/lit/ - Literature

Should I read the Parmenides or Theaetetus first?

>>21869977
Why don't Asians believe in identity? A = A is literally nonsensical to them.

>>20848208
No one pursues the unknown, or would that not be illogical? What one pursues are the forms.

>>19508925
A soul is always in motion and as a self-mover has no beginning. A self-mover is itself the source of everything else that moves. So, by the same token, it cannot be destroyed. Bodily objects moved from the outside have no soul, while those that move from within have a soul. Moving from within, all souls are self-movers, and hence their immortality is necessary.

>>19422553
But, I can imagine a perfect line.

Nietzsche btfo'd.

>>19342143
>If you're a dom and not a sub you're still gay
t. Plato

There is something fundamentally true about Socrates' account of love in Phaedrus (the second speech).
>If you think this dialogue or Symposium is about homosexuality, you are pleb.

>>18753971
The Good.

>>18714033
Obviously.

>purifies your Greece
Both top and bottom are gay, both top and bottom are stained by the encounter.

>>18518853
I wrote this for a previous anon a long time ago:

>-Plato Five Dialogues(Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Meno, Phaedo which includes the trial and death of Socrates)
>-Laches
>-Ion
>-Protogoras
>-Gorgias(best possible explanation and condensing of all of Plato's typical philosophy and orientation)
>-Cratylus
>-some other smaller/earlier dialogues
>-Symposium
>-Republic
>That's a pretty good intro-to-middle list. As far "last dialogues", there are quite a few and the Republic isn't one of them. There's a radical change in late Plato from early Plato which is an even greater genius than what most people see, it's truly remarkable. How he was able to, as it were almost begin a new start in a philosophical orientation. Nevertheless such dialogues are:

>-Phaedrus(has the secret to the whole structuring of the dialogue, as well as the reason for Plato's use of it, and in the case of the dialogue, especially his late, Plato's poetic as well as philosophical genius comes into its greatest ability--; and Plato does nothing and puts nothing in the dialogue for no reason, it is all, working backwards to forwards or vice versa, structurally it is all there purposefully)
>-Philebus(continues from Gorgias, but I should say a lot of Plato's dialogues intersect with each other in very interesting ways where you have to keep in mind where something he previously arrived at is being rejected, or built upon or such)

>-Parmenides
>-Theaetetus
>-Sophist
>-Statesman
>-Timaeus
>-Critias
>-Laws

No anon, I think you will find that you are the faggot.

>"ugly of uglies, odious-to-the-gods, and unholiest of things."
- Plato

It's literally impossible to deny Anamnesis how do brainlets keep getting filtered by it lmao.

>Third comes the kind of madness that is possession by the Muses; which takes a tender virgin soul and awakens it to a Bacchic frenzy of songs and poetry that glorifies the achievements of the past and teaches them to future generations. If anyone comes to the gates of poetry and expects to become an adequate poet by acquiring expert knowledge of the subject without the Muses' madness, he will fail, and his self-controlled verses will be eclipsed by the poetry of men who have been driven out of their minds.

>>18164400
>Without embarking on an inquiry into the mystery just mooted, we yet must call to mind the distinction between the modern culture-poet and the naive poet of the ancient world. The latter was in the first place an inventor of Myths, then their word-of-mouth narrator in the Epos, and finally their personal performer in the living Drama. Plato was the first to adopt all three poetic forms for his "dialogues," so filled with dramatic life and so rich in myth-invention; and these scenes of his may be regarded as the foundation—nay, in the poet-philosopher's glorious "Symposium," the model unapproached—of strictly literary poetry, which always leans to the didactic. Here the forms of naive poetry are merely employed to set philosophic theses in a quasi-popular light, and conscious tendence takes the place of the directly-witnessed scene from life.

>>18069465
Yes.

>>18008030
>They're inextricable.
But different.

Your tone has been haughty and pedantic from the start, even though you are a complete retard who has obviously never opened an epistemology book. Hey, idiot, do you know the problem of induction?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

Ding dong, does it ring a bell? You can observe as many regularities as you want, the idea that they will continue is a metaphysical belief. There is a gap between a particular collection of regularities, however large, and their enlargement into an infallible law.

So YES, you idiot, the regularities are observed but presupposed by the scientific process, which has as its axiomatic presupposition the validity of induction.

Now go back to the septic tank where you came from.

>>18006204

>>17797183
>Greeks: pedophiles
What you mean to say is homosexual hebephiles, but that is plainly wrong as well.

>"ugly of uglies, odious-to-the-gods, and unholiest of things."
- Plato

>the charges officer?

>>17550255
>and by far the best poetic thinker.
*Blocks your path*

>>17488800
>"ugly of uglies, odious-to-the-gods, and unholiest of things."
- Plato, Laws.

Plato himself anon.

>>17487518
https://politicallyincorrectdharma.blogspot.com/2017/10/evola-on-buddhism-dharma-for-fascists.html
https://politicallyincorrectdharma.blogspot.com/2017/10/evola-on-buddhism-doctrine-of-awakening.html

I've always found advaita védanta both great and wobbly. It is brilliant in its analysis of the atman, when it identifies our identity with our phenomenal consciousness. It makes us realize that Being and Consciousness are two sides of the same coin for the conscious beings that we are. But even having gone back to our most radical source, to our Consciousness-Being, there is still a gulf between that and identification with the presupposed Brahman. A creature goes back to its root, its Consciousness-Being, without which its universe would not exist, and concludes that it is the source of the universe. But no, it only goes back to the source of its personal universe, and applies a solipsistic logic. The universe could be totally physical and without Brahman, the same thing would be possible for her: she goes back to its source, not to the source of everything. She takes her universe for the universe as a whole. It's very selfish. I don't know if I'm clear.