This is one of Plato’s worst works. He draws the conclusion that Ion having knowledge of other poetic works, but only feeling inspired to speak when it comes to HOMER, means Ion is influenced by divination. Plato overlooks a lot of counter arguments (it’s the whole point of the philosophical dialogue method.) he for instance’s doesn’t take personal taste into account. Plato also tries to determine who’d best judge HOMERs poems, which seems like an unnecessary deviation from his main argument. Hell even the foundation for his main argument is weak, what evidence is there that HOMER was used by the gods? Couldn’t you argue the same of Plato? The Dialogue form exists to argue against your own argument, but in “Ion” all you get from Ion is him agreeing with Socrates. I would still consider this worth a read despite it being Plato at his weakest, solely to remove this bizarre notion people have that Plato is philosophy. “Plato is philosophy, and philosophy, Plato.”-Emerson. In Ion I found myself agreeing quite often with Socrates thoughts on the written approach to philosophy. Socrates pointedly rejected the written word, precisely because a book is inert, it cannot adapt to its audience, and one cannot argue with it. (Phaedrus) that being said I just think Plato fumbled.