/lit/ - Literature

>>18022589
the greeks aren't gay, if that's what you think

>>18023158
'Etairese' means prostitution lol. Most people that are referred to as 'hetaira' in ancient Greek literature are female. Why use such an obvious lie?

>>18023181
>using fiction by Plato to show that he endorsed homosexuality
Obviously it happed in ancient Greece (it's far from being strictly pro or against), but this is just disingenuous.

>>18023220
I'm not saying Plato endorsed homosexuality (that's why it's attributed to the particular speakers). The image is meant to demonstrate that it existed contra psycho revisionist freaks like this >>18023158

>>18023158
>none of the four major historians (Plutarch, Arrian, Herodotus & Diodorus Sicelus) who spoke about the life of Alexander
>Herodotus [...] who spoke about the life of Alexander
>HERODOTUS
come on, the guy who wrote this is obviously a moron

>>18023158
cope

>>18023181
>that quote of Schoppy's
absolutely based, he's completely right
no wonder that the normies fawn over "symposium" the most out of all of plato's works

I'm starting to see why you guys like the Greeks so much.

>>18023158

>>18024348
Boom.

Is anyone else excited to pick this up when it drops in a couple months? I'm hoping it has full translations of the narratives accompanying the essays.

>>18022589
It means that Robin was Batman's 'Ganymede' - the costume was made for intercrural action.

>>18023158
>But the hero who has distinguished himself, what shall be done to him? In the first place, he shall receive honour in the army from his youthful comrades; every one of them in succession shall crown him. What do you say?
>I approve.
>And what do you say to his receiving the right hand of fellowship?
>To that too, I agree.
>But you will hardly agree to my next proposal.
>What is your proposal?
>That he should kiss and be kissed by them.
>Most certainly, and I should be disposed to go further, and say: Let no one whom he has a mind to kiss refuse to be kissed by him while the expedition lasts. So that if there be a lover in the army, whether his love be youth or maiden, he may be more eager to win the prize of valour.

lel no home kisses bro

>>18023647
seethe

>>18025345
Got a rebuttal to >>18024348 ?

>>18025377
Didn't think so

>>18022589
It sounds like a straight man that tried to find a trap because he wanted to try that boy love thing, only to realize there indeed is only one fuckable boy out of a thousand, and only before age 25 at the latest.

>>18023230
Plato explicitly condemns it very harshly.

>>18023158
>>18023181
Holy shit what a massive cope you really can't handle take the idea that the Greeks were fags can you?

>>18024416
No bcs im not a fag

>>18023158
>Herodotus
>wrote about Alexander
Come again? This has the stink of modern Greek nationalist idiocy all over it.

>>18023158
Img is obviously a huge cope but does actually reveal something interesting. Homosexuality had a sort of weird ambiguous moral status in ancient Greece, it wasnt just everyone freely fucking each other in the ass. everyone did it, and it was generally considered fashionable, but it was also officially forbidden and seen as something indecent. You can somewhat compare its moral status to the way taking drugs at parties is seen now: theres a huge interest in it, and almost everyone with a social life has done it or knows someone whos done it, but technically its supposed to be bad and illegal.

>>18026517
best post itt

>>18026010
>Plato explicitly condemns it very harshly.
no he doesn't. a character written by plato condemns it. other characters also written by plato praise it.

>>18026517
but it wasn't illegal. the ambiguity around it is less about fashion vs law and more about the fact that greeks were way more concerned with the power relationship of being the top vs the bottom rather than the relationship being "same sex". that's why their "homophobic" slur refers to bottoms specifically, not to "homosexuals" in our sense. when an athenian caught another man with his wife he could submit him to a ritual of public humiliation in which he would mock-penetrate him (i believe aristophanes refers to this in "clouds"). if greeks detested homosexuality as such this would be degrading to both of them but it isn't, it's only shameful to be penetrated, not to penetrate.

>>18026551
That pic is obviously bonkers, but I don't think Plato was that well-disposed towards homosexuality and pederasty (which he often seems to equate). I think he was extremely well-disposed towards homoeroticism (as in, he thought the people who were most worthy of love were men, rather than women), but in both Symposium and Laws he seems to condemn every sexual and physical manifestation of this romantic love. He has a very similar take when it comes to pederasty: loving children is fine, but this love can only be expressed through mentorship. To love a kid is to love his soul rather than his body, and this means no touching and no kissing: the only correct way to manifest this love is to teach them well, and help them grow into a self-sufficient, virtuos adult. It's basically paternal love, but applied to kids other than your own. In fact, since to love a child is to love their soul (and to care about its welfare), lust towards children cannot be considered as something stemming from love (rather, it would be a beastly impulse, and a virtuos man should work in order to completely suppress it, if it is present in him). With all these promises a platonist could easily say that pederasts don't actually love children, but are only interested in the satisfaction of their own selfish, brutish, innatural impulses. The same can be said regarding homosexuality: to love a man is not to love his body, but his soul.
In Laws he is even more explicit in rejecting the legitimacy of homosexuality and pederasty. It is interesting to notice that it is literally the first thing he condemns - Socrates was condemned for having corrupted the youth, but for Plato there is nothing that corrupts and damages the youth more than pederasty.

Tfw no bf

>>18023181
Aristophanes solves the simp problem in one paragraph.

>>18026517
Unfortunately your interpretation, as interesting as it is, is based on the mistranslations used in the image (translating prostitution as homosexuality). I think it would apply better to Rome, where there did seem to be some kind of legislation against homosexuality (though exactly how is ambiguous) and yet practically everyone in the senatorial class seems to have been implicated.

>>18027043
care to elaborate?

>>18026945
>but in both Symposium and Laws he seems to condemn every sexual and physical manifestation of this romantic love
>this means no touching and no kissing: the only correct way to manifest this love is to teach them well

this isn't entirely true. in the phaedrus totally non-sexual pursuit of philosophy together with the lover is described as the best response to desire, but to have some sexual relations in moderation is still better for the long-term improvement of the soul than not being in love with a boy at all.

"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 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."

so, even if you fail to control your impulses and fuck the boy from time to time, this is still part of a "sacred journey" of the soul towards transcendence whereas not being into boys at all leaves you in philosophical darkness. you can't really consider plato to be entirely condemning sex with boys here, it's more of a forgivable slip-up that happens on the way to enlightenment.

>to love a man is not to love his body, but his soul.

this is also a misunderstanding: plato absolutely considers appreciating the physical beauty of a body to be part of the philosophical journey of the soul:

"Once [the would-be philosopher] has looked at [a beautiful boy], his chill gives way to sweating and a high fever, because the stream of beauty that pours into him through his eyes warms him up and waters the growth of his wings. Meanwhile, the heat warms him and melts the places where the wings once grew, places that were long ago closed off with hard scabs to keep the sprouts from coming back"

seeing a beautiful boy literally causes the soul of a philosophically-sensitive person to remember the highest spheres of heaven and begin the struggle to return there.

>>18027328
Nice thoughtful post anon

>>18027328
Frankly, I think that in Phaedrus he is just giving an highly rethorical account of philosophical discourse and practice, and that those comments are not to be taken too seriously - also remember that there he is composing a speech that is meant to be persuasive to someone like Phaedrus, who is a young man passionate about rethorics and poetry.
I think this point is made explicit in Laws: how is it okay to fuck a boy from time to time if fucking a boy is something so bad that it should be made immediately illegal in every city (in such a way that transgressor would get very harsh sentences)?

Regarding the second bit, while appreciation for physical bodies has a place in the philosophical journey (it makes perfect sense, since our reminiscence has to start from representations of the sensible world), it is still something that must be overcome as soon as possible. The Diotima speech makes it very clear that the adequate object of Beauty cannot be a body, and that those who stop at that stage are no better than beasts. Again, I really think Plato would say that if all I loved about you was your body (or at least contingent on it), then I would not really love you.

>>18027283
We are socialized to think that the love of women is important. Sex with women is the mark of success. Hence simping.
Men of more civilized times were socialized to think that the love of men is important. Sex with older men when you were young was the mark of success and ticket to social influence. Hence no simping.

>>18027578
>hence no simping
Why? Because men were more willing to have sex in general?

>>18027590
Because they were not trying to get anything from women. Hence no simping over females.

>>18027610
Seriously now? You think simping over males (from other males, not from females) can't exist? What's your logic behind this reasoning? You haven't explained yourself.

>>18027615
Admittedly this can sometimes cause problems (Alcibiades being the prime example). Still, it is nowhere near as detrimental to civilization as the modern love of women.

>>18027328
Thanks for reminding me how beautiful Plato is.

>>18027509
>those comments are not to be taken too seriously - also remember that there he is composing a speech that is meant to be persuasive to someone like Phaedrus
>I think this point is made explicit in Laws: how is it okay to fuck a boy from time to time if fucking a boy is something so bad that it should be made immediately illegal in every city

i see this the other way around: i would much rather take seriously as his real moral opinion what he'd have socrates say to a youth he's attempting to educate than what he sets as the pragmatic rules for a city full of people, most of whom he'd consider unworthy of that education. phaedrus is about philosophy, laws is about population control.