/lit/ - Literature

>>8992897
to build on this, Plato's use of dialogue form is also a rhetorical device: it normalizes the process of philosophy by having ordinary, though admirably noble, people engage in philosophical conversations. Phaedrus, for example, is a discussion, refutation, and replacement of a speech that phaedrus had heard earlier on.

he just happens to meet socrates while walking around athens, and it's certainly no accident when socrates mentions something along the lines of: "though I never leave the city, if we're philosophizing, i'm willing to go anywhere with you." the fluidity, poetry, and ease of reading his works is partly from plato's past experience as a poet, but i would say moreso as an extension of his intention to create philosophers.

plato aptly knew that dense treatises that alienated his audience was no way for them to ascend out of the cave and toward the light which is true knowledge. thus, the dialogue form, instead of an aristotelian treatise, was a way to bring people out of the cave.

at my university, the first-year courses barely touch on aristotle; plato gets all the love, for what i think is an extension of this. he's easy to read. fun, even. symposium is a masterpiece of literature and philosophy.

i recommend a volume called "plato as author" which has essays on this sort of thing. also, the cambridge companion to..., the yale lectures online, and any and all secondary material.

most importantly, though, read his works with an open, perceptive mind. goodreads generally suffers from the same prejudice against plato: that he sets up straw-men and has socrates affirmed by compliant yes-men despite having flawed ideas. that's his trick: his readers are actively involved in the process of philosophy by disagreeing.

i'm rambling, but i love plato. cheers dudes.

you think this pussy ass bitch cried when he realized her bantered himself to an early grave

humanist
slight left of centre, economically
social libertarian
agnostic. i'm uncertain about most things, though one thing i know is that a god is much more interesting than the absence of one. the world's too mysterious and full of shadows for me to say 'yes' or 'no', so i would rather put a 'maybe', or 'unknown until further notice.'
moralist, hopeful, and idealist - though i realize the pursuit for perfection and 10/10 morality is a fruitless goal.
a man is capable of bounding ambition, knowledge, and power, and he has a natural right to pursue this to the best of his ability, so long as it doesn't subvert his brothers and sisters.
still searching and learning always, it's best to keep options open, as our views crumble in the wake of time to wax poetic a little.
i like joyce, whitman, melville, and plato. most of all, i wish to be an auteur; exploring music, film, my own prose experiments, learning the classics, studying linguistics, i'm taking latin, history, and philosophy this fall.

nothing is certain, our comprehension crumbles on a daily basis. humanity has the ultimate power of reason and faith; an ability for both hope and despair, we face a blank, black, faceless wall, but i believe, and i think it's best to believe, that there's something on the wall. maybe a nice painting?

modernist, humanist?

TECHNICALLY he never wrote anything!

>>7006666

Post-Modernity only subjectivizes knowledge because it removes the predictive component of knowledge.

We can know what is beautiful, for instance, if it has an intrinsic appeal that lasts across time.

Hence, when people referred to "the classics," they were talking about art that lasted for centuries as considered worthy.

>Americans used to study art that outright predated America. How then, could that art be beautiful, if the artist wasn't even aware of the subjective construction of America?
>And if America was purposefully designed to appreciate such an art, then how could hostile cultures, such as Communist Europe, also recognize the intrinsic value of such art, considering that both of their power structures were at odds? And what about the civilizations between America, whom stood against it, yet also acknowledge such beauty?

(Its just so frustrating to think how easily their arguments could be taken apart, if only we just abandoned Social Justice to allow for argument alone to merit.)