/lit/ - Literature

>>22453587
I do have thoughts. I don't want to reveal all my original research here (sorry), but here's two pointers that can help you if you want to try yourself.
1. Plato is going through a dialectical movement (like Hegel dialecitc-like) from early to middle to late Plato. The late step is a return to the position of first but in updated more reflective version, preserving and overcoming both the earlier two stages.
2. If you really want to understand Plato's efforts better you need to understand Socrates. He hasn't been understood well enough to date. My tip is to figure out why exactly Antisthenes (and the Cynics), Aristippus (and the Cyrenaics), Euclides (and the Megarians), as well as Plato (and the Platonists) all went their own directions but claimed faithfulness to the original Socrates. I don't think any of the four had wild revisionist intentions. You need the four to work backwards and reconstruct Socrates' tacit beliefs proper. Remember the point of his aporetic elenchus is that he couldn't really put it into words, so you have to reconstruct his tacit understanding.
>Why do you think they're wrong?
Because realism is based on a more reflective self-analsyis of our own phenomenology of intentionality, and anyone who hasn't realized it is stuck at that earlier philosophy-of-the-Absolute level. It's very tantalizing and tempting to stay there. Going past it requires a certain self-honesty and diligence when doing the reflecting. A lot of people are content with the monism/nondualism as the end all be all. It's definitely closer to the truth than people think, in ways they don't yet understand so well. But the truth is completely difference.

>>22401502
I said this already, don't do it. Here's your real rec:
Level 1:
>Magee, The Story of Philosophy
Level 2:
>Plato: Euthyphro > Apology > Crito > Phaedo > Meno > Republic, Book I-II
>Descartes: Meditations
Level 3: Fill in the gaps by learning everyone Magee covered in whatever order you'd like after that.
Level 4 (overlaps with 3): Fill in the gaps Magee did not cover, to whatever extent you want, in whatever order you want.
Level 5: (overlaps with 4): At some point, try to structure the history in your mind semi-chronologically. You should be able, on call, to write competent essays summarizing the ideas of individual philosophers and their connections of influence or reaction to each other. It's at this stage that it matters to read Copleston's history and other secondary and tertiary literature.
Level 6: IF you've made it this far, you should have a complete knowledge of most historical philosophy. But the time it takes to get here if you're dedicated is probably 10 years. I mean I feel I'm in level 5 bordering in 6 but I first took a philosophy class in 2013, majored in 2014, then did a MA, and so far four years of PhD, in philosophy. So that's ten years. But you have a lifetime ahead of you. It's not "over" if you don't do this by age 30, though I'm not 30 yet myself. It's "over" when you die. So if you die at 80, you've got some 50-60 yeears ahead of you. Go, have fun, stay dedicated, and don't follow memes. BE YOURSELF

>SOCRATES: Greetings, my friend. I couldn't help but notice that you are eating an apple.

>PLATO: Yes, I am. Apples are quite delicious, don't you think?

>SOCRATES: They are indeed tasty, but I would argue that bananas are superior to apples.

>PLATO: Really? In what way?

>SOCRATES: For one, bananas are much easier to peel and eat. You can simply remove the peel and enjoy the fruit within, whereas with an apple, you must cut it into slices or bite into it directly, which can be quite messy.

>PLATO: That is true. Bananas are certainly more convenient to eat than apples.

>SOCRATES: Not only that, but bananas also have more nutritional value than apples. They are rich in potassium, which is essential for maintaining healthy blood pressure and heart function. Apples, on the other hand, are high in fiber and vitamin C, but they do not contain as much potassium.

>PLATO: I see your point. Bananas do seem to have some advantages over apples in terms of convenience and nutrition.

>SOCRATES: And let us not forget about the versatility of bananas. They can be eaten on their own as a snack, used in smoothies and desserts, or even cooked and served as a savory dish. Apples, on the other hand, are mostly eaten raw or used in baked goods.

>PLATO: I never thought about it that way. Bananas do seem to have a wider range of uses in the kitchen.

>SOCRATES: And finally, bananas are widely available and affordable, whereas apples can vary in price depending on the season and region.

>PLATO: Yes, that is also true. Bananas are definitely more accessible and affordable than apples.

>SOCRATES: So, as you can see, there are many reasons why bananas are superior to apples.

>PLATO: I must admit, you have made a compelling argument. I will have to consider incorporating more bananas into my diet.

>SOCRATES: I am glad I could persuade you. The health benefits of bananas are undeniable.


How did Socrates know about vitamin C and potassium? I thought those were discovered much later.

In socrates's "apology" he ends the writing by saying

"The hour of departure has arrived, and
we go our ways- I to die, and you to live. Which is better, God only knows."

Pretty much Socrates is leaving the world by not making his own conviction, and letting "God" handle it from here. Are there any other writings that end in a cryptic and open ended way like this?

What are some books and novels that have absolutely god tier dialogue? I want to get lost in some great speeches.

>>11914075

I am a dirty american wop who wishes to learn more about my ancestors and hence Greek and Roman Paganism. What are some good (historical, academic, non-biased, well-sourced) works on the religious views of classical antiquity?

What do you make it of these final words?

You rang, plebbians?

>>10940906
>>10940909
>You blessed man! His is an inscrutable body of work only to be penetrated by the most sublime of secondary literature.

How do I become a philosopher, guys? I haven't gone to university or read many books however I'm still interested in becoming an established thinker as I believe it would look good in a tinder bio.

sock rah teez

>>10757758

>Rosenberg

He was the only civilian executed after the Nuremberg faux trials. That alone points to his intellectual depth, if he was simply mad with nothing real to say he would simply be left alone and perhaps even highlighted to expose Nazi insanity. Instead however he was executed and his works were suppressed expressly because the intellectual and persuasive nature of his works. The myth of the 20th itself gave me what seemed like a religious experience and I would highly recommend it to anyone with any level of positive view towards white racial "in-groupism".

He wasn't murdered for spouting madness, he was murdered because of a pervasive fear of truth. Pic very related.

>>10392877
>>10392881
>Hehehe I'll just question the definitions of everything, that'll show 'em!
Philosophy is trash. Socrates was a brainlet. Yet pseuds continue to perpetuate the tradition he began.

Asking this board to debate with the Sophists.

/fit/ here. This is why you start with the Greeks. Not only were they buff, they had no conflict with wanting to be other things, because the Greeks saw philosophy, mathematics, music etc as intertwined and interconnected. They were ugly as hell but they had the power to fuck any bum they wanted, male or female. When Socrates was poisoned the nigga(er) just accepted his fate because he had no regrets after a life spent lifting and thinking

Socrates:
>*pssh* like nothing matters kiddo, you should just kill urself bro so you can achieve perfection and harmony with God. Check how fucking hueg my delts are, I bet I can crush some Oriental pusswipe's head in like a melon
Sycophanticlese:
>why yes o wise Socrates, you're so right Socrates!

>Aristotle to Kant
Oh it shows!

What does Socrates think about murder? Can it be justified?

So I finished reading Meno and it seems like Plato just left a big gaping hole in the dialogue. At the beginning Meno asks if virtue is taught, practiced, natural, or something else. By the end Socrates concludes that it is neither taught nor natural so it must be given by god, and completely ignores the "practiced" part. Why??

Also, in this context, does saying that virtue is practiced mean that virtue is found through trial and error, or that one already has an idea of what it is and tries to achieve it? I'm leaning towards the former since Socrates basically says that if you know virtue, you have it.

>>10092429
What is justice?

Jokes on them. This is a phrase of our patron saint of /lit/.

>They're not even real lol