/lit/ - Literature

Got myself a few books in french and latin, i can read comfortably in french and have studied latin back in highschool, whats the best way to learn how to read latin? Should i read a few sentences in french, then switch to latin and see if i can find the words? The other way around? Is it useless? I still have my old dictionary and such

Does this make sense? What does /lit/ think? It's all Plato/Aristotle.

1.) Man is not a disembodied spirit but an animal part of a broader fabric of nature with a particular place in that nature.
2.) A thing's place in nature is the thing that it naturally does and a thing is bad inasmuch as it fails to attain this end. So in this sense a seed that does not sprout is truly bad because it has not fulfilled its function.
3.) The essence of what distinguishes man from other animals is rational thought.
4.) To live out our function in the world is therefore to live by reason.
5.) The life according to reason is actually the happiest as anyone who has learned to live this way will tell you but it is hard to acquire.
6.) We are complex animals with multiple faculties. We have a faculty for sleep, for eating, sex, learning, mysticism, etc.
7.) The sensation of "pleasure" is nothing more than the optimal functioning of any one of these faculties. I feel pleasure in falling asleep when I fall asleep in an optimal way (no caffeine, comfortable bed, at the right time, etc.)
8.) As we have different faculties, they compete with each other. I can't do mathematics in my head while carrying on a conversation with a friend, the two things compete and neither will be enjoyed thoroughly.
9.) Life is suffering and there's a certain amount of background suffering all the time.
10.) The easiest way to get out of suffering is to induce an intense pleasurable sensation by food, drink, drugs or sex
11.) If you do this, your mind loses the ability to even perceive or pursue the higher goods in life. You become so intolerant of suffering that you can't be a good person. Socrates said "every pleasure is like a nail riveting the soul to the body", Jesus said "whoever does not deny himself every day cannot be my disciple."
12.) People are raised to avoid suffering and seek pleasure both by their families and the public education system
13.) People have a warped idea of goodness: because they only know how to seek pleasure, they think their transient feelings of goodwill, erotic love, etc, are marks of moral goodness
14.) The only way to cultivate the higher faculties of the soul and live a truly good and noble life is to learn how to be temperate about things like food and sex. It's indispensable and it's the first thing to do. Every "wise man" is unanimous on this point. By putting pressure on bodily appetites the other faculties start (slowly, slowly) returning to order.

Ok final megathread about the important works that one must read in philosophy, order doesnt matter, that we can discuss later, also no manuals, only the philosopher writings.
>Plato: Apology, gorgias, phedro
>Aristotle: Categories, nicomaquean ethics
>St agustin: Confessions
>St Thomas Aquinas: Summa teologica
>Descartes: Discourse de la methode, meditations metaphysiques

>ruined the Dionysian element in Greek tragedy with Euripides
>naively conflated the good with the conscious
>"from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
>literally got executed for his views

So why did he become such a hero in philosophy / academia?

Hi /lit/ I don't know if this is the appropriate place, but I think it is. I've recently begun listening to the The Socratic Dialogues on audiobook while working out and I find myself being annoyed by it all. It's the same thing for every story/dialogue:

>Argument or discussion between socrates and someone else
>Somehow it gets to a discussion of the root definition of a profession or virtue
>The discussion goes around and around and around always dancing around meanings
>The opposing side to socrates seems to always answer in a very stupid way and no one ever comes close to a discussion or argument that I agree with
>Often I just get pissy and start talking to myself halfway through because I don't like the answers being provided by the stupid greeks and the non-answers being provided by socrates
>No one ever approaches a meaningful rebuttal to socrates they just act stupid and haughty
>The dialogue ends with no real resolution

Honestly, I'm not surprised he was put to death. If socrates was anything like how he is in the dialogues and the greeks/athenians were as stupid and hubristic as they appear, I can see precisely why they made him kill himself.

My main question now is, is all of greek philosophy like this? I don't know if I can stomach the rest of the dialogues (I'm about 8 hours in). What should I jump to if I really don't like this?

I apologise for the semi-recommendation thread.

Are you working on knowing yourself?

Do you possess moderation?

Are you couragious?

Are you happy?

I'm reading Euthyphro and Socrates is trying to define piety, but as usual, he can't settle on a definition that he is satisfied with. Did they kill Socrates for being indecisive? Is Socrates's entire point that these terms can never be defined, and if so what are the implications of that?

>Is our current system of student loans "just"?
>If it isn't, what exactly is wrong with it, and how could it be changed?

Does anyone have any books that will help me adjudicate this question?

>be a 70 year old bald-headed fag
>walking around athens bullshitting my way into people's houses
>everyone i talk to wants to die lol
>they all like dem socratic shietttt
>arrested for corrupting the youth
>lol still fuck kids
>can escape, choose not to
>choose not to
>choose not
>But now the time has come to go away. I go to die, and you to live; but which of us goes to the better lot, is known to none but God.

Would Plato be a Christian if he had been acquainted with Christianity?

>Socrates was an extrovert according to Xenophon
There's really no hope for autists

Explain the metaphysical and political significance of Socrates’ ‘profession of ignorance’ (his ‘non-knowledge’) and demonstrate how it allows him to refute the charges leveled against him in the Apology.

Hey /lit/! I want to learn philosophy on my own, tried to learn it with double major but could not allocate time for it. I started with the greeks, but it takes so much time, and i have no idea what to learn, read afterwards.Do i just open a book and read? I am not really comfortable with the lack of textbook materials. I am in need of a guide to follow. Is there any phil curriculum i can follow on the internet? Some kind of guide would be nice too.

Just finished Protagoras, but I cant understand a couple things. The translator Adam Beresford kept claiming Socrates was making Hedonist claims when arguing with Protagoras, but it seemed more like Utilitarian claims and/or Rationalist claims. Besides Socrates ironically saying "that what's plesurable is good and what's painful is bad" (358b) where are Socrates Hedonistic claims?
Also how can it be called dialectical what Socrates is doing? it reads as if he is a true sophist trying to muddy the waters just in order to not lose look bad against Protagoras. Is Socrates is just being Meta-Ironic?

>>10606408
is this some sort of new meme i missed?
>>The men who followed him, knew him and wrote about him never describe his physical appearance

>Suspicion mounts