Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

I do like Socrates and enjoyed reading the first chapter but you can tell how Plato takes over and the form of a dialogue become unnecessary.
The thing is, looking at this work historically might be really interesting, I can see how Plato was a revolutionist in many ways, proposed many ideas that hadn't been introduced before but it is also evident that those ideas appear to little novelty today (how would they). They are ridiculous at worst and well-known at best, reading this piece nowadays teaches the reader little about modern philosophy, more about its origins. For quite a while (especially after all that censorship was introduced which btw I still find ridiculous) I thought Plato to be a madman but reading the second half (particularly when he explained the kind of training the citizens would receive) I could see that he had a point, he wasn't some arrogant fascist, he did want the best for all people and gave room for promotion. It is important that this work is looked at in its historical context (and I'm gonna be honest with you, I know very little about history, so I can't say that's what I did) to understand its real significance and value.
It still bothers me, though, that the conversational partner always agreed with everything and not even attemped their own answer to the questions 'Socrates' posed and that 'Socrates' provided very little and at most times insufficient reasons for his arguments. He wouldn't stand a chance against another philosopher's attack. It probably takes a lot more time and effort than I put into it to understand and appreciate Plato's work fully but I'm just a student that (at least for the time being) has more interesting philosophic pieces they would like to engage with than to spend donkey's years on this one. Maybe I will come back to it at some point (quite likely). After the first read I must say, though, that it was one of my least favourite pieces of philosophy.