

>he didn't read Timaeus

Attached: apureadingdisgusted.png (384x378, 131K)

If you bothered to actually read the cocksucking book, you'd have read in the introduction that the order they've put the texts in is the recommended order.
How do you even become like this?

maybe OP didn't want spoilers you big cretin

I just ordered the book, user.

In that case thou art forgiven
>Spoiling the introduction to a philosophy anthology.
I can feel the tension rising, will they use footnotes or put notes at the end of the book? How impactful towards the story.

>if the plot isn't linear and spelled out americans assume there is "no narrative".
people like you are the reason Christopher nolan is considered a visionary director. think about that.

You're still dumb, and the other guy is absolutely right. The book's intro addresses this as one of its central questions.

"What order should Plato be read in?" is an old question. As the intro explains (and this is borne out elsewhere), any attempt at pure chronological reading will never be perfect, though there are some works with fairly well-agreed-upon early-middle-late status. The thing to do, then, is to read them one at a time in the way that makes the most sense. And this goes to the content of their ideas, textual relationships, and historical groupings.

The Thrasyllan tetralogies (nine groups of four) are the best available understanding of a "traditional grouping". In particular, the first such grouping, the trial and death of Socrates, is the universally agreed upon starting point. Past that it's a muddle, but stuff like Laws could be left for later, if one wanted to attempt quasi-chronology. There's one or two other suggested partial groupings (trilogies), but none of those that I'm aware of cover the body of 36. Also, the body of 36 etc forms the basis of Stephanus pagination itself IIRC, the classical pagination which underpins modern Plato scholarship, a la Bekker numbering for Aristotle, or Diels-Kranz for the Presocratics.

>meme list
>how to misunderstand Plato like everyone else

Start with Euthyphro, then read the Apology with Xenophons Apology (pdf online) then the Sophist

If you have that edition just read them in order

start with the greeks

this is what pseuds do, they try and read everything in the "correct" order

just read whatever jumps out to you

Clearly you're fucking stupid. It is already in the recommended order.