/lit/ - Literature

>Are some people just naturally superior than others?

Not only is the answer so obviously yes, I don't know how anyone can think otherwise.

>>19538476
>superior
What does superior mean? Everyone is superior and inferior in many different things.

>>19538565
In virtue

>>19538476
You might be right... Some people just got "it". And it got nothing to do with upbringing or experiences. Everything they do is so effortless and easy.

>>19538476
Yea, I’m better than (you)

>>19538476
Yes, I'm obviously better than others

t. everyone

>>19538476
Virtue can't be taught, but can be learned.
Also plato was kind of a retard

>>19538476

>>19538488
Environment does affect people also, but actual talent might even benefit more from a bad initial environment. IMO genes play a very little part compared to inner talent and material environment. Lots of cases where 1st generation rich people have failsons and have to hope for a good grandson/grandaugher to fix things back.

>>19538476
Plato also thought writing was a fad that would die out, and that anyone who committed his thoughts to writing would forget them because they would no longer be in his head.

>>19538476
How is that even a question? That's not even the point of Meno, it's so obviously true that it merely works as a concluding remark. It also acts as one of the basic presuppositions of his politeia, again because it is so obviously true.

>>19538617
What is virtue? What is the measure of virtue?

>>19539818
>IMO genes play a very little part compared to inner talent and material environment.
I've read that a significant body of research is finding that genes do almost all the work and that, counter-intuitively, the influence of parental upbringing is almost insignificant. Not sure how true that is though, but it's interesting

>>19538476
Yes, but a brahmin can be born from shudra, and a shudra can be born from brahmin

>>19539847
which is true and proven everyday now that the humanists invented the ''''''''''''''''''''''''free press'''''''''''''''''''supposing to liberate all the atheist plebeians from the tyranny of the clergy.

>>19539953

>>19539868
Read a book once in your life you fucking pseud

>>19540079
>ask for clarification
>get none

>>19539818
>IMO genes play a very little part compared to inner talent
lmao that's what literally genes are

>>19538476
You should read Protagoras next. I swear Plato was a bit of a troll because in that they conclude that in fact all virtue is just knowledge and knowledge CAN be taught. So who knows what he actually thought.

Yeah. I think it requires a certain amount of un-learning to really see it but after sometime you can peer directly into people and see their in-born potential immediately without any hesitation. Recently I met a pair of 19 year olds who are so far above any of my friends in terms of this in born quality. More information about them doesnt really affect my attraction to them at all because I can see I am among my peoples despite wildly different backgrounds. They're young so of course they hold normie views (as I did) but since they are seekers they will discover some of eternal truths that touching at the moment gives them pangs of guilt.

>>19539818
What the fuck is "inner talent" lmao. Is it genetic or environmental?

>>19538476

No we're all equal. I love my didgeridoo and the silly sounds it makes. Anybody can be anything, it's never too late, and be yourself even if you're an abbo

>>19541253

Brainlet post, the body is in flux. I hope your genes preserve your "inner talent" when you're 80 lmao

I'm unsure, but I think of Meno everytime someone shits on Peterson for his "whore daughter."

>>19538476
Even if it’s possibly true that some people just naturally feel More inclined to be virtuous, that doesn’t mean you should be arrogant here. Who knows if you’ve just got your head stuck up your ass so far.

It would be the least virtuous thing to become arrogant in this situation. After all, Socrates (related here as he taught Plato) constantly affirmed that he knew nothing. And so do you.

>>19538476
i would say no. everybody thinks they're superior. everybody thinks they're virtuous.

>>19538476
>naturally
>man is both the marble and the sculptor
nah

>>19538476
No. The criterion by which we judge personal value (or really value at all) is arbitrary and entirely fluid, furthermore, persons achieving great success or great regard in such and such context is largely a product of circumstance.

>>19540166
>asks the central question that the entire dialogue is about
>adds nothing to the discussion
Read a book you fucking pseud

>>19538476
That seems to be implied all throughout Plato's writings. How would the people Socrates talks with in the Phaedo, who measure arguments by trust and not truth, respond to something like Parmenides' criticism of the forms? The implication is that they don't have the nature for philosophy Socrates does.

>>19538476
Meanwhile, I was reading Protagoras by Plato and the subject of the dialogue was whether or not virtue can be taught. In the end, they conclude that it can be taught. Basically, since all virtue can be reduced to wisdom, it can be taught to others. At first I thought this was nonsense, but the more I think about it, the more it seems like a real possibility. Is there any more books on this topic?

>>19543601
I’ve never read Epicureas, so maybe that quote is out of context, but assuming that you understand reality so deeply that you can question the gods is a sign of a lack of wisdom.

>>19543685
*Epicurus

>>19543685
That's true of so many greek thinkers, unfortunately

>>19543685
The reason Epicurus took the stance that he did was not because he did not believe in transcendence, but because in his time many people thought their efforts counted for nothing and the will of the gods for everything. His marginalisation of the gods was meant to help people drop their neuroticism and return to a productive mindset. Evola has written on this topic if you are interested.