/lit/ - Literature

that question can't not be answered

How much different philosophy would have been if pederasty was considered pedophilia

>>15989730
>pederasty
Man, I'm reading the republic rn, and it's very strange how into little boys Glaucon is. Were these 50yo men really fucking little boys on the reg? I mean what the fuck

>>15989789
Yes, we've lost our way, these are dark times indeed.

>>15989789
I think they preferred young men. Think 15ish. I remember a line from one of the dialogues saying the ideal age for a young man in terms of beauty was right before they could grow beards.

>>15989812
just please tell me Socrates and Epictetus weren't boy fuckers, please.

>>15989789
Bro, ancient Greece was kinda based. I wish to bring it back.

>>15989859
repent sinner

>>15989913
Jesus, if he was real, was allegedly murdered before he had kids, allegedly.

Then why are virgins and incels mocked so vehemently by the Christian world?

>>15989845
Socrates was madly in love with Alcibiades

>>15990072
Wtf are you talking about retard. All I'm saying is stop fucking little boys how is this hard to grasp.

>>15989859
>>15989812
At least put a wig and a skirt on them, damn.

>>15990171
it's a tangential comment, relax. sorry to ReDDIT hijack your post.

>>15990140
Just ass I am in love with Allyourholes

>>15990600
Whatever boy fucker

>>15989704
There is probably some mid shifting philosophy book that was lost or misunderstood or wasn't appealing so people didn't buy it and rot away in bookshops. Maybe some retards burt some important books too. Heck, schools such as Nalanda had many books which probably were important. Even libraries of ancient times.

>>15989730
>>15989789
>>15989794
>>15989812
>>15989845
>>15989859
>>15990072
>>15990140
>>15990171
>>15990435
Read this, and stop promoting jewish homosexual propaganda.

>>15989704
The sciences never would have broken away from philosophy.

>>15989845
>>15990140
Socrates calls himself Alcibiades lover, this is after either of Alcibiades dialogues, and Symposium is probably also before the Alcibiades dialogues (or after agreeing to his mentor, which implies no homofaggotry), Lover in platonic terms means mentor and tutor, that Socrates tries to be a Midwife of Alcibiades Wisdom. How did relationship should operate is clear in Republic. In Phaedrus Socrates sympathetically explains why two lovers never should engage in sex for spiritual reasons (last two pages in in related).
>>15992336 haven't read this but probably elaborate this

>>15992709
also, here's a symbol for you
In Symposium, at the end, read Agathon as literally being the Good himself. Connect this as Alcibiades being a corrupter of Good, and of the Good Virtuous Love that should be his love for Socrates and not the lustful one that he drunkenly has.

>>15992709
From the book >>15992336
>The first thing to conclude from this extract is that the word ' lover ' is not used in the current meaning. Otherwise, why should Socrates accuse Criti as, to the point of later humiliating him, of something he had every right to desire as a lover?
>And we also talked of people in Sparta, who wouldn't tolerate someone touching the young men's bodies, specifying that the meant the lovers who are responsible for the morals of their loved ones. Once again, words do not seem to mean the same thing to us and to ancient Greeks.

>Once again, words do not seem to mean the same thing to us and to ancient Greeks.

It's a 200 page book. Easy to knock out.

>>15992709
I guess I should have been clear. He was in love with him but according to Plato never had sex with him. If I recall correctly the term Platonic love was invented to describe their relationship.

>>15992745
Platonic love is sexual love. The popular idea of the term is the literal opposite of what it actually means.

>>15992756
literally read the paragraphs posted, that are in the very dialogues that people use to accuse Plato of gayness
>>15992709

>>15992771
It's what it says in the introduction of my edition of Phaedrus. The term "platonic love" was obviously not coined by Plato, so looking for a definition in Plato is pointless.

>>15992756
They have 4 different words for love and only 1 of them is sexual

I thought his ideas did survive, but just in the form of outlines and lecture notes rather than in the original prose. So I guess there would be more Aristotle scholars because he would be less boring to get into.

everybody was gay back when they mattered, even the chinks, though they desperately try to retcon it

>>15992789
>the name is the concept
>an idea doesn't exist until it is named

>>15992790
>Plato chose the term erōs from the range of possibilities because of its frankly passionate connotations: there is nothing insipid about a primal driving force. In Phaedrus he gives an astonishing analysis of what, in his view, is really happening beneath the surface of a love-affair, and focuses particularly on its ecstatic aspects – the ability of love to get us to transcend our normal bounds. Notice, then, how far removed this conception of love is from what we generally understand by the phrase ‘platonic love’, which is defined by my dictionary as ‘love between soul and soul, without sensual desire’. On the contrary, ‘sensual desire’ has to be present, because it is the energizing force.

>>15992828
>focuses particularly on its ecstatic aspects
>‘sensual desire’ has to be present, because it is the energizing force.
>defined by my dictionary as ‘love between soul and soul, without sensual desire’
>ecstatic aspects
ἔκστασις
>ékstasis, meaning 'outside of oneself
>In classical Greek literature it refers to removal of the mind or body "from its normal place of function.
aka beyond body aka Soul
>‘sensual desire’ has to be present, because it is the energizing force.
This can only be argued with a materialist starting point, that emotion is primarily physiological.
To Platonists the soul is what is affected by emotion, it is the very warping and twisting and pulsating of the soul's substance itself.

>clear instances of Plato and others in dialogues discussing the merits of buttfucking young boys
>noooooooooo you cant say greeks were pedophiles, because it hurts my christian sensibilities WAAAHHH

It's like feminists who think Sappho was a yasss slay queen proto-feminist

>>15992870
>Power derives from knowledge and also from madness and passionate emotion. Strength comes from nature and proper nurture of the body. So also confidence and courage are not the same thing, with the consequence that the courageous are confident, but not all those who are confident are courageous. For confidence, like power, comes from skill (and from passionate emotion and madnessas well); courage, from nature and the proper nurture of THE SOUL.”

>VISITOR: Do we say that wickedness in the soul is something different from virtue?
THEAETETUS: Of course.
>VISITOR: And to cleanse something was to leave what’s good and throw out whatever’s inferior.
THEAETETUS: Yes.
>VISITOR: So insofar as we can find some way to remove what’s bad in the soul, it will be suitable to call it cleansing.
THEAETETUS: Of course.
>VISITOR: We have to say that there are two kinds of badness that affect the soul.
THEAETETUS: What are they?
>VISITOR: One is like bodily sickness, and the other is like ugliness.228
THEAETETUS: I don’t understand.
>VISITOR: Presumably you regard sickness and discord as the same thing, don’t you?
THEAETETUS: I don’t know what I should say to that.
>VISITOR: Do you think that discord is just dissension among things that are naturally of the same kind, and arises out of some kind of corruption?
THEAETETUS: Yes.
>VISITOR: And ugliness is precisely a consistently unattractive sort of disproportion?
THEAETETUS: Yes.
>VISITOR: Well then, don’t we see that there’s dissension in the souls of people in poor condition, between beliefs and desires, anger and pleasures, reason and pains, and all of those things with each other?
THEAETETUS: Absolutely.
>VISITOR: But all of them do have to be akin to each other.
THEAETETUS: Of course.
>VISITOR: So we ’d be right if we said that wickedness is discord and sickness of THE SOUL.

Joy is never in the body, but Plato never denies the joy of two male lovers may experience from their madness the pleasures of sex; PLato doesn't object o buttsex because it's supposedly not pleasurable, he even admits it might be one of the most pleasurable things; he fundamentally prohibits it because it inhibits the growth of the soul and of body (you can't produce the beauty of child bearing and rearing, gay sex is a doubly barren activity).

>>15992885
>>15992709
I would tell you to kill yourself but that's not virtuous to do

>>15992885
>Plato, Leges 84 Id:
>"No one should dare have sex with the brave and free but their own wives , nor should he be allowed to have illegitimate offspring by concubines or childless and unnatural intercourse with men; even better, sexual intercourse between men should be once and for all prohibited."

Cope harder

>>15992963
>proving that sexual intercourse between men was common and accepted by all except boomer Plato when he was writing Laws
thanks

>>15989704
Plato was better

>>15992983
>common by all

they were lost because his notebooks had his whole thought but in a condensed format, thus easier to copy and cover

>>15992963
>old Plato was whole ancient Greece
just because he changed his own mind on a given topic doesnt mean shit

>>15993016
>changed his own mind
>developmentalism
In a text of Aristotle to which we will return at some length, Aristotle says that Plato’s commitment to a separate intelligible realm began as a youth (ε ’κ νε ´ου).57 Without doubt, then, this commitment antedates any of the dialogues supposed to reveal an account of Socratic ethics that is distinct from Platonic ethics. Given this, we have to decide if the claims made by Socrates in these dialogues are claims that entail no such commitment. Granted, it is possible that Plato’s commitments are irrelevant to his exposition of Socratic ethics and that these commitments actually constitute an unwarranted adumbration. We might, for example, want to maintain that the fi rm commitment to all the elements of UP or to things that entail these elements in Republic do not necessarily have anything to do with Socratic ethics. It might be supposed, for instance, that in Republic Plato’s tripartitioning of the soul allows for the sort of irrational acting that is not possible in Socratic ethics. We might want to argue that Plato’s outlandish belief in the immortality of the soul has no bearing on unalloyed Socratic insights. Socrates’ apparent agnosticism about the afterlife in Apology in contrast to Socrates’ argument for it in Phaedo might be thought sufficient in itself to separate Socratic ethics from Platonic ethics. In order to arrive at this conclusion, we would have to suppose that Plato went through a ‘Socratic phase’ before he transformed Socrates into a representative of his own Platonic position. This is not an unreasonable approach, though it requires a commitment to some type of developmentalism, a commitment that may on other grounds be found diffi cult to maintain. For example, it requires a certain amount of waffling in regard to Gorgias, in which Socrates directly expresses a belief in the immortality of the soul (as part of his ethical argument), and Meno, where a commitment to immortality—or at least to preexistence—is implied by the theory of recollection. Are Gorgias and Meno ‘early’ Socratic dialogues or ‘middle’ Platonic dialogues or works that are ‘transitional’ from one phase to the other?

>>15992741
ἐραστής and ἐρώμενος define the two roles in what was a strictly sexual relationship, as opposed to φῐ́λος which denotes an emotional attachment. Examples abound in Plato and elsewhere. Denial of these facts is cope, seen clearly in your post where he tries to say "lover" has different meanings.
ἐραστής, from ἐρος which means sexual desire. The relationships between men in Plato and elsewhere are thus specified as sexual and emotional (See Symposium and Phaedrus respectively).

>>15993055
Here is what Plato says in Euthydemus, 282b:
>"As I see it, wisdom more than money one must have from his father or his tutor or his friends and other, but also from those who claim to be lovers, and from strangers and from cit izens; for, there is nothing disgraceful to the one who begs for wisdom, Clenias, nor is there something worthy of indignation in serving and subduing oneself to one's lover or to any person one wants to serve, with honorable services of course, if it is out of eagerness to become wise."

Plato adds the phrase 'with honorable services ', because in a previous work, Symposium, I 85d4, he had said exactly the same thing, and despite his clarification, 'aiming to virtue', some malevolent readers may have misinterpreted it.

>>15993055
Eros is desire, literally how Plato defines it in what people call the gayest dialogue. Yes this mean bodily attraction is a form of Eros, but it is not the only form of Eros. In-fact Eros is the category of all forms of love, Agape, Phileo, Storge, these are all subsumed under Eros, which is desire for X and Y goods. The solely sexual definition of Eros is a later medieval connotation.

And yes, you can use intercourse analogically with soulbonding and beholding and reaching the Good, it is indeed a type of intercourse. This is the very point of Plato's objections, real Eros is Divine and Spiritual, any bodily Eros especially something barren, is a poor imitation that hinders true Eros.
This is also a problem with modern and christian interpretation of the 'Orgies of the Gods' since it superimposes bodily carnal pleasure into it.

>>15993055
huh?

>>15993039
You don't need to be a fart huffing proffesor to notice the stark difference between Plato's earlier (Symposium and Phaedrus) and later texts. Just because some dogmas didn't changed doesn't mean he doesnt differ on certain things in his texts. Compare what he says about love for the young boys in Symposium and Phaedrus and Laws
also
>Plato is whole of ancient Greece
not saying that they were running around fucking children, but it was clearly a complex topic that wasnt filtered trough christian-like moralization and demanded a proper philosophical consideration

>>15993124
>not saying that they were running around fucking children, but it was clearly a complex topic that wasnt filtered trough christian-like moralization and demanded a proper philosophical consideration
I think you should also keep in mind that that Christian moralisation stems from an original compassion, the morally conquering force of the world, but no doubt not as intellectually advanced, at least at first, as the Greeks.

>>15993124
>earlier dialogues
Gerson has objectively shown that it is almost impossible to date the dialogues or order them. And I don't remember the book but some PhD argued "recently" that Laws is Plato's earliest dialogue.
Plato has never praised carnal pleasures above the spiritual, perhaps read Phaedrus yourself.
Again for you illiterates >>15992709 the picture cites Republic, Symposium, Laws, and Phaedrus.

>Symposium: “All of us are pregnant, Socrates, both in body and in soul, and, as soon as we come to a certain age, we naturally desire to give birth. Now no one can possibly give birth in anything ugly; only in something beautiful. That’s because when a man and a woman come together in order to give birth, this is a godly affair. Pregnancy, reproduction—this is an immortal thing for a mortal animal to do, and it cannot occur in anything that is out of harmony, but ugliness d is out of harmony with all that is godly. Beauty, however, is in harmony with the divine. Therefore the goddess who presides at childbirth—she’s called Moira or Eilithuia—is really Beauty.

>Phaedrus: And whenever they are lying together it is completely unable, for its own part, to deny the lover any favor he might beg to have. Its yokemate, however, along with its charioteer, resists such requests with MODESTY and REASON. Now if the victory goes to the BETTER elements in both their minds, which lead them to follow the assigned regimen of philosophy, their life here below is one of bliss and shared understanding.
>If, on the other hand, they adopt a lower way of living, with ambition in place of philosophy, then pretty soon when they are careless because they have been drinking (Alcibiades behavior) or for some other reason, the pair’s undisciplined horses will catch their souls off guard and together bring them to commit that act which ordinary people would take to be the happiest choice of all; and when they have consummated it once, they go on doing this for the rest of their lives, but sparingly, since they have not approved of what they are doing with their whole minds. So these two also live in mutual friendship (though WEAKER than that of the philosophical pair), both while they are in love and after they have passed beyond it, because they realize they have exchanged such firm vows that it would be forbidden for them ever to break them and become enemies. In death they are WINGLESS when they leave the body, but their wings are bursting to sprout, so the prize they have won from the madness of love is considerable, because those who have begun the sacred journey in lower heaven may not by law be sent into darkness for the journey under the earth; their lives are bright and happy as they travel together, and thanks to their love they will grow wings together when the time comes.

>>15993174
and before anyone misinterprets the last paragraphs, the two philosophical lovers are saved by their better selves and their true love, in spite of their depravity, this reward of LOWEST heaven isn't given to an unphilosophical pair of degenerates.

>>15993110
>>15993117
In Phaedrus it is specifically stated that divine eros should be primary, and bodily/sexual eros should come later, this second half assumes sexual relationships with men are common.
Pic related explain what the boy is doing in bed with the man.

>>15993206
If you're arguing against me you should perhaps read every sentence in that picture. The black horse is to be resisted always if it wishes to put peper in poopoo.
and the last sentence that you cut out is most poignant,
>since they have not approved of what they they are doing with their whole MINDS (soul), So these two also live in mutual friendship (though weaker than that of the PHILOSOPHICAL PAIR) aka true philosophical lovers should never indulge in sex unless they're of the opposite sex and also married

>>15993149
I understand what you mean, but it would be absurd to say that the philosophical discourse on pedo relations lacked compassion. Plato's early texts show a fair amount of consideration about how the lover of the boys should proceed and how he should control his urges etc. I don't think the main antagonism is between greek intellect and christian compassion, but between two different socio-ethical paradigms that look at the sexuality with different aims. Category of a sexual child in general christian theory is a nonsense, not in the sense that it is impossible, but there were no need to think about it in depth and they were bc of it viewed mostly as pure beings. They were busy talking about how sex is bad unless you're married. In greece their whole education apparatus rested on pedophilia, thats why they had to talk about it.

>>15992336
>Adonis Georgiades

>>15993260
Not him, but under that interpretation you prove that Plato "thought" that lovers, esp. philosophers, ought to resist horsing around, not that horsing around was not common practice in lovers at that time, which is the object of the argument.

>>15993328
philosophical lovers =/= sexual lovers, Socrates/Plato has invented a whole new concept (a relationship deeper than guru relationship); or rather he recognized that whenever a pederastic relationship indulges in sex is weakens the growth of the spirit

>>15993415
not the one you're replying to, but the argument is that Plato is reacting to the customs of boyfucking and offers his own theory of how one should proceed with adult-child relations. In other words, Plato is not the whole ancient Greece.

>>15993483
>Neither Homer nor Hesiod ever explicitly ascribes homosexual experiences to the gods or to heroes.

>>15993576
>who is Ganymede

>>15989789
Modernity is an exception. The opposition to pederasty is a phenomena of socialization. It's programmed.