/lit/ - Literature

>>8889702
I would stray away from flow charts, most are oversimplified and deliver an quick and express path through the greeks. Reading Homer, Herodotus, 2 of plato's dialogues and a handful of plays will not make you fully understand the greeks. imo it should take a long time and careful studying to "finish" the greeks.

Phaedo or Apology

>>8828222
Apology. Crito is good too. And that one where Socrates died (but not for that reason).


The Republic is a fucking meme book. As is ancient Egyptian(?)

Only faggots like his The Republic book.

Diotima featuring Socrates was important to remember

>>8688536
Tyrannical man pls go

>>8645279
I discovered I can only love little boys. I dream of finding an aristocratic boy who adores me for my intellect and wisdom. I would teach him the art of living. I would wrestle with him, both of us naked. I would feel his sweat as I pinned him down. Then after a long training, I would dine with him until late in the evening. And then, when he could no longer resist my temptations, I would refuse him. Such is my erotic desire.

Start with the Egyptians and Pythagoreans

mysticism is the true way anon. come, let us join together in our journey towards the One

>>8514118
>>8514119
Alright. So I can just go into these with my current knowledge?

Hey OP, I got some aphorisms too:

>It is true that a frog in a well might be ignorant of the world that lies around it, but not the firmament above. Indeed, even in the water there beneath him, he will have a glimpse of the infinite eternal, and with much less to distract him than those whose lines of sight are much more horizontally inclined. This is why, therefore, the least worldly men are still often the most wise, for they tend not to clutter their minds with small and worldly things of little consequence - though of course, they may not have had the luxury of choosing. For this reason, Joyce was right to say of his native Dublin, in explaining why he chose it as the setting for his Ulysses, that the universal lies in the particular.

>Those who insist that a successor must not suffer for the sins of their predecessors, are nonetheless insistent that the latter be permitted to make the former suffer, should they perceive the sins of the latter as directed unto them. No clearer evidence of this have we than with the dwindling number of former, nonagenerian 'Nazis' - who, typically having participated in the regime under duress and having played very minor parts in any case, find themselves wheeled out to face the judgement of their victors' children and grandchildren.

>Across the spectrum, one hears a certain claim in contradiction to that of Louis XIV: "L'etat c'est ne pas moi!" Seemingly unrelated is the claim of de Maistre who, speaking in regard to the US Constitution, declared that a constitution for all is a constitution for none. In the spirit of this claim, with regard to the former, we are left with a question: Can a state with whom no one identifies, be for everyone? Can this be so?

>The conservative is one who, looking for a collective to which he can belong, either does not realize there is only a rabble or has foolishly consigned himself to one. The latter deserves his fate, whereas for the former there is hope.

>Is Chomsky not rather some sort of philosophical asbestos? He places himself as a buffer, between the reader and the inferno of modern capitalism and all the maladies contained therein - and yet he chokes you, slowly and in secret, from within.

>Somehow, the French have managed to portray themselves as the most qualified of all peoples in matters of taste - yet I can think of no finer example of French taste than of Proust's comments in regards to asparagus, comparing the pungent odour it imbues upon one's piss to a flask of perfume.

>The Ancient Greeks, it is true, could not turn water into wine - and yet they treated it as such. Is that not more admirable?

8228009
I understand you not understanding what I was really saying, at the least. Im sorry if Diogenes holds a strong place in your heart, or if I struck a nerve, but ad hominem only truly matters to the livingnt with this Plato meme.

Anyone up for a Plato reading group?

I can make a chat group on Slack then we can move through his works using the translations in the book Complete Works of Plato as reference. Order of texts will be decided once we get enough members. Ideally we could move to Aristotle after him then other Greeks.

If interest is enough, I'll start sending invites.

>inb4 muh forms

Just finished reading Crito. Socrates' definition of 'what is just' a shit:

>"If we take it upon ourselves to destroy you because we think it is just to do so, you'll attempt to destroy us, the laws, and your fatherland, to the best of your ability? And you'll claim, will you, that in doing this you'll be acting justly?

>A fatherland is something is something more valuable, venerable, holier and more privileged...one must honour one's fatherland...persuading it to change its mind or doing what it says, unresistingly...don't you see that that's what one has to do, and that's where justice lies?"

His whole idea is that: Athenians/Law/State > Socrates/Individual.

He lacks nuance, and does not consider whether it is necessarily unjust to react (rather than submit) to an unjust law/state/etc. There is nothing apparently 'just' in and by itself - it needs the approval of the law/state/etc.

The problem he's left me with this is: in Euthyphro, he argues whether things are good because they are loved by the gods, or if they are loved by the gods because they are good. His conclusion is good, in theory; but consistently elsewhere, he errs in favour of the former.

Something is 'good' or 'just' because it loved (and thus commanded) by the gods/Athenians/law/state. He submits to an unjust ruling, and an unjust fate, precisely because it is ordained by the Athenians/law/state, and because he believes it to be ordained by the gods.

If he truly believed what is 'just' is 'just' independently of all these things, why does he submit to them when they behave or rule unjustly? Vanity? Patriotism? Lack of imagination? I'm trying to figure it out.

I can kinda see why Nietzsche hated him (and by extension, Plato) so much.

Anti-Bible here (Basic Instruction Before Leaving Earth),

In response to the 3 posts above this post,

Which passages/sections/whatever would you recommend for someone that was recommended to read Matthew, and then closed in disgust once I read the shit-tier, evil filth "only the weak-spirited shall inherit Heaven etc", then picked it up after a few days to give it another chance, and then was *still* disgusted?

Please spare me as little bullshit as possible in your rec. Thanks.

>>8154607

>Empiricism is the only way to settle on shared truths.

Lel.

>You do know that what you said sounds like nothing but a deepity, right?

Only if you believe knowledge and wisdom to be the same thing, retard. Also:

>2016
>Using Dan Dennett terminology unironically

I'll bet you call yourself a 'Bright' too, hm?

>>8131936
>the passivity and introspection involved in consuming a book are definitely not traditionally westernly culturally masculine
Do you have a single fact to back that up?

Are there any good philosophical works solely on the concept of 'responsibility'?

I find responsibility a difficult and central question to how one ought to live. It plays into a lot of today's political climate- do we have a socialistic responsibility to others? And what of this 'white privelage'? Am I responsible for my great great grandfather's actions?

I am interested in arguments that express the extent to which one can be held responsible for something.

>>8088869
The opinions of the gentry don't concern me. To be so cavalier in discarding prudence reveals an unsound and womanly spirit.

>he fell for the ancient """""thought""""" meme

>>8055813
>>8055803
Plato was right about quite literally everything you cretins.

>>8056222

Do you even V I R T U E bro?

What's the point of metaphysics?

I've tried getting into it, but the whole field strikes me as mental labour over questions that you could happily ignore for your entire life without ill consequence.

>>7993634
>democracy
top γέλιο

>>7933736
>mfw

>>7924094
No, you don't.