/lit/ - Literature

What am I supposed to get out of Plato's dialogues? I really don't get them. Most of them seem to be based on the pre-conceived notions of the time and backed up with bad arguments. Then again I'm no genius so maybe I'm missing something.

>"perish yourself"
Plato, Euthydemus

What books should I read if I want a general overview of philosophy? Don't suggest books you haven't read, I'm on to your tricks.

Already read apology, the republic, and euthyphro

>>21355419
Literature is a scam

What would he have said if you told him that in 2500 years he would be more famous than every single contemporarily philosopher? Would he have believed you?

You absolute fools, it's shapes all the way down

Hey /lit/,
I want to get into philosophy, and figured that studying some ancient philosophy would be a great start.
Can you recommend a good introductory book?

I'm following one of the 4chan charts. It told me to read the Iliad and Odyssey before any of the Greek philosophers because they reference them. The Iliad is boring me to tears and it's hard to keep track of all the names of characters and tribes involved. Is there an easier way? My end goal is to understand the basic Platonist concepts and then maybe look at Hinduism or something, maybe join Asatru.

What's the best version of the complete works of Plato?

What would he have thought about transexuals?

I want to work my way through the western canon to have a good general knowledge of western philosophy. Any recommendations? What I'm thinking so far:

Greek classics:
> Plato
> Aristotle

Stoicism:
> Epictetus
> Aurelius

Scholastics:
> Aquinas
> Anselm

Enlightenment
> Descartes
> Spinoza
> Leibniz
> Hume

Idealism
> Hegel
> Schelling
> Kant

Existentialism
> Kierkegaard
> Heidegger
> Sartre
> Camus
> Tillich
> Nietzsche

Positivism:
> Quine
> Popper

Postmodernism:
> Derrida
> Jean-Luc Marion

Marxism:
> Marx
> Engels

I know jack shit about structuralism/post-structuralism and have never read a single word of foucalt. What else am I missing?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mis0O8CZk90&ab_channel=GeographicMappingTechnologies%2CCorp..

>>19553624
>pic VERY related

"Welcome out of the cave, my friend. It's a bit colder out here, but the stars are just beautiful."

Where did Plato say this? In what context?

>>19080871
He doesn't think there are battles being waged in the World of Forms for humanity's soul.

Which authors do you think would kick your ass in a fight?

>Learned nothing from Parmenides and Heraclitus
>Proceeds to derail philosophy for over 2000 years due to this
Thanks, asshole.
Start with the Pre-Socratics.

After the months of woke drama ravaging the poetry world, can we finally admit that Plato was right about poets?

>Now for divine begettings there is a period comprehended by a perfect number, and for mortal by the first in which augmentations dominating and dominated when they have attained to three distances and four limits of the assimilating and the dissimilating, the waxing and the waning, render all things conversable and commensurable [546c] with one another, whereof a basal four-thirds wedded to the pempad yields two harmonies at the third augmentation, the one the product of equal factors taken one hundred times, the other of equal length one way but oblong,-one dimension of a hundred numbers determined by the rational diameters of the pempad lacking one in each case, or of the irrational lacking two; the other dimension of a hundred cubes of the triad. And this entire geometrical number is determinative of this thing, of better and inferior births
What did he mean by this?

I was reading the wikipedia article on the history of the conept of creativity and came accross this quote:
>The sole exception to this Greek view — agreatexception — was poetry. The poet made new things — brought to life a new world — while the artist merelyimitated. And the poet, unlike the artist, wasnotbound by laws. There were no terms corresponding to "creativity" or "creator," but in reality the poet was understood to be one who creates. And only he was so understood.
First of all, is this true? And if so why were only poets seen as being able to create? It seem to me that of all art forms it is poetry that has a lot of rules governing it such as in the structure meter etc.

I want to start with the Greeks, proceed with the Romans and Eastern thinkers and eventually work my way up to the likes of Julius Evola, Rene Genon, Dragos Kalajic, Curcio Malaparte, Yukio MIshima, Spengler etc. What are the most essential works I need to read through before I can progress onto the one's I mentioned? To clarify a bit more. I want to learn everything about the political theories of any and all times and what were the conditions that lead to a collapse etc. My end goal is to identify all the scenarios that lead to a downfall or failure of a new political movement/option and how one can prevent it.

when left-liberal new-speakers fall out of favour in the same way people laugh at Stalinists based on novels like those of bulgakov will those left-liberals just become another kind of left-liberal laughing at their former selves - its always seemed to me that the majority of intellectuals are very parasitic in this sense - should there not be a sort of purge of those types

*destroys western society*
heh nothing personnel kid

is philosophy for people too confused to know they really want poetry, math, or meditation/prayer? Or is it the history value?

how many things have to go wrong in someone's head before they consider studying philosophy?

I apologize for phrasing this in such a bait-ish way, but srsly niggers, explain yourself.