/lit/ - Literature

>abstractions are realer than the real world because... because I’m coping okay?!?!?!?

Philosophers of yesteryear would probably come to different conclusions about their own philosophies if they lived in the present day. So why should anyone alive today acknowledge those past conclusions as valid, given those conclusions would change if the philosophers experienced 21st century life?

What's a book or writer you wish you read sooner? For me its the Marquis de Sade.

Why does Plato so blandly assume that a man who is Platonically "just" will conform to public morality? How could any amount of inner harmony between the parts of the soul entail that a man will not steal, will not betray his friends, will not commit adultery, and so on? Justice for Plato is entirely self-regarding. He asserts that justice is to the human soul what health is to the human body; but surely no living body aims at anything but its own health.

From Plato's Republic to Harry Potter, all books written by white people are terrible. How come?

>Be honest with yourself, truth is that you are a subhuman that don't deserve to breed, become semislave human cattle to feed superior englightened castes. Ah, and after life you'll have 1000 years of suffering in Hades because you're too dumb to become enlightened.

>>18921552
"nothingness" is one of the few words that is self-contradictory in itself without any adjoining terms. Nothing-"ness" implies something which immediately destroys the meaning of the word. Nothing is nothing, this is valid, but nothing cannot be nothingness. If death is nothing, not nothingness, then it is really nothing, and everything that entails.

Rebirth and Olympian immortality are not mutually exclusive possibilities - there is the possibility of repeated generation or eternal being, the former being a reflection of the latter. The former is the case for the vast majority (path of the ancestors), the latter is the path for a select few (the path of the gods). In both cases you shouldn't be worrying about death because it is an existential non-issue, either live your life well to the best of your ability, or take that hardest path that is immortality (which is not even really a practicable possibility today anyway, and presents its own existential risks). Your personality and memories will all dissolve after death, but you can still alter the chain of cause-and-effect for future generations. Live wisely and virtuously to your best ability, and most of all know what to fear and what not to fear.

Going to read Plato's dialogues.
What am I getting myself into?
And what dialogue do I start with?

Did the term "platonic love" come from Plato?

If so, what could Aristotelian or Socratic love be?

>imagine thinking this guy wasn’t just some aristocrat reading, talking and thinking about for fun.
>imagine believing there was some deeper truth behind his texts and system(s)
>imagine thinking there is One Plato, One system.
>imagine believing like a 9th grade English teacher interpreting, jerking off Shakespeare

Plato never said or implied anything of the like you’re referencing, stop larping; read something else for god‘s sake.

You start with the Greeks to move on at some point.

>inb4 gigachadno.jpg
>inb4 frog posting

I'm halfway through The Republic and it's pretty clear there are some strong parallels between Plato's ideal Polis and Italian Fascism.

>Plato never mentions [Democritus] in the Dialogues, but is said by Diogenes Laertius to have disliked him so much that we wished all his books burnt.
Was Plato based for this?
What are some other noteworthy instances of authors/philosophers hating each other?

>Never learning to read is the only way to free yourself from the slavery of the written word
Based?

Where can we find a platonist answer to Aristotelian arguments? In terms of metaphysics. A platonist answer?

>>17496531
>>17496539
>>17496545
>>17496568
Plato who the hell knows but he was a wrestler so he must have been in good shape at least

>>17475510
lol nothing personal kid

Is anyone else here just ridiculously intelligent but cannot put your thoughts to paper, or even write a coherent sentence? I could impart so much wisdom on this board if I could just write well. I'm not kidding, I'd be the next Plato, people would flock to /lit/ to hear my opinions and wisdom.

I'm sorry for myself, but mostly sorry for all of you that can't become enlightened from my teachings.

What in your opinion is the essential dialogues and books of Plato, I'm OK with the order but he has quite a large corpus and I wouldn't want to lose interest so I would rather read the more essentials and come back to it later else if it necessary I can power through.

He was wrong about everything. There's no point in reading him. All he does is vocalize inner thoughts we all had, but they're extremely low IQ since we know more about how the world works today. Name one reason to read him that is "so you can understand references in pre-20th century texts".