[aestetix]

What's funny about this article is that it seems to focus on the Republic without addressing any of his other dialogues. What about the aporetic dialogs where there are no clear answers? What about his Parmenides where he rips to shreds his own golden theory of forms?

To say that he got "everything" wrong, there's an assertion that we now have some "correct" answer which supercedes Plato. Can we now say with confidence what defines justice, which in many ways was the point of the Republic? What about defining love, the topic of the Symposium?

Rather than taking an arrogant modernist high horse and saying Plato was wrong about everything, it might behoove to highlight some of the questions Plato raised, and see how well we can answer them today.

[dcre]

Narrow focus on the Republic (and of course misreading it) is a classic feature of bad Plato critique.

[daseiner1]

Yup, couldn't agree more. One of my biggest intellectual annoyances is the common (mis)conception that philosophy is about answers when, as you said, it's really about questions. Less debate, more play.