What is systematic philosophy, and how did Plato contribute to the birth of it?

Any help is greatly appreciated...
What is systematic philosophy, and how did Plato contribute to the birth of it?
By preserving Socrates.





Plato himself was a bit of a dunce.
What is systematic philosophy, and how did Plato contribute to the birth of it?
%26quot;System%26quot; is not well defined in the philosophical world. I found this description, almost word for word, in several places that should have been able to give better descriptions:


%26quot;a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school%26quot;.





Generally, a %26quot;system%26quot; is one whereby all questions can be answered that are addressed--by theme or by subject--within the philosopher%26#039;s writings, and WITHOUT CONTRADICTION.





Systems break down very easily when contradictions are found. But not all questions of philosophy can be answered by all %26quot;systems,%26quot; because the theme or subject was not addressed by the author. By %26quot;theme%26quot; and %26quot;subject%26quot; I do not mean such things as %26quot;third trimester abortions.%26quot; I mean the epistemology and metaphysics and ethics and politics that would allow one to draw a conclusion about such abortions based on those four subjects.





This is because for a %26quot;system%26quot; to work, we must be able to draw conclusions based on how the author described %26quot;the workings%26quot; of his/her metaphysics; of his/her epistemology; etc. It has nothing to do with specifics, such as Aristotle saying that essences were %26quot;in the things themselves.%26quot; It has to do with WHY he said that. From that %26quot;why%26quot; we may be allowed to draw other conclusions.





However, a system must be more than disjointed declarations of beliefs. Ayn Rand, who has some of the most vehement critics of modern philosophers, has been said not to have a %26quot;system,%26quot; thereby disqualifying her as a philosopher.





But if you read her %26quot;Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology,%26quot; she explains in detail how Man comes to have ideas.





Then you read John Galt%26#039;s Speech from %26quot;Atlas Shrugged,%26quot; and you see a non-contrdictory system at work detailing how a civilization must operate and why its principles must allow for the individual sovereignty the Constitution was intended to insure--but which, because of its own flaws, is slowly failing.





Then you read her book (and I do not mean to imply they must be read in any particular order) %26quot;The Virtue of Selfishness%26quot; and you come to understand the nature of %26quot;rational self-interest,%26quot; which was the cornerstone of her ethical system. She also wrote a book addressing only the topic of art. Other pieces of her writing fill in her system, (she wrote monthly newsletters, a newspaper column, etc) though it is true she did not address all themes and all subjects. That is an impossibility. Even Aristotle and Plato did not do that.





But until Plato, no philosopher did such a thing at all. Socrates is said to have had a system, but Socrates did no writing, so it was all up to Plato to describe the system of Socrates.





A system is, in my opinion, enough logically-drawn perceptions and conclusions (concepts) by an author so that one may extrapolate certain other answers even when the author did not explicity address them.