/lit/ - Literature

>>19657799
Parmenides and Zeno were right about everything basically, though Plato and Plotinus did good work developing the system.

>>19657799
you are a monkey.
fuck you and your mother.

>>19657799
>Thales set the cornerstone for geometry and mathematics
>Democritus comes up with atoms
>Pythagoras figures out that earth is a sphere, musical tunings, and various geometrical problems, among other things, and inspire Socrates to create his school
No, I wouldn’t call them hacks.

>>19658139
Plato has Parmenides refute himself in the Parmenides dialogue.

>>19658302
This always makes me feel like any other philosophy is a waste of time since it began and ended with the Greeks.

>>19657799

>dude, Water
>dude no dude, Fire
>atoms, dude
>dude numbers, not beans

>>19657799
There's more actually interesting philosophy in the presocratics than in Plato or Aristotle. Read Nietzsche's discussion of them.

>>19659529
Come back when you don't have a babby's first understanding of Nietzsche and Plato.

>>19658323
No he doesn't. Plato's dialogue shows what's really happening in the writings of Zeno and Parmenides.

>>19657799
They're significant for being concrete examples of the realization of the difference between custom and nature. The Homeric and Hesiodic poems don't recognize that difference, which is crucial for philosophy.

>>19657799
Parmenides will literally shake your worldview. He retroactively refuted most philosophy (he even refuted the concept of retroactive refutation).

>>19658302
>Democritus comes up with atoms
"Maybe things are made up of smaller things and there is a smallest thing"
Bravo Demmy

>>19658139
>>19660829
Incredible how most eleaticfags make always the dumbest posts.

>>19660860
t. seething Whiteheadian

funny how one man 2000+ years ago can cause so much seethe

>>19657799
Didn't Heraclitus literally invent dialectics?

>>19660829
>Parmenides
>shake your worldview
>shake
>implying shaking is possible in a universe where all is one and motion is an illusion
subtle

>>19660829
I read Parm and it literally changed everything for me. I'm not the same man since then.

Let's get some love for Anaxagoras and Empedocles. They don't get nearly enough love around /lit/

>>19661393
Empedocles is my favorite of them all, but Anaxagoras has one of my favorite sayings (which I will not post here)

>>19661393
the sophists were disliked by socrates and the socratics because they ripped off (charged for their lectures) dumb athenians with logical tricks and sophistry

>>19661393
It seems like all the seething about Platonists is just anger that they won by such a landslide.

>>19661393

I love how Socrates cope so hard when the sophist are just minding their own business

>>19657799
I like Heraclitus and Zeno of Elea

>>19661472
you just spelled Jordan Peterson wrong..

>>19661393
Meds are brown. Snow nigger.

>>19657799
They were honest inquirers, even if they had little to work with and mostly blundered. Philosophy became dishonest starting with Plato, a poet who lied about poetry for political gain.

>>19661392
His poem did that for you?

>>19664388
Plato dropped out of political society; the only work where he portrays the philosopher as taking control of society is the heavily ironic Republic.

>>19664971
>it was satire bro

my nigga pytha developed a succesful vegan cult

>>19657799
all knowledge is built on a foundational predecessor. Some thinkers are more groundbreaking than others, but of course, the statute still stands: we stand on the shoulders of giants. And those giants on titans yet.
It is a false duality to call them charlatans vs profound thinkers, because ultimately they were thinkers, they just came first so they had to deal with and establish what we call the basics.

>>19665103
>socrates totally meant it bro
>that bit in protagoras where he says he can't follow long speeches before gibing a really long speech? totally serious
>the end of euthydemus where socrates tells crito they should become students of euthydemus the sophist? absolutely not a joke
>that definition of sophistry in the sophist that sounds like everything socrates does? plato 4realz changed his mind and decided to shit on socrates
>plato doesn't joke, nigga's too autistic

>>19661392
Heh

>>19665341
>socrates was executed for merely pretending

>>19665493
>socrates totally believed what he did out of earnesty and he never dissembled
>don't you get it, you idiots, he was merely worshipping apollo when he tried to refute the oracle, you retards
>alcibiades, critias, and charmides? students of socrates? never heard of em

I heard good things about Heraclitus2avm4

*Heraclitus

>>19665504
No idea what you're getting at, honestly. Socrates was put on trial and found guilty. Euripides voluntarily exiled himself on account of his association with Socrates. Plato, meanwhile, wrote the Republic, a classic in the genre of political philosophy, and tried peddling his political philosophy to Dionysius I and his son, which got him sold into slavery for a hot minute and nearly killed. It's pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain what Plato was up to.

>>19665527
No one actually knows what Plato supposedly peddled in Sicily besides vague exhortations to virtue, but he went there primarily at the request of Dion, brother of Dionysius I, who said his brother (and then eventually his nephew) were open to philosophical guidance. As for the Republic, it's the clearest thing in the world that it's not the blueprint for an actual city, because the Republic itself says so both midway through book 2 and at the end of book 9. And by composing it in such a way that it's all in the mouth of an already dead man, Plato distances himself from it by getting to appeal to the idea of just recording things Socrates said.

>>19665549
>As for the Republic, it's the clearest thing in the world that it's not the blueprint for an actual city
That's why it's regarded as a work of political idealism now. It still expresses Plato's political ideals, and his interactions with both Dionysius AND Socrates still indicate that he was politically active in his time — because, if not, then it was Socrates who was lying for political gain, and Plato was a gullible fool who bought into it.

>>19665561
Socrates drank hemlock for what reason according to your plan
Soc could have escaped but drank death

>>19665570
It was a political stunt. He realized it was the best possible move at that point. And, given Plato, it worked and he was right.

>>19665561
You're taking for granted that it expresses his political ideals. If it's not an ironical book, it still says right in the open that the city they're "founding" is only for the purpose of making it clear what justice is like in the soul and whether it's actually for the good of the just man, so the "political ideals" are a huge bracketed hypothesis, and not Plato saying what his own ideals are. And if it's ironical, he's both trying to address the question of the whether justice is good for the just man, AND showing that the desire for perfect justice requires injustice. In either case, his own political ideals are either obscured from view, or can only be ascertained negatively, i.e. it won't be like the city of the Republic.

>>19665690
Believe what you want, and I'll believe what I want. All I see with Plato is a lot of vague bullshit that doesn't add up with anything I understand in regards to philosophy and art. I see his involvement with anarchists and tyrants as shady at best. Calling his chief work of political idealism as only having the purpose of discovering some truth about justice appears as nothing more than a subversive tactic to still persuade readers into sharing his political ideals.

>>19665712
>seriously guys, plato totally believed in banning poetry
>poetry like the republic itself which is the mixed type of book 3
>listen, i don't got time to think about all sorts of implications n shit

>>19665775
He was against tragic poetry like Socrates. Tragic poetry, by the way, is the best kind of poetry, and the least supportive of his (Socrates') ideals, so it's no wonder why he (they) would be against it.

>>19660829
> (he even refuted the concept of retroactive refutation).
No, Parmenides invented the retroactive refutation you dumbass

>An objection can be issued against an argument retroactively from the point of reference of that argument. This form of objection – invented by the presocratic philosopher Parmenides – is commonly referred to as a retroactive refutation.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objection_(argument)

They put into words common sentiments.

>>19665793
>he was really against poetry guys
>there's absolutely nothing going on between the criticism of poets starting from whether poets lie and the acceptance of noble lies, nope, nothing
>he just hates hates hates poets
>no i'm not gonna actually check book 3 where they talk about types of poetry
>and ban the republic itself by implication of being the banned mixed type
>just hates them and that's why he quites them extensively in 35 dialogues

>>19665909
>he was really against poetry guys
Tragic poetry. Here's your last (You), since you're obviously an unthinking tool.

>>19660823
Literally in part 1 of the Parmenides he describes exactly Zeno's and Parmenides' philosophy and then has Parmenides declare the need for a new start and everything else in the dialogue processes from there. He's not clearly refuting Parmenides but is building upon him in the way a student does a master, which requires some refutation of what is wrong our outdated.

>>19665928
>no, for really muh nigs he hates poets
>and that's why both the metal souls and the devolution of cities are based off the metal ages of man in hesiod
>and why the entire critique of tyrants in books 8 and 9 is literally just the tragedy oedipus tyranus, even talking about killing the father and sleeping with the mother
>and why the communism of women and children is just aristophanes's comedy the assembly of women
>see stupid, he just irrationally hates em

>>19661376
Anon I feel as though you are light.

I see you.

>>19657799
s