/lit/ - Literature

>All people have their fancies; some desire horses, and others dogs; and some are fond of gold, and others of honour. Now, I have no violent desire of any of these things; but I have a passion for friends; I should greatly prefer a real friend to all the gold of Darius, I am such a lover of friends as that. Although I am now advanced in years, am so far from having made such an acquisition, that I do not even know in what way a friend is acquired.
Bros...

I got Protagoras, how does it compare to other dialogues? Is it one of the better or worse ones?

Every fucking philosopher is constantly bashing the concept of pleasure like it's a bad thing. Which philosophers hold pleasure as a good thing, an amazing thing, as something to be held up high? Any other then Epicurus?

Literally unironically says
>"Yeah let's just not have parents or children anymore, we will raise them collectively."
>"We will tell the elite class they have actual gold and silver in their blood while everyone else has bronze, it's okay to lie en mass to people."
>"Yes I have an imaginary friend but they only tell me what NOT to do."
THIS guy is considered one of the smartest throughout history, huh?

Great philosophical works are great because of how comprehensive they are, how thoroughly they treat their subject, and how well written they are. It is NOT that the ideas are any more profound or important then the ideas of the everyday common person. Each and every person has just as valid philosophical ideas as the great thinkers. What makes them great thinkers is their ability to articulate their philosophical ideas and not that their ideas are inherently better or greater then the average.

Am I right in thinking that the main, most important point in Plato and Socrates thinking is
>There are concepts [forms] which exist independently of the physical and mental world for example; "A part cannot be larger then it's whole." is a concept, and a fundamental law more primordial then even, for instance, the laws of physics
And more importantly, do you agree with this assertation by Socrates?

Some of these metaphysics definitions are off. Specifically, in tying metaphysics to literal contemporary physics. We call it metaphysics for a certain historical reason, and some of what we describe as metaphysics is retroactively applied to previous philosophers and religions when they weren't using that concept. In fact, Aristotle, "founder of metaphysics," was probably not the one who coined the term. Nor does that mean his own study of metaphysics assume his study of physics. The name likely comes from his work on metaphysics as "writings after the physics" as categorized by later librarians. And the work itself is a reaction to the (metaphysical) ideas present in Plato.
Physics as a field has to do with metaphysics, but as much as art, aesthetics, biology, religion, and numerous other studies.
I would add this definition:
Metaphysics is the study of being, and the *intuition* of being. All people therefore have an innate grasp of metaphysics in that that can intuit ways of being. And such is obvious in the art and language of all people.
Ontology is in some senses synonymous with metaphysics. But it's distinct in this: ontology is the study of things. Think of "entity-study," ontology. It asks questions about the reality of entities or objects.
There is always an ontological question when broaching any scientific or even religious field. For example, when we look at any organism, is the organism "real" in one essence, or is it merely a web of interconnected physical parts? That is, is there really a tree or a brain, or can they be reduced to mere "pile" of cells, processes, or even atoms? Or: is there such a thing as "processes," or are they a convenient fiction for us to understand the world?
Consider religion. In Christianity, is there really a God, or is the religion just an ethos? In Hinduism, is there a God, are we all part of God, or is God separate?
In the study of metaphysics and ontology, you will find many fields of inquiry reach these open philosophical questions, from neuroscience, to religion, to physics, and even to the witchcraft practiced by primitive tribes.

>>19690777
>>19690977
>>19690999
Checked. Nietzsche niggers can't beat these digits.

>get almost no pussy
>Get so little in fact that they name "platonic love" after you
Oh no no no no no

>read Plato
>he's retarded
>read Aristotle
>he's retarded
>read Descartes
>he's retarded
>read Kant
>he's retarded
>read the bible
>he's retarded
>read Buddha
>he's retarded
>read Confucius
>he's retarded
>read Lao Tzu
>he's retarded
>read The Bhagavad Gita
>he's retarded
ok fuck this i quit the activity of reading

How can people defend Plato and Socrates when they said stuff like:
>Guys certain poetry, painting, and general art got to be banned because I specifically don't like it
>Guys what if we did away with the idea of parents and just all got raised as a collective?
>Guys we're going to get a special group of people to rule over us, let's convince them they have fucking GOLD in their blood while everyone else has silver or bronze, so they know they're superiors
>Guys if any of our own troops get captured and become POWs, leave them, they deserve help
>Guys, I swear there exists these things called forms which. you can't see them you can only think about them, but are MORE real then the real world and they are like perfect versions of the real stuff even though that makes no sense at all in any respect
>Guys, humans are broad nailed and featherless bipeds for sure
>Guys I have imaginary friends tell me what not to do cool ain't it?
I post this as someone with no grudge against Plato but seriously. How is this permissible?

Really? Then let's see your life and how you've "transformed" yourself. Let's see one true ubermensch who's performed proper transvaluation and isn't enslaved by spooks.
Every single admirer of Nietzsche I've met on campus ultimately has the same ultracucked psyche and won't dare use a Nietzschean antagonism of the morality of their time. They don't want to lose their job or place in society. Real "ubermensch" and masters of their destiny, constantly reinterpreting Neetzsche in a way that conveniently justifies their pedestrian worldview.

Books are mere propaedeutics to real wisdom, which is created and expressed through dialogue. If you post here you have engaged in dialogue with people who have read books, and read books vicariously through them whether you like it or not. The books we have read are inside us, and now we have all been inside you.

>>15212611
this guy