/lit/ - Literature

>>16509074
Based

>The Alpha of Awe. The Brute of Brawn. The Cultivator of Class. The Duke of Domination. The Emperor of Eloquence. The Fiercest of Fighters. The Greatest of Glory. The Height of Heroism. The Imperator of Intellectualism. The Jarl of Justice. The King of Knights. The Lord of Loquaciousness. The Master of Mortality. The Naysayer of Noobs. The Overlord of Obituaries. The Prince of Passion. The Que-hagen of Quixote. The Ruler of Ruination. The Sultan of Smite. The Taskmaster of Trembles. The Undertaker of Ubiquity. The Vaeyen of Vociferousness. The Warranter of Weaklings. The Xenophobe of Xenogeny. The Yardmaster of Yesteryear. The Zhar of Zoroastrianism

What did Plato mean by this?
Was it a serious self critique or something more along the lines of euthydemus?
I just read it and I'm really confused

If change is impossible, why is Parmesan dead?
Checkmate atheists

>>15530362
If only you knew how bad things really are

I'd say start with the Greeks or the wisdom texts of the bible, they're from a context you might already be familiar with but even if you aren't I'd say they're still great
I had a secular upbringing and consider myself agnostic but still think that Ecclesiastes is one of the most profound texts I've ever read, it's pretty short too so there isn't much harm in giving it a shot
Read it in whatever translation you like, if you don't know much about translations then I'd say go with KJV if you like pretty but archaic english or RSV if you want something more modern
>>14797766
This is good too, I recommend Penguin's The Last Days of Socrates as it contains Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, and Phaedo
>>14797801
Dangerously based, who's your favorite?
I'm pretty torn but I really dig Parmenides

Truly to escape Parmenides involves an exact appreciation of the price we have to pay to detach ourselves from him. It assumes that we are aware of the extent to which Parmenides, insidiously perhaps, is close to us; it implies a knowledge, in that which permits us to think against Parmenides, of that which remains monistic. We have to determine the extent to which our anti-monism is possibly one of his tricks directed against us, at the end of which he stands, motionless, waiting for us.

>"Before an object can move any distance, it must first move through an infinite series of fractions of that distance; but since one can never actually get through an infinite series of steps, no distance can be moved through at all."

t. Parmenides

refute this (protip you can't)

How can you even try go against him? Is everything really one?

>>14000477
>incites in you a sincere belief in the divine but without actually making the flaw of Plato by mixing morality with the metaphysical
nothing personnel kid

Is reading and actually understanding Parmenides supposed to be difficult or am I just a brainlet?
Based on his verses, the gist I am getting is this:
If you can think of something, it is (is basically means it exists), therefore there is no such thing as nothing, since the very fact that you can think of “nothing” means that that “nothing” is actually something.
How close or far away am I from understanding the text?

Why read this wall of text when the image of a single face annihilates his arguement

>Guenonian traditionalism and Eleatic doctrine
Take the true final redpill anon

Well, it can't really contend with doctrine from a few thousand years ago so I really doubt it's worth your time

But seriously, what did he actually believe in?

start with the pre socratics, but more importantly end with the pre socratics!

I miss this lil nigga and his retroactive refutations like you wouldn't believe

>>13657898
>retroactively debunks your entire metaphysics with a fucking poem

Refute him

>Come now, I will tell thee - and do thou hearken to my saying and carry it away - the only two ways of search that can be thought of. The first, namely, that It is, and that it is impossible for anything not to be, is the way of conviction for truth is its companion. The other, namely, that It is not, and that something must needs not be, - that, I tell thee, is a wholly untrustworthy path. For you cannot know what is not - that is impossible - nor utter it;
>For it is the same thing that can be thought and that can be.

>>13036267
pseud, how do you hope to defeat zeno?

How could one man be so based?

>>12838311
Think again, sweety

Looking for a good translation of Parmenides and maybe some background material on him and the other presocratics. Theres a book that floats around here sometimes called 'The First Philosophers' - is this a good place to look?