kallipolis
Know thyself
Hey there, Jacquemar. I know a little something about Plato, so hopefully I can help you avoid some common stumbling blocks.
First of all, what translation(s) are you using? (I assume you're reading in English -- if not, in what language?) It may sound trivial, but its not. Too often, people choose a translation that sounds the most like we think Plato "should" sound; that is, like a philosopher. But Plato didn't write like a philosopher. Formally, his dialogues have more in common with tragedy and comedy than with the treatises of later philosophers. That is to say, they employ myth, metaphor, and yes, drama, humor, sarcasm, and the other literary devises. My view is that it's key to read the dialogues as dialogues (more on that later) than as a typical work of philosophy. Back to translations: above all, avoid the Jowett translations. His come from 1890s England, and read today Socrates comes off as a staid Victorian gentleman, which is a tad inaccurate.
Secondly, I'd avoid trying to discern what Plato's "doctrine" is, for two reasons. The first is that, if you do that, you'll go crazy, because the "doctrine" changes from one dialogue to another. For example, in The Republic, the soul is tripartate, in the Phaedrus, it's two part, and in the Symposium it's a little unclear. The second is that, in my view, process is more important than product for Plato.
To further illustrate that last point: it's called philosophy, not sophology -- from the Greek, it's love of wisdom, not the study of wisdom. So it's not something you study, it's something you do. In my view, all the doctrines in the Platonic dialogues are of secondary importance; their primary interest is that they are demonstrations of how to live philosophically. In the Apology, Socrates likens himself to a gadfly that buzzes around a horse -- the dialogues are enactments of how to be that gadfly. Read that way, the literary devises suddenly make sense; they're not just there for color, they're vitally important parts of how to live life.
Third, no one knows in what order the dialogues are written; anyone who says otherwise is wrong.There is a supposed "evolution" of doctrines which can be charted in order through the dialogues -- from early, say, the Gorgias -- to middle, The Repubilc -- to late, the Phaedrus -- and so on. But there's a problem. You see, the only evidence for the order in which the dialogues are written is that evolution. The argument is ultimately circular. It may be true (and my view is that there's probably some truth to it) but I think getting obsessed with fixing a chronology can get in the way of studying each dialogue as an important work in its own right.
Important advice.
