/lit/ - Literature

>>20884467

>it feels like something that should be taught in primary school

Certains things, such as philosophy, are not taught in primary and secondary schools probably on purpose. Why would the nation encourage its children to question and disbelieve in its existence? On a more cynical level, politicians want their people to be easily controllable. Likewise, knowledge of subjects like banks, taxes and mortgages are essential life skills but intentionally neglected. People who are bad at managing money are easy to control. Schools provide us with critical learning, but they are also factories designed to produce obedient worker drones, and instil an easily-controllable mindset (look up 'slave morality'). Arguably, things are better this way.

To a certain extent, it's impossible to teach this to primary students because children can only think 2-3 'steps of consequences' ahead, and this requires a more developed mind to be able to reach such a level of abstraction.

I never found this stuff scary, but more thrilling, or prehaps hilarious. You have this subconcious sense of something that you can't put into words, that you just can't grasp, but then suddenly while randomly reading some philosophy they state it in simple and absolute precision and it becomes crystal clear and it hits you like a hammer of understanding. The joy of revelation.

However, there is a great deal of darkness in the world, and the more you are able to percieve, the greater the evils you become aware of. It does get depressing sometimes. It is said that ignorance is bliss, but King Solomon stated it in reverse; 'He who increases knowledge, increases sorrow.'

Maths is good example of Plato's Forms. He uses the example of a square. You've seen a million squares, but none of them are the true square, the 'idea of a square' that allows our minds to recognise what objects are or are not squares; defined by maths, we have the Form: four right angles with sides of equal length.

>the kind of idea that has you and not the other way around

Better than considering it an absolute truth, acknowledge it as possibility. 'Truth' is a very liquid thing, especially when it comes to abstractions.

You won't go insane, but you will feel disconnected from most other people, and most won't understand what the hell you're talking about.

Plato was written in ancient Athens, so because of the way society and language worked, they would frequently quote famous works or poems (in the sense that Christians today might quote the Bible) or from the stories of the gods and myth (in modern terms, if you used Marvel / Star Wars as an allegory, most people would understand you) in order to make a point.

If you want to go full dive, you can find a 'start with the greeks chart'. People disagree about the reading order for Plato, but I would read the 4 books that make up the 'trials' first. Republic is a bit thick, but just make sure to read it alongside a commentary or sparknotes or somethings.

>>20332880

Like the others say, find summaries to get an overview, then pick what appeals. I gradually came to learn 'what to read' by casually browsing /lit/. The introductions to a lot of classics help to explain 'where they are' in the grand scheme of things.

You should consider the process like completing the image of a jigsaw, with each book only giving you small part of a complete image. The individual pieces may only make limited sense, but as you gather more pieces, you will be able to start linking them together and each piece will help you to understand the other pieces in turn.

Works like Plato and the Bible are major pieces that link to hundreds of other works, so they are good choices. Going for Homer / Plato / Aristotle is a decent way to start, with works that connect to each other. Animal Farm, 1984, and Brave New World is another decent starting trio. The idea is to collect different 'lenses' through which you can see the world.

The /lit/ 'top 100' lists are a good place to start. Also take a look through Harold Bloom's Western Canon list. If you don't know what's 'good' to read, then picking anything on those lists is almost certain to give you something that, one way or another, will expand your understanding of humanity.

>>16459238

You're almost engaging a strawman at this point. You are making the assumption that Trump and the government are the same thing, which isn't the case. Even if Trump is removed, the government remains. If Trump has fallen out of favour with the public and loses his usefulness, you could even say that removing Trump is the will the government.

>CNN and NBC are saying Trump is a traitor that will have to be dragged out of the White House

Because that's what political opponents against Trump want people to believe.

>You really can't see a difference?

No. It is precisely the case that there is no difference; these are both political groups attempting to control what we perceive as truth. In the case of the US, the democrats and republicans both constantly broadcast their own interpretations of truth to encourage people to have certain opinions. How is that any different to what Putin does?

Putin and RT lies, but western media lies equally as much. Controlling people in this way has been the norm for every country all the way back to Roman times (Augustus/Aeneid, etc.)

They get free libraries in every city.

Special building, Plato's academy.

Leader should be Humbert from Lolita. Gains culture whenever you capture a worker, settler, or city.

>>12902412

Read up on Greek mythology. Then read the Iliad.

>>12476565
>>12477972

This. It's from Plato's Republic. Haven't read much of Aristotle yet, but the other anon mentioned it.

Basically, when young people get their hands on dialectic, they try to 'win' the argument like a game instead of seeking truth, so it just ends up being a waste of time.

>>12476565
>>12477972

>>12476565 (OP)
>>12477972

This. It's from Plato's Republic. Haven't read much of Aristotle yet, but the other anon mentioned it.

Basically, when young people get their hands on dialectic, they try to 'win' the argument like a game instead of seeking truth, so it just ends up being a waste of time.

>>12476565
>>12477972

This. It's from Plato's Republic. Haven't read much of Aristotle yet, but the other anon mentioned it.

Basically, when young people get their hands on dialetic, they try to 'win' instead of seek truth, so it just ends up being a waste of time.

>>11154093
Yeah, the Greek society was actually a lot more authoritarian than people in the mainstream make it out to be. It was quite dictatorial. Greek democracy was nothing like modern day plutocratic "democracy". The will of the people is not carried out in today's society. The focus of modern day democracies is not the people whatsoever but instead the bidding of a small clique of elite individuals is the priority. Fascism/National Socialism is the only true from of Democracy there is.