cba to go through this entire thread so i will simply say: you faggot niggers have never actually read plato and it shows. plato is one of the most difficult authors/philosophers/playwrights to parse insofar as multiple different styles are employed within the context of a singular dialogue and the dialogues as a corpus must be read evolutionarily (unlike for example that which we consider the kantian or hegelian corpus which is presented to us as "static")
quite literally almost every single european and in particular kant and nieztsche - in short, german idealists exlcuding hegel - got it wrong. hegel alludes to this but does not explicitly state it because the kantian perspective of plato, which itself is born from the absolute dominion aristotle had over scholastic and by extension european enlightenment era thought, was (and the analytic paradigm shift notwithstanding still is) considered inviolate.
do or do not, i dont give a fuck but if anyone ITT is interested in actually discerning what plato thought (which is arguably more essential than aristotle for critically engaging with post hegel developments), you must
>establish chronology (only in the 20th century did archeological and stylometric analysis advance enough to give us a decent chronology; kant, hegel, nietzsche, etc... almost all of their chronologies were incorrect)
>read every dialogue one by one
of the renown, the only one who almost got it was hegel