"Desjardins' conclusion, that the Theaetetus really does point to a particular theory of knowledge, certainly will be controversial, since for many people the idea that the Theaetetus fails to define knowledge is the cornerstone of their interpretation of Plato's later philosophical thought. But whatever one thinks about the conclusion, it must be agreed that the manner in which it is defended is intrinsically important. Desjardins starts from the unassailable premise that the dialogues are internally unified, and that everything in the dialogues is there for a reason. Her method, then, is to show how some of the features of the dialogue that are usually not taken very seriously actually are very important. Of course, she is not the only scholar taking this sort of tack, but what she makes of the various elements of the Theaetetus is a most impressive construction.

“Desjardins’ conclusion, that the Theaetetus really does point to a particular theory of knowledge, certainly will be controversial, since for many people the idea that the Theaetetus fails to define knowledge is the cornerstone of their interpretation of Plato’s later philosophical thought. But whatever one thinks about the conclusion, it must be agreed that the manner in which it is defended is intrinsically important. Desjardins starts from the unassailable premise that the dialogues are internally unified, and that everything in the dialogues is there for a reason. Her method, then, is to show how some of the features of the dialogue that are usually not taken very seriously actually are very important. Of course, she is not the only scholar taking this sort of tack, but what she makes of the various elements of the Theaetetus is a most impressive construction.

"Desjardins' conclusion, that the Theaetetus really does point to a particular theory of knowledge, certainly will be controversial, since for many people the idea that the Theaetetus fails to define knowledge is the cornerstone of their interpretation of Plato's later philosophical thought. But whatever one thinks about the conclusion, it must be agreed that the manner in which it is defended is intrinsically important. Desjardins starts from the unassailable premise that the dialogues are internally unified, and that everything in the dialogues is there for a reason. Her method, then, is to show how some of the features of the dialogue that are usually not taken very seriously actually are very important. Of course, she is not the only scholar taking this sort of tack, but what she makes of the various elements of the Theaetetus is a most impressive construction.

In this first comprehensive treatment of Plato’s political thought in a long time, John Wallach offers a "critical historicist" interpretation of Plato. Wallach shows how Plato’s theory, while a radical critique of the conventional ethical and political practice of his own era, can be seen as having the potential for contributing to democratic discourse about ethics and politics today. The author argues that Plato articulates and "solves" his Socratic Problem in his various dialogues in different but potentially complementary ways. The book effectively extracts Plato from the straightjacket of Platonism and from the interpretive perspectives of the past fifty years—principally those of Karl Popper, Leo Strauss, Hannah Arendt, M. I. Finley, Jacques Derrida, and Gregory Vlastos. The author’s distinctive approach for understanding Plato—and, he argues, for the history of political theory in general—can inform contemporary theorizing about democracy, opening pathways for criticizing democracy on behalf of virtue, justice, and democracy itself.

Plato became the master for every dictator by sidesteping the Socratic method in his platonic state. Plato invented the subjective in an attempt to demean the objective and shuffle away the predicate philosophy of Socrates. The Platonic Idiom expreses the infirmity of western civilization.

It is commonly known that Nietzsche is one of Plato's primary philosophical antagonists, yet there is no full-length treatment in English of their ideas in dialogue and debate. Plato and Nietzsche is an advanced introduction to these two thinkers, with original insights and arguments interspersed throughout the text. Through a rigorous exploration of their ideas on art, metaphysics, ethics, and the nature of philosophy, and by explaining and analyzing each man's distinctive approach, Mark Anderson demonstrates the many and varied ways they play off against one another. This book provides the background necessary to understanding the principle matters at issue between these two philosophers and to developing an awareness that Nietzsche's engagement with Plato is deeper and more nuanced than it is often presented as being.

Toward a Unified Platonic Human Psychology defends a coherent view of "Platonic Psychology," or looking at human psychology as circular motion in the brain. Author John Mark Reynolds, using the psychology of Plato's Timaeus, advances the discussion of Plato's psychology by proposing a new reading of his view of the human soul. The implications of Plato's psychology on his ethics, view of the animal world, and theology are also examined.