/lit/ - Literature

>>18385160
although, of course, for me, there's more than the physical body, soul always has a body. And with the pneumatic vehicle, the soul has realized itself as all-together with every self, each in each but itself primarily; just like every form to each form, so each soul is to each soul, and That is Soul itself, the unified will and love of all souls. That higher Will and Love is always there in each of us, but it is "asleep" for us, and this relates to >>18385176 the powers of the soul (Nous/Wisdom, Logos/Dianoia, the Virtues, Health, etc,...) are unchanging, but the Center of the self moves itself up-and-down through itself, climbing this 'ladder of love' is Philosophy.

it's nice when this happens

>>16575286
>are read after those where Socrates is the main speaker*
Also "Phaedrus, Gorgias, Symposium, Cratylus, and Protagoras" is not the order to read them, just pointing out their more advanced level.
TL;DR:
As long as you read Alcibiades first/early, Republic after Gorgias, Theaetetus-Sophist-Statesman together with Philebus after them, and then Parmenides and Timaeus-Critias last—then you can read all the others interspersed "whenever".
Usually people read Symposium and Charmides early and from them get the idea that Plato promoted faggot pederasty (not being familiar that most dialogues end in refutation of the claims/acts made earlier), which is why I have before recommended Laws early, or Symposium after Republic and Phaedrus. Phaedrus is a mini-Republic; and one does get the impression that half the Republic is a filter (something similar in Gorgias, and even all the more advanced Dialogues, although Timaeus does this is in reverse order), and this would then make it necessary to read Phaedrus after Republic.

>>16328099
wasn't even me
>the flower blooms

>>16086951
>>16086966
The point here is that opposites as opposites do not harmonize themselves, if they are equal, Love doesn't beat Strife, 'something' else 'acts' upon the spheres. Someone holds the scales and transcends Fate. We call it UnifiED and MixED because he is also the unity of all in himself as well as being the cause of all Harmony.

This is echoed in the past in Philolaus:
>This is how it is with Nature and Harmony: the Being of things is eternal, and Nature itself requires divine and not human intelligence; moreover, it would be impossible for any existing thing to be even recognised by us if there did not exist the basic Being of the things from which the universe was composed, (namely) both the Limiting and the Non-Limited. But since these Elements exist as unlike and unrelated, it would clearly be impossible for a universe to be created with them unless a harmony was added, in which way this (harmony) did come into being (into The Being literally). Now the things which were like and related needed no harmony; but the things which were unlike and unrelated and unequally arranged are necessarily fastened together by such a harmony, through which they are destined to endure in the universe. . . .

Plato: SOCRATES: Let us be very careful about the starting point we take.
PROTARCHUS: What kind of starting point?
SOCRATES: Let us make a division of everything that actually exists now in the universe into two kinds, or if this seems preferable, into three.
PROTARCHUS: Could you explain on what principle?
SOCRATES: By taking up some of what has been said before.
PROTARCHUS: Like what?
SOCRATES: We agreed earlier that the god had revealed a division of what is into the unlimited and the limit.
PROTARCHUS: Certainly.
SOCRATES: Let us now take these as two of the kinds, while treating the one that results from the mixture of these two as our third kind. But I must look like quite a fool with my distinctions into kinds and enumerations!
PROTARCHUS: What are you driving at?
SOCRATES: That we seem to be in need of yet a fourth kind.
PROTARCHUS: Tell us what it is.
SOCRATES: Look at the cause of this combination of those two together, and posit it as my fourth kind in addition to those three.
PROTARCHUS: Might you not also be in need of a fifth kind that provides for their separation?
SOCRATES: Perhaps, but I do not think so, at least for now. But if it turns out that I need it, I gather you will bear with me if I should search for a e fifth kind. PROTARCHUS: Gladly.
SOCRATES: Let us first take up three of the four, and since we observe that of two of them, both are split up and dispersed into many, let’s make an effort to collect those into a unity again, in order to study how each of them is in fact one and many. (Monos-Proodos-Epistrophe.)

>>15666244
One must imagine Hamsterus happy.

>one must imagine Sisyphus happy
Well, is Sisyphus happy?

One must imagine Sisyphus happy.

>>14268712
>>14268714

Why is my writing better when I go off my meds?

Describe this video in your best prose.