/lit/ - Literature

>all of western philosophy is a footnote to Plato

more like
>all of western philosophy is a continuous blowing the fuck out of Plato

What a hack.

Novellas are what's going up in popularity the most because ebook readers are less prone to choosing doorstoppers to read that people in bookstores would buy to get their moneys worth. As in they knew they could read it for a long time like over a vacation.

>>13484535
Reading was always for plebs

Is it possible with ancient languages like Greek to become anymore fluent than simply translating the words (and adjusting the syntax) into your native equivalents in your head as you go? With a modern foreign language I can see how you could potentially pick up something closer to a native, natural understanding of the language as there are more ways to practice and people to speak with so that you get a sense for the meaning of the words as they stand themselves, and you're not just going, "that's the english for. . " quickly in your head. But with something like ancient greek, I can't see how this is possible. Anyone have any experience with this kind of problem? When I see people say on this board "You've not read a word of Plato unless you've read him in Greek." I'm left wondering if anyone can really read him in Greek at all or are they making their own translation (even if it's quick) in their head as they go?

Please set me straight on this if I'm missing something, because I'd rather be wrong on this, as it's a lot more appealing to be able to really be able to acquire a true feel for the language.

How did Plato/Socrates manage to be taken seriously when Socrates goes on an autistic tirade when it's suggested that his ideal society is boring and inconducive of greatness?

>singlehandedly derails Egyptian philosophy

What the fuck was his problem?

According to the dialogue called The Sophist, a Sophist is an imitator. He imitates being smart for financial gain. He doesn’t know this, because he has to trick himself into believing what he thinks he knows. Which is why/how philosophy started. Socrates goes around asking these sophists questions, and by drawing out their answers he’s able to point out their inconsistencies, and what’s more, how oblivious they are to their own incoherence. What’s ironic is that Socrates is the only one not getting money from this. Maybe that’s why the oracle of delphi said he was the wisest man of Athens. The sophists literally corroded the infrastructure of Athens by making everyone corrupt and live solely after their own gain, this led up to the 30 tyrants taking power and the fall of Athens. This is what Socrates was trying to fight against. If people read Plato they would understand that Philosophy is literally the heritage of men and women who were unwilling to let their communities get corrupted by fraudulent powers. The sophists were wrong then as they are now. The Statesman, the other dialogue, talks about the nature of a king, very interesting. Both of these dialogues have one thing in common, they are told by the Eleatic stranger. Elea is, as the perceptive reader would know, I’d the place of Parmenides. These dialogues are magical because they are the only explanatory demonstration of “the dialectic” at work. The eleatic stranger is treated as if he were a god. The Statesman is interesting because it shows how a king’s work is unlike any other work in that it rests on accurate knowledge of kingship. Again, a nod to true knowledge as the bond to a successful reign. The Sophist is a false adviser, who would/does lead Statesmen/King’s to their ruin by advising with false knowledge. The King is dependent on knowledge, and who is interested in accurate knowledge? The philosopher. A lesson we have yet to learn/appreciate. Hence why the oracle said Socrates was the wisest. Second wisest was Lycurgus, the king of Sparta, who had created the first legitimate communist state. Notice that tho, first was a Philosopher, second was a King/Statesmen. The sophists literally destroyed their own cities and ruined themselves by their stupidity. No, the sophists were/are wrong.

Best translation of Plato?

Something that is readable for those who doesn't have English as their first language. I am not reading in Norwegian, my native, as all the translations are apparently trash.

Also best translation of Aristotle etc?

>”The unrighteous man, or the sayer and doer of unholy things, had far better not be encouraged in the illusion that his roguery is clever; for men glory in their shame -they fancy that they hear others saying of them, "These are not mere good-for nothing persons, mere burdens of the earth, but such as men should be who mean to dwell safely in a state." Let us tell them that they are all the more truly what they do not think they are because they do not know it; for they do not know the penalty of injustice, which above all things they ought to know-not stripes and death, as they suppose, which evil-doers often escape, but a penalty which cannot be escaped.”

How can one man be so based

>>13038520
> "Evils, Theodorus, can never pass away; for there must always remain something which is antagonistic to good. Having no place among the gods in heaven, of necessity they hover around the mortal nature, and this earthly sphere. Wherefore we ought to fly away from earth to heaven as quickly as we can; and to fly away is to become like God, as far as this is possible; and to become like him, is to become holy, just, and wise. But, O my friend, you cannot easily convince mankind that they should pursue virtue or avoid vice, not merely in order that a man may seem to be good, which is the reason given by the world, and in my judgment is only a repetition of an old wives fable. Whereas, the truth is that God is never in any way unrighteous-he is perfect righteousness; and he of us who is the most righteous is most like him. Herein is seen the true cleverness of a man, and also his nothingness and want of manhood. For to know this is true wisdom and virtue, and ignorance of this is manifest folly and vice. All other kinds of wisdom or cleverness, which seem only, such as the wisdom of politicians, or the wisdom of the arts, are coarse and vulgar. The unrighteous man, or the sayer and doer of unholy things, had far better not be encouraged in the illusion that his roguery is clever; for men glory in their shame -they fancy that they hear others saying of them, "These are not mere good-for nothing persons, mere burdens of the earth, but such as men should be who mean to dwell safely in a state." Let us tell them that they are all the more truly what they do not think they are because they do not know it; for they do not know the penalty of injustice, which above all things they ought to know-not stripes and death, as they suppose, which evil-doers often escape, but a penalty which cannot be escaped.”

Stop wasting your time and read Plato

Why is philosophy important?

is it the ideal society?

Plato is the only philosopher worth reading. Prove me wrong.

why was plato censored in the ussr

>>12331371
>His is the only active voice, it's not a dialogue
*blocks your path*
His voice isn’t even in his philosophy. And he’s the only one worth reading.

Was he, dare I say it, /ourguy/?

So this Dunce thought there's this intangible thing called a 'Form'? And there's a world full of them? And every philosopher ever since was inspired by this retard? And philosophers STILL believe in 'Forms'?

WTF

where do i start with this nigga

I feel like Plato’s final dialogues are saying, I see now what Socrates was trying grapple with, here was what my master was grappling with, I just present it to all who come in search of truth, but I must admit I am utterly perplexed...

>Parmenides, Sophist, Statesman, Philebus, etc.

So far for most people Plato means the Republic. In school, in books, it always revolves around those that Aristotle suggests. We are always learning Aristotles Plato, and even if we were to confront Plato ourselves we are thrown into meeting Plato’s Master. Only in the later dialogues does he try to reach beyond, to describe what it was his master was grappling with, the masters master, that is, Parmenides. People usually don’t make it this far, and if they do, they either lose the world entirely, (Kingsley) or they only make strides to connect the lower rungs of thought, which at this peak is the upper tier of academia, to its own highest point (Hegel) but by then they rush off like horny dogs with stolen loot to plunder the world by etching their name in the blood of others (Marx, Hitler, Kissinger).

I stand here transfixed with Plato’s later dialogues and Hegels attempt to elucidate the dialectic magic, but all the while wondering what it was that Parmenides really figured out. Is the dialectic even the true name for it. Come to me Trismegistus

What’s your favorite dialogue and why?

Any sort of reading guides on Plato out there?

He was a brainlet.

>>12201429
Istj

>>12201317
Intp

>>12199120
Infp

>>12198171
Enfp

>>12193901
>Reality is extremely simple

How dare you