Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Phaedrus

by Plato, C.J. Rowe (Translator), Christopher Rowe (Translation)

3.86 of 5 stars 3.86 · rating details · 2,196 ratings · 76 reviews

One of Plato’s most profound and beautiful works, Phaedrus takes the form of a dialogue between Socrates and Phaedrus, an amateur rhetorical enthusiast, on the topic of passionate or romantic love. Concerned with establishing principles of rhetoric, it argues that rhetoric is only acceptable as an art when it is firmly based on the truth inspired by love, the common experi...more

Paperback, 176 pages

Published December 27th 2005 by Penguin Classics (first published -370)

more details... edit details

Get a copy:

More…

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Add this book to your favorite list »

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30 of 3,000)

filter | sort: default (?) | rating details

Feb 06, 2013 Peter rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: metaphysics-of-media, media-ecology

Spoiler alert: This book is not about a "philosophy of love" as many reviewers seem to believe. As every dream has its manifest content (a storyline) that masks a latent content (the suppressed, unconscious emotions that bubble into our semi-conscious REM sleep), Socrates' discourse on the nature of love thinly masks the true subject of this dialogue: bullshit, how to produce it, and how to recognize it. For the reader, his dialectical approach gives us a hint about how to resist it.

With self-de...more

like 1 like · see review

Apr 07, 2012 Chiara Pagliochini rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: classici-greci, filosofia

“Come una corrente di vento o un’eco che rimbalzando su una superficie levigata e solida si ripercuote al punto d’origine, così la corrente di bellezza penetra di nuovo nel bell’amato attraverso gli occhi. Così per il suo naturale canale raggiunge l’anima, e come vi arriva disponendola al volo irrora i meati delle penne, stimola la crescita delle ali e a poco a poco riempie d’amore l’anima dell’amato.”

La domanda legittima è: perché, quando uno sta già leggendo altri sette libri, una bella mattin...more “Come una corrente di vento o un’eco che rimbalzando su una superficie levigata e solida si ripercuote al punto d’origine, così la corrente di bellezza penetra di nuovo nel bell’amato attraverso gli occhi. Così per il suo naturale canale raggiunge l’anima, e come vi arriva disponendola al volo irrora i meati delle penne, stimola la crescita delle ali e a poco a poco riempie d’amore l’anima dell’amato.”

La domanda legittima è: perché, quando uno sta già leggendo altri sette libri, una bella mattina si sveglia e legge il Fedro di Platone? È una forma esplicita di insania mentale? Un pervicace accanimento della sorte? In realtà si tratta soltanto di una cortesia fatta a un familiare: mia sorella mi ha chiesto di leggerlo in sua vece. Così per due giorni ho accantonato Guerra e pace per fare un tuffo nella non-troppo-lontana vita liceale e fare un saluto a… Platone.

Deluderò le aspettative di molti se dico che la filosofia non mi ha mai intrigato granché. Sì, è carina da studiare, interessante quanto volete, abitua al pensiero, ma non sono mai stata disposta ad attribuirle un fondamento di verità. Un uomo coltissimo e acuto (coltissimo e acuto quanto volete, ma pur sempre un uomo) un giorno si dà a trascrivere la propria visione del mondo, che è la sua propria, senza dover necessariamente essere la mia. Perché la sua visione del mondo dovrebbe essere più fondata della visione di un uomo qualunque? Non negheremo che la filosofia ha una importanza culturale e artistica assoluta, che è uno strumento in grado di cavalcare la storia ed influenzarla, di guidare il pensiero degli uomini, tuttavia, se permettete, la filosofia è anche qualcosa di personale. C’è la filosofia di Platone. C’è la filosofia del mio vicino di casa. La differenza sta nell’esposizione. Quanto al contenuto, impossibile stabilire se il mio vicino di casa abbia meno ragione di Platone.

Mentre faccio questa tirata, il Fedro mi guarda in cagnesco appoggiato su un gomito. È un dialogo abbastanza permalosetto, di quelli che se la tirano. « E secondo te io non avrei più ragione della tua vicina col cane che abbaia sempre? ». Ok, abbasso la cresta. Il Fedro è una bestiolina un tantino intimidatoria.
« Innanzitutto io sono un pezzo di storia, capito? Non scherziamo con queste cose. La vostra concezione del mondo dipende in gran parte me, occidentali spocchiosi dalla memoria corta. Uno, il vostro Cristianesimo da strapazzo ha fatto copia-incolla e riadattato quello che di me gli andava più a genio. La vostra anima che sopravvive al corpo e bla bla bla, da chi pensate che viene, eh? E no, vogliamo mica parlare dell’amore platonico? No, vabbè, meglio non parlarne, sennò mi vengono certi nervi. No, perché, insomma, siete menomati mentali o cosa? Come se l’amore platonico fossero due cretini che stanno lì a guardarsi da lontano e s’amano. Ma dico, s’è mai sentita una scempiaggine del genere? Il vostro amore platonico ha finito per essere un travisamento totale del mio. L’amore che io dico è un amore dell’anima, certo, ma non prescinde certo dall’amore del corpo. L’amore che io dico è un amore perfetto di anima e di corpo, che mena amante e amato alla sapienza. I vostri due damerini che languono e sospirano sono pure abbastanza patetici da guardare. Poveri occidentali sfigati che avete dovuto inventare tutto un mito di amore puro… e di che avevate paura? A parte che, parliamone, che noia quel vostro amore uomo-donna. Donna… conoscerò giusto tre donne con cui valga la pena di parlare. Le altre se fanno la minestra è meglio. Vogliamo invece mettere l’arricchimento del rapporto tra un uomo saggio e un bellissimo giovane tutto da educare? Dio, non vedete che favolosa storia d’amore è? No, non lo vedono. Loro preferiscono quei due beccamorti di Dante e Beatrice che, per carità, tutto il bene del mondo, ma l’amore gli è passato attraverso “li occhi” ed è rimasto lì. Che tristezza, che tristezza mi fate. »

Beh, il Fedro s’è innervosito e straparla. Mai svegliare il Fedro che dorme.
Signor Platone, caro Fedro, se non vi spiace io tornerei a Guerra e pace, eh? Perché, se debbo dirvi la verità, a me il falso-amore-platonico mi garba tanto e pure Nataša Rostova e il principe Andrej. Ma è stato un piacere. Questo è il mio numero di telefono. Fate uno squillo quando siete in zona, che ci facciamo un aperitivo. (less)

like 2 likes · see review

Dec 07, 2011 Scott rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition

The Phaedrus was not one of the dialogues we read in my Plato seminar in grad school, so I thought I'd finally tackle it. I didn't like it much. I'm guessing that that might be the influence of my particular professor, but I'm not sure.

Some of the other goodreads reviews are very well-written and do a nice job of analyzing the dialogue. Many highly recommend it.

The dialogue is a conversation between Socrates and Phaedrus out for a walk on a hot summer afternoon. They take shelter in a cool spot...more

like · see review

Aug 14, 2010 Glenn rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

A lot to chew on here, and worthy of many repeat visits. I was drawn to this by an article I read about a college class. The "final" for the students was to reenact this dialogue in their own words in one of the college's common areas; a prodigious feat of both memory and internalizing the material if ever there was one. The book itself is certainly worthy of such an effort. Although my interest waxed and waned depending on the subject at hand, there are a multifold of relevant and insightful id...more

like · see review

Dec 10, 2008 Rickeclectic rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: Philosophy buffs, literary criticism buffs

Shelves: philosophy

Previously considered a lesser work by Plato, but more recently considered important because of Derrida. The text is about writing and oral communication and their role in telling the truth. The dialogue very cleverly intersperses the difference between true and false love with the difference between true and false rhetoric. In reading this, it helps to understand the opposition between Socrates and the sophists that pervades most of the other Platonic dialogues, but the Phaedrus can stand alone...more

like · see review

Mar 02, 2013 David Alexander rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Phaedrus is a beautiful dialogue of Plato. I confess, I listened to the whole thing while laying down mulch for hours with my earbuds. Librivox.org, man. Plato first sets the stage by narrating a scene of playful leisure to set the stage for layered, increasingly deeper contemplation. The dialogue offers valuable, time-tested insight and guidance in the life of the mind and itself embodies the insight.

Perhaps we get the word philosophy from this dialogue. At least in it Socrates defines the typ...more Phaedrus is a beautiful dialogue of Plato. I confess, I listened to the whole thing while laying down mulch for hours with my earbuds. Librivox.org, man. Plato first sets the stage by narrating a scene of playful leisure to set the stage for layered, increasingly deeper contemplation. The dialogue offers valuable, time-tested insight and guidance in the life of the mind and itself embodies the insight.

Perhaps we get the word philosophy from this dialogue. At least in it Socrates defines the types of persons who devote themselves to wisdom as "lovers of wisdom." He says they are not themselves wise, as wisdom, he caveats, is an attribute of God alone, but they love wisdom.

There is much that is memorable, much that is strikingly relevant. Socrates recounts as an Egyptian tale of ancient wisdom how a bird invented writing and blithely assumed it would assist people's memories. His mythical interlocutor shrewdly responded by saying that often inventors are not the best judges of the effects of their inventions and that writing would in actuality have a deleterious effect on our memory because people would begin to rely on it rather than their memories. He was right. This strikes me as undyingly current, strikingly relevant today. As we continue to experience huge technological innovations such as the Internet, we ought not to be too sanguine and self-blinding in our enthusiasms and enjoyments. After the industrial revolution, etc., etc. we need to learn to dignify our discriminatory powers more so that every reserve about uses of technology is not treated as fanatical, obtuse, weird, a too cumbersome to think about issue.

Plato also has brilliant, memorable sections where he likens human beings to two horses drawing a chariot, one strong and toward the upright and good, the other drawing down to the lower and more base. One section I remember vividly describes with this analogy a youth's sexual desire and the competing directions of the horses. Socialization of the sexual impulse.

There is also a significance to the whole tone set at the beginning, as I alluded to earlier. It is out of a self permission and a permission among friends for leisure that this contemplative height arises. It is easier with friends. Certain capacities in the mind have to be valued enough by a society and the avant garde of the mind in that society for this to be accomplished. A too pressing 'practicality' does not give due honor to philosophy and doctrine and it ironically becomes the most impractical of all viewed from a distance, a distance it does not allow itself.(less)

like · see review

Jul 11, 2007 Jeanne Persuit rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

My favorite Plato :-)

like 1 like · see review

Jun 27, 2012 Dr. George H. Elder rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Every rhetorical scholar reads the Phaedrus, and I have done so repeatedly. It is certainly one of Plato's more lively dialogues, which is surprizing considering the contempt he had for the habitude--useful though rhetoric be. Clearly, some great advice is offered with regard to giving speeches, with the most important being knowing the details and "truth" of the subject matter, with the due condition that the discourse also be adjusted to the audience. This is a must read for any first year com...more

like · see review

Aug 12, 2012 Eric rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: philosophy, rhet-comp, field-exam

Though I'm into love, my real interest in this dialogue has to do with its latter parts. So I'll zip through the early sections on love like a speedy fly:

As Phaedrus is wandering outside Athens, he comes across Socrates. Socrates "appear[s] ... totally out of place," as he rarely leaves Athens proper (230c). When Socrates learns that Phaedrus just came from hearing a speech by Lysias, he demands to hear it. After some cajoling and a good "is that a scroll under your toga or are you just happy to...more Though I'm into love, my real interest in this dialogue has to do with its latter parts. So I'll zip through the early sections on love like a speedy fly:

As Phaedrus is wandering outside Athens, he comes across Socrates. Socrates "appear[s] ... totally out of place," as he rarely leaves Athens proper (230c). When Socrates learns that Phaedrus just came from hearing a speech by Lysias, he demands to hear it. After some cajoling and a good "is that a scroll under your toga or are you just happy to see me?" joke, Phaedrus acquiesces. Lysias' speech "argues that it is better to give your favors to someone who does not love you than to someone who does" (227c), as the former will be less fickle, unstable, and jealous than the latter. Dissatisfied with the speech, Socrates gives one of his own. In it, he argues for the danger of the lover, claiming that the lover's madness stifles the boyfriend's freedom and philosophical development (an argument that runs counter not only to subsequent points in the dialogue, but to Socrates' defense of love in the Symposium).

Reflecting on his first speech, Socrates regrets that he has blasphemed (the state and the god). He thus delivers another speech that parses different forms of madness, and claims that the madness that attends love is a good kind of madness. After defining four kinds of madness, he argues that the madness of love comes from the gods. To defend this claim, he offers an allegory describing the nature of the soul: It is a chariot drawn by two horses, one noble and reliable and the other wild and hard to control. The charioteer attempts to guide these horses in order to follow the gods and catch a glimpse of truth. Those who fail and let the wild horse drag them off course are incarnated as bad people (tyrants and sophists), while those who follow the gods and see truth continue their journey or, at worst, become good folks like philosophers. For incarnated souls, the love between a lover and boyfriend, and its attendant madness, can help regrow the soul's wings and return them the the divine realm.

So I've failed to be brief. Alas. In any case, with those three speeches on the table, Phaedrus and Socrates shift into discussing "what distinguishes good from bad writing" (258d), a discussion subdivided into sections on rhetoric and a section specifically focused on writing. Socrates argues that rhetoric is an elusive thing, potentially "not an art but an artless [and contentless] practice" (260d). Successful persuasion depends on an ability to recognize similarities between things, which requires a knowledge of dialectic--the ability to divide and collect things by true analogy (266b-c). Rhetoric, dependent on the "likely" rather than the "true," practices false, deceptive persuasion that plays on the audience's lack of knowledge. In the end, a good rhetorician "must know how many kinds of soul there are" and how to persuade each kind (271d).

Having defined "good" rhetoric, Socrates moves to discussing writing, which he worries will undermine memory. He sees writing's only appropriate purpose as self-amusement for the wise man: "the amusement of a man who can while away his time telling stories of justice" (276e).

Two key points for me: (1) Socrates' points have interesting reflexive implications, suggesting that the Phaedrus itself should be taken as no more than a diversion or form of amusement. All the playful irony in the dialogue starts to fluctuate, then, with Socrates' (via Plato's) arguments becoming provocations to dialectical dialogue rather than dogmas. How loosely and playfully might we thus interpret the dialogue?

(2) Socrates' gesture towards the radical diversity of souls and his invocation of kairos seem highly germane to many contemporary rhetoricians concern with radical singularity and situatedness (272a). Though involved in such conversations haven't rejected Socrates' concerns, but repositioned them as the problematic basis of rhetoric rather than an indication of rhetoric's artlessness.(less)

like · see review

Jan 28, 2012 Paul Haspel rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: greece, ancient-greece, philosophy, classical-culture

Plato's dialogues take on greater depth and resonance the more of them one reads. Socrates' character in them remains much the same: seemingly diffident, almost self-effacing, as he asks a series of questions that gradually reveal unstated assumptions on the part of the person with whom he is speaking. What changes from one dialogue to the next is the particular area of interest that a dialogue engages, and the character of the person or people whom Socrates engages in conversation. In the case...more

like · see review

Jun 07, 2011 Jeremiah Tillman rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: ancients, philosophy

This one is tricky. It ostensibly concerns love, madness, and the tripartite soul. To introduce these theories, elegant and loquacious speeches are read aloud or made up. Yet Plato implies that most speeches have little to no depth as they deal with appearances as opposed to the essence of reality. Thus I was confused as whether or not to believe Socrates' articulated agreement with Lysias' speech and then his just as articulated dismissal of his previous conviction. Plato's metaphor for the sou...more This one is tricky. It ostensibly concerns love, madness, and the tripartite soul. To introduce these theories, elegant and loquacious speeches are read aloud or made up. Yet Plato implies that most speeches have little to no depth as they deal with appearances as opposed to the essence of reality. Thus I was confused as whether or not to believe Socrates' articulated agreement with Lysias' speech and then his just as articulated dismissal of his previous conviction. Plato's metaphor for the soul as a winged chariot is a famous analogy consisting of temperance vs. excess in acommadation of the intellect, yet I think the reader, after hearing Socrates' capricious speeches, is to doubt it. How does he know? That's a question I keep asking myself as I go through the Phaedo, the last book of the Republic, and the question I will ask when I get to the Timaeus. Is it suppose to be taken seriously (though it necessarily can't now) or is it a trip in rhetoric? Particular passages of the Phaedrus imply the latter:

"Socrates: Yes, Phaedrus, because I think writing has this strage feature, which makes it truly like painting. The offspring of painting stand there as if alive, but if you ask them something, they preserve a quiet solmn silence. Similarly with written words: you might think that they spoke as iff they had some thought in their heads, but if you ever ask them about any of the things they say out of a desire to learn, they point to just one thing, the same each time. And when once it is written, every composition trundles about everywhere in the same way, in the presence both of those who know about the subject and of those who have nothing at all to do with it, and it does not know how to address those it should address and not those it should not. When it is ill treated and unjustly abused, it always needs its father to help it; for it is incapable of either defending or helping itself" (275d4-e6).

Borges once said in an interview that writers always have an indefatigable pool of ever lasting friends, people who have gone through the same thing as the present writer, that they're never really alone. I figured that being published is the ultimate form of immortality. It worked for Gilgamesh and myriad others. Phaedrus and Socrates come to a similar sentiment early in the dialogue. But as it the wont of Plato, he is inviting us to question this immortality, is it really alive if it is static and not malleable and open to expansion? That's why Plato's oeuvre is essentially one large and vast invitation to philosophy, Funny enough, we have to read this question, as you read this review. (less)

like · see review

Jan 25, 2010 Dusty rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Recommended to Dusty by: Elizabeth Richmond-Garza

Shelves: graduate-school, read-in-2010, read-in-2011

On a steamy Grecian afternoon, while the cicadas chirp, while their countrymen nap, Socrates and Phaedrus converse about the nature of love, and about truth and rhetoric. Generally, I find reading Plato a tiresome chore. That's somewhat less the case with Phaedrus, which is, so far, the spunkiest Platonic dialogue I've read. The "love" discussed here is not between a man and a woman -- I believe at this time women weren't considered capable of love? -- but instead between a man and his fair boy(...more

like · see review

Jan 07, 2009 Jon rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Plato at his most playful. First Socrates presents one argument about romantic love (in a nutshell--that it's dangerous and not to be messed with), then professes to have changed his mind and presents an extreme counter to his own argument, (that love is a reminder of our true spiritual form and should be sought above all else). He finally reveals that he's just been messing with Phaedrus in order to show him how unwieldy and unreliable the art of rhetoric can be.

like 1 like · see review

Feb 15, 2009 Chris rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: theory

Plato is RIDICULOUS. In all the best ways. I'm sort of inclined to agree with a friend who said that if you're trying to sort out the Socrates from the Plato, a pretty good indicator for the Socrates is the concentration of dirty jokes. The Phaedrus is rife with them. It actually opens with Lysias arguing for hookup culture. That makes the subtle little ways that Socrates pulls out the rug from under you all the more delicious.e

like 1 like · see review

Nov 18, 2011 Kristi rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: nonfiction, classics

Lots of really heavy philosophy in here that got pretty tough to understand at time. However, an interesting blend of topics: both love and rhetoric. If I knew more about philosophy, I probably would've understood the text more. Also, even though this is marketed as "the easy reading series," the translation wasn't as simple as I expected. Other classmates had a more straightforward (with modern English syntax) translation, which also might have aided my comprehension.

like · see review

Mar 29, 2009 Samantha rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I strongly suggest that you read this if you're really ambitious about your reading. But if you're not willing to sit through it and really analyze the reading, you probably won't get any of it and might fall into the many traps Plato has set up.

If you've already read this dialogue and think it's simply about love, you'll definitely have to re-read it.

like · see review

May 19, 2008 Shawn rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

God this is good stuff. Plato sends me.

"There is also a madness which is the special gift of heaven and the source of the chiefest blessings among men. This divine madness is of four kinds - the gift of prophecy, religious ecstasy in which the soul is purified from sin, poetical inspiration, and lastly the madness of love.

I might tell of many other noble deeds which have sprung
from inspired madness. And therefore, let no one frighten
or flutter us by saying that temperate love is preferable to...more

like · see review

Aug 20, 2012 Kouyoum rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I have just finished reading the french version. What a surprise ! What a cold shower ! This is futuristic, it is not even contemporary ! A beauty in every way, a wonderful "promenade" in time...
I was expecting Phedre (like Racine's play) and ended up having a conversation with Socrates...What else ? What more ?
Read this, have your children read it.

like · see review

Sep 05, 2011 Mandy rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

One of Plato's dialogues that actually is a dialogue - Phaedrus isn't just a straw man for Socrates to use as he makes his argument, instead the two speakers guide each other to a mutual conclusion regarding the nature of rhetoric and (to a lesser extent) love.

The Nehamas/Woodruff edition is really comprehensive and useful, especially for the non-classicist.

like · see review

Jul 18, 2011 Rachael rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: 2011-book-challenge

I've always meant to read this, mostly because of the role it plays in The Charioteer. Much more about rhetoric than I realized, rather than actually being about the nature of love. I found the depictions of Greek religion, Platonic ideals, rebirth, etc. interesting in an academic sense and occasionally even beautiful.

like · see review

Sep 11, 2010 Mandy rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: 2010, philosophy

I found this to be one of the more approachable of the Platonic dialogues. Granted, I haven't read them all, but I've read enough to be a decent judge. Be forewarned, since Phaedrus convinced Socrates to leave the city, things go a little differently, but that's all I'll say so as to not spoil it for the rest of you.

like · see review

Jul 25, 2010 Davejones rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

The book has been often described as being badly constructed - with the second half disjointed from the first. However this sense of bad design is only on the surface - in fact this book is a perfect unity, that functions as a puzzle. Plenty of clues are there, but the puzzle is solvable only to those who already know!

like · see review

Sep 20, 2012 Lindsey rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I'm not necessarily rating this according to its value, as I understand (like the Phaedo) that it's a fundamental text. Rather, I'm rating it like I'd rate any other book: by how much I enjoyed it. And I did enjoy it--after all, how great is it that Socrates goes on a picnic?--but on a fairly general level.

like · see review

Feb 28, 2013 Jeff rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition

A difficult read not because of subject matter but because of a bother to actually sit down and read. Plato makes some interesting points, has a strange discourse about love with boys, and ends with what becomes the Western ideal of Academic writing (though he hates writing [though he's a writer]).

like · see review

May 29, 2009 Everett Darling rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: Lawyers, public speakers, writers

Shelves: 2009

The dialogue calculating the pros and cons of the written vs. the spoken word, fits in a contemporary context regarding memory, specifically how our memory has become dependent upon www sources, while we maintain an omnipotence that is both tenuous and arguably illegitimately earned.

like · see review

May 14, 2011 Pip rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: classics, philosophy

Phaedrus is Socrates' discussion about love (eros). He moves from discussing love to discussing the nature of the soul. His argument is the basis for Aristotle's proof that there must be some sort of god, which was heavily influential on medieval philosphers and even apologists today. The reader should be aware that the context of Phaedrus is a man having an affair with a young boy (which was considered one of the greatest forms of love in Socrates' time). While most of what Socrates says about...more

like · see review

Aug 13, 2010 Jay Kovach rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: Adults, the educated and those with a grasp on metaphors

I've read this several times before. I had to read it in college for a classic rhetoric course. I fell in love with the text. It is in my opinion, the most playful Plato has ever been and also contains some of the most beautiful rhetoric I have ever read to date.

like · see review

Aug 07, 2009 Nancy Bielski rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Read this for Core Concepts. Does anybody know what this means? I'm STILL confused like 5 years later. It may also be that I read this sophomore year when I was definitely more into my social life than really studying my face off...

like 1 like · see review

Feb 12, 2012 10brandyb rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I understand the cultural differences between now and them, but the man/boy love thing put me off while reading this. I walked away from this piece with the question of what is more powerful: culture or human nature?

like · see review

Feb 22, 2010 Kevin rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: classic, philosophy

I feel that many of the Greek books would do better to be read in a class or to take a class after so that the reader understands more. I find that I need to read these books a few times before truly grasping the ideas.

like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 99 100 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »

Recommend it | Stats | Recent status updates

combine
Other Editions (73)

More editions...

Genres

Philosophy

64 users

Non Fiction

25 users

Classics

16 users

Philosophy > Theory

7 users

Academic > College

7 users

Academic > School

6 users

Literature

5 users

Literature > Ancient

5 users

Cultural > Greece

4 users

Love

3 users

See top shelves...

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About Plato

Birth c. 428–427 BC, Athens
Death c. 348–347 BC, Athens

Plato was a Classical Greek philosopher, mathematician, student of Socrates, writer of philosophical dialogues, and founder of the Academy in Athens, the first institution of higher learning in the Western world. Along with his mentor, Socrates, and his student, Aristotle, Plato helped to lay the foundations of Western philosophy and science.

Pl...more

More about Plato...

Books by Plato

The Trial and Death of Socrates (Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo)

Five Dialogues: Euthyphro/Apology/Crito/Meno/Phaedo

More…

Share This Book

Facebook Twitter Your website

Trivia About Phèdre: Suivi de ...

3 trivia questions

More quizzes & trivia...

Quotes from Phaedrus

“Love is a serious mental disease.” — 403 people liked it

“Only a philosopher's mind grows wings, since its memory always keeps it as close as possible to those realities by being close to which the gods are divine.” — 22 people liked it

More quotes…

title link	preview: Phaedrus
avg rating	preview: Phaedrus Goodreads rating: 3.86 (2196 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1328.Phaedrus?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1311645778l/1328.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1328.Phaedrus?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]Phaedrus by Plato[/url]

Phaedrus

Friend Reviews

Community Reviews

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website