/lit/ - Literature

>>19728492
>>19730081
>>19730185
>>19730186
>>19730243
>>19730356
>>19731737
The only good reformer there ever was is Ficino.
Sorry if you're too ignorant to even understand what is implied in this claim.

>five hundreds years later, no one yet has understood that this man is the endgame of philosophy

Fool that you are, how can you contextualize any of those without knowledge of the whole Platonic corpus? Have you not seen what happened to the others? I will kill each and every one of you who dare raise their heads against the divinity of Plato and Aristotle.

>i. The soul is immortal;
He argues for this claim only in the Meno and the Phaedo and given how popular the Phaedo was in the following tradition, it was taken to be Plato's canonic stance of the soul. If you read the Symposium, for instance, you could see how the question for him was more open ended: he says that everything changes about us - our body and our thoughts - and makes a consistent argument which could be used to support the view that individual souls are, in fact, mortal.
Given that you have no understanding whatsoever of what a Platonic soul is, to just stick a Donald Trumpian "wrong!" on it is a bit fretful. Not the whole soul is immortal, in Plato, but just the intellectual part. And Aristotle argued that the intellect could not be corporeal because it deals with incorporeal entities (abstract ideas) and by doing so, it cannot be played down to function in the same way of corporeal things, which are generated and corruptible.
Now, blessed man, today we are still struggling to figure out what mental experience actually is, since our methods of scientific inquiry can only tell us what part of the brain activate when we think about stuff and we have almost no idea about what private mental experience actually is, I would not be so dismissive of Platonic or Aristotelian interpretations of it.

>ii. Learning is recollection;
Again a thesis from the Meno and the Phaedo - plus some Phaedrus, if you want to be a hamish-tier reader of Plato and take a mythological account as a literal account of Plato’s epistemology. Anamnesis was abandoned later in favor of something closer to the dialectical method. The reason why, though, it is a philosophically relevant idea is that it tackles the problem of innatism. And there is no doubt according to modern science and psychology that the mind is not a blank slate and that you possess some innate knowledge from birth. Whether it is embedded materially into your neurons or it is passed to you because in the afterlife you followed the chariot of almighty Zeus is really not important - the point is Plato was 100% right in claiming that the only way you can begin any kind of inquiry is by having some pre-cognition of the object of inquiry.
Now, we can discuss whether there are forms and what they are forms of, but there is absolutely no doubt that human beings are born with innate knowledge. So Plato was right on this, not wrong. And he came to the idea by solving the paradox of inquiry he himself set in the Meno.

(1/3)

>>11246414
>>11246232
>>11246000

I'm putting together a team.