/lit/ - Literature

Whose literature got you to stop being a coomer and start practicing restraint? For me, it was pic-related–Phaedo, to be exact.

>>16321883
Cringe

Writing is a record of speech, ie. a copy of a copy of the Idea.

Science is a tracing of the outlines of the copy, ie the phenomenon, which misses the Idea.

How can writing access the truth, when it's an imperfect reflection of speech, which is an imperfect realisation of the Idea?

How can science realise the truth when it's an outline of a copy?

>>16128580
>>16128591
>>16128598
>>16128737
The Chad Platonist vs The Virgin Moldbugman

Is it OK to read Timaeus without having read anything else from Plato?

"And you would not accept the statement that one man is taller than another by a head and the shorter man shorter by the same, but you would bear witness that you mean nothing else than that everything that is bigger is made bigger by nothing else than by Bigness, and that is the cause of its being bigger, and the smaller is made smaller only by Smallness, and that is why it is smaller. I think you would be afraid that some opposite argument would confront you ifyou said that someone is bigger or smaller by a head, first, because the bigger is bigger and the smaller smaller by the same, then because the bigger is bigger by a head which is small, and this would be strange, namely that someone is made bigger by something small. Would you not be afraid of this?" - Plato in Phaedo

I very much so enjoyed, agreed with much of, and engaged in Plato's arguments which are stated in Crito and Euthyphro, and I appreciated his speaking in Apology, but what is this bullshit all of a sudden in Phaedo? The whole thing is pseud. He takes recollection as axiomatic in his arguments despite, in his argument for recollection, not considering the idea that people could learn through simply reasoning with the things they already know and logically deducing some conclusion. I could barely understand the counterargument against Simmias, he seems to switch up the definition of "harmony" constantly, and, while I can't put my finger on it exactly, it seems just like a strawman. Here, though, it looks like he's completely confusing the nature of things as they are and the words we use to describe their empirical relations.
Am I missing something? Will Aristotle begin to correct and argue against some of this thought when I get to him?

How does everyone here interpret the idea of the 'soul', recollection, etc.?
I just finished Phaedo (speed read, will read it again later at a slower pace) and I'm a bit confused. Not by the text itself, but rather, how people here treat the idea of the soul and recollection. I think it's obvious that, from a modern point of view, You can treat the soul as simply "you" and your character and virtues/vices etc., or if you're religious you can take it a bit more literally, but I find that people here will talk about the soul a lot quite literally.
While I am Christian and believe in the existence of a soul, I can't help but critique that Plato is taking the existence of the soul as axiomatic, and while I'm having a bit more trouble dissecting his idea that we learn through recollection (of forms, I think he claims), mostly due to the convoluted mathematical example he gives with Socrates and the slave, I don't think it holds up, as for whatever reason, he doesn't account for the possibility that we can take previously known information and use our own reasoning and faculties to produce new information from it.
I suppose what I'm asking is, how do you treat the concept of the soul while reading Plato's works?

Should I take advantage of modern technology and listen to audio books and take notes while I listen in app while walking around/doing physical labour or should I read books at a table and take notes in a notebook the old fashioned way? Plato in particular I want to read then work my way up to more recent philosophers. Id like to gather your thoughts on which method you feel is more useful for absorbing new information.

A lot of the dialogue in Phaedo seems to be pointless if you don’t believe there is a soul. I don’t personally have any disbelief in the soul, but Socrates (Plato) spends so much time proving that the soul will not die with the body, but doesn’t really consider the possibility that there is no soul. Am I missing something?

How does one learn to speak better? I can read something, think about it for a moment, then form beautiful arguments against or for it online - I then review this once or twice to make sure I said it well, and post/send it. In real life though, I start to stumble over arguments quite a bit, forget/don't realize things which I only think of later, etc. I also have a fairly strong "accent" (I slur my words quite a bit and talk fast) which I'd like to mitigate at least somewhat.
Does anyone have experience with this or some book/video to help with it?

I just got so fucking filtered so hard by the Deductions in Plato's Parmenides.

Does anyone have any suggestion of how to read and get something out of this?

ITT: Pleb-friendly philosophy and literature podcasts.

Is "History of philosophy without any gaps" by Peter Adamson /lit/ approved?

>>15834407
>>15834496
*bashes your fucking skull in*

What's the difference between
>the relationship of Plato's forms and names with reality
>the relationship of Wittgenstein's language with reality

I just finished reading Euthyphro over twice, it was my first time reading Plato, so mind that I might have some things wrong regarding his overall worldview.
I've made some notes about it, and my conclusion was that Euthyphro is meant to be an introduction of "forms" from which you can model your decisions regarding the attributes of certain objects/actions/etc. (i.e, whether some action is pious or impious). It discusses how you can assume certain "perfect" objects which fit into the form properly, then using this perhaps to deduce more properties inherent to the form. I believe he also introduces and explains some basic logic and 'set theory' in the text, with regards to cause and effect (something which is "seen" gets this attribute "seen" from someone seeing it, not that it has the attribute seen first and thus people see it.) and subsets (piety being a subset of justice). This "logic/set theory" is able to be used to discuss the properties of forms and their objects in more detail.
Does this sound about right? I looked up on google to see what people think are the driving factors of the text, but it seems that everyone considers it literally just to be something regarding ethics and and holiness/piety. I can go into more detail to how I came to these conclusions if some anon wants.

How did Plato serve as the foundation for Christian metaphysics when the forms are immoral in the Christian sense? Can we even attribute the early Christian metaphysicists to the religion itself, or were they just individuals continuing the philosophical tradition with little to no attachment to the religion?

I just finished the Iliad and the Odyssey, I have a copy of the Republic by Plato, and I'm planning on getting his complete works soon. Which works should I read in which order, before moving on to Aristotle (and is it alright if I start with the Republic)? Also, is there a specific complete works I should get?

Where do I start with him? I have his complete works but should/do I read the entire thing cover to cover, or are there certain works I should start with?

You are simulating a real, perfect version of yourself that exists outside of time & space. This is known as the "higher self."

"The function of humans in our world is therefore to imitate the ideal/archetypal world [of Forms] as much as possible which, importantly, includes imitating the [ineffable] Form of Good"

The recursive paradox of the whole situation is that it is you NOW that is empowered to define who exactly that perfect self IS and WILL BE

Who do you want to be?

For more, see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato

Should we maybe create a general for Plato and/or for some other philosophers who are discussed fairly often and who have a large body of work? Maybe make a poll and see if it flies?

>>15535408
Reading any philosopher after Plato is decadent.

>>15457015
>mfw dialectics is a "recurring problem"

What’s the point of going to universities unless you study these four subjects?

>Math
>Physics
>Philosophy
>Classics

All others are memes and should be relegated to technical schools. The most dumb degrees are those related with modern languages. Nigga, if you want to study Chinese, just go to China to study it. So many useless and nonsensical degrees these days.