/lit/ - Literature

>>20973557
>antiquity
Shhh nobody tell him about this nigga

I'm not well acquainted with books and rarely read them. But i'm intrigued by the quotes i've heard from the man and would like to be pointed to where the good stuff is.

Anything you guys can recommend?

Post your favorite and least favorite Platonic dialogue, get a book recommendation or something.

favorite: Theaetetus
least favorite: Cratylus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o73pqQ9Gzt4

>Name drops T.S Eliot

How can this guy be so based?

I found that the most fundamental distinction in Plato's philosophy is between the many observable objects that appear beautiful and "the one object" that is what beauty "really is", from which those many beautiful things receive their names and their corresponding characteristics. Nearly every major work of Plato is, in some way, devoted to or dependent on this distinction. But here's the kicker: he never says it straight out. Think about it! It's all in dialogue form. How do you know he is not poking fun at this ridiculous abstracting? Oh because we have many people tell No, he really believes in that. Nevertheless many of his works explore the ethical and practical consequences of conceiving of reality in this bifurcated way. I believe what Plato really believed, given that his student was the Father of science, that we are urged to transform our values by taking to heart the greater reality and the defectiveness of the subjective world. I believe Plato meant through his dialogues that we must recognize that the body is a different sort of object from the soul—so much so that it does not depend on the existence of the soul for its functioning, and can in fact grasp the nature of reality far more easily when it is not encumbered by its attachment to anything abstract.

>who the fuck do you think you are extrapolating all this shit?!?!

(2/3) continued below...

Has anyone done as much irreparable damage to western thought as this retard?

>dude universals exist in a separate heavenly realm lmao
No. Fuck off you complete fucking moron.

1. Where do I actually start when I start with the Greeks
2. Do I read everything? Or just the most popular?

Thanks in advance :)

>Start to read Plato with the goal of reading all of Plato and moving on to Aristotle
>Read Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo with ease
>Of the 4 Phaedo was the hardest to understand, but I was able to wrap my head around it with a bit of re-reading
>Get to Theaetetus
>Read like half of it, and start to get confused
>Press on and by the time I'm near the end don't think I'm really understanding anything.
>Tell myself I'll come back and read it later to try to get a grasp of it
>Next up is Sophist
>Understand the first half easily
>Get to the whole being and not being thing and am forced to try to Google around to understand what the fuck they're talking about

Am I too dumb to understand Plato? Or should I have read the Pre-Socratics? Are these generally considered the "harder" of his works? Also Statesman and Parmenides are next. Are they more or less difficult?

In general terms, is this the kind of level most philosophy sits at, the level of Theatetus, or is it simpler or more complex to understand?

Would Plato consider programming language to be the ideal language?

>>6855157
>sports
>shit hobby
Get out of here you fucking gay nerd

>>5976488
What if concepts exist somewhere else?
What if we are concepts?

You have 10 seconds to explain why you aren't a Platonist.