/lit/ - Literature

Not without being groomed by someone who you grow to have so much respect for that you base your body of work around the idea of them

>>20207091
>groomed by someone
Op should write about his weird uncle.

>>20207347
OP's a cute shots uwu

>>20206993
Why would you want to? Philosophy has come so far since he lived over 2000 years ago.

>>20207808
Start with the greeks.

>>20206993
You can write philosophy until the cows come home, but you'll either have to do it as a hobby or be poor as shit.

>>20207808
Funny how all conclusions of modern philosophy can be found in works of Plato after you get aware of them

plato proved that it is

>>20206993
No

>>20206993
Is it possible for you to explain what you mean by "like Plato"?

Hijacking this thread: any anons here write Platonic dialogues? Not even for publication, but does anyone just use the dialogue format as a way of figuring out things?
if so how do you do it, do you just start free-writing a conversation, transcribing questions and answers. Just sort of improvise it.
Do you at least conceive of a dramatis personae, give them specific beliefs and then let them have at it? In that case do you use Socrates as a character? Yourself? Or does it change?
And most importantly - has this exercise helped you at all in your intellectual development? And what lessons have you learned about the exercise itself rather than the conclusions or theories you have drawn from it (i.e. what can you tell me about using dialogues better)?

>>20206993
Yeah, it’s pretty easy.

>Socrates: What do you say about morality, retard?
>Retard: It is our moral duty to reduce suffering in the world.
>Socrates: What exactly is duty?
>Retard: A duty is something you should do even if you don’t want to do it.
>Socrates: And what does “should” mean, dear retard?
>Retard: I’m not exactly sure, Socrates. I believe that something we should do is the best action to take.
>Socrates: Best in what way, and for whom?
>Retard: For the good of society and all sentient beings as a whole, of course.
>Socrates: Then your argument is circular. You say that reducing suffering is the best way to reduce suffering. You have not explained the relationship between my potential to reduce suffering and why I should reduce suffering as opposed to doing something which may benefit me more.
>Retard: You should reduce suffering simply because it is the right thing to do.
>Socrates: And I say, that I should do what I prefer, simply because I prefer it. Why is your circle greater than mine, o Retard? Is it not the case that even he who desires to reduce suffering is reducing his own suffering in the process, fulfilling his own preferences? I don’t see how it is possible to act outside of preference, as action requires desire, and desire comes from within yourself. To do something which does not benefit you calls into question why you do it at all. >Retard: That makes perfect sense. You are right, Socrates.
>etc.

>>20207808
Cap

>>20210769
It's a natural dialectic to fall into if you are interested in discovering the truth of something. The criticisms of both interlocutors act like chisels to refine the reality of the underlying concept which you are trying to discern.

The way to do it, I think, is to come up with the best idea you can and then come up with the best counter-argument(s) to that idea. Repeat (recursively!) until you reach aporia(s) or enlightenment.

>>20210831
Would you proceed with just the best argument and best counter argument then just improvise the dialogue, or would you worry about whom the interlocutors are?

>>20210697
platobros.... how do we answer this?

>>20210845
I think that certain distinct characters tend to form according to the internal bonds which unite natural internal tendencies of thought.

For example, you might react to premise A with premises B and C. If B and C are totally different, then you can start to form a character around each of the two premises. But if there is something greater which unites both B and C as against A (besides the mere fact that they contradict it), then perhaps you can unite both lines of thought into a single person.

I think that indecision is or ought to be somewhat natural (or the natural result of a certain amount of questioning, which is every rational creature's duty) and thus there will be multiple philosophies, multiple selves already competing in each person's mind.

So to answer your question: I guess I wouldn't worry about the interlocutors. I think that the socratic dialogue is a way of coming to the truth more than it is an entertaining literary form. You can always go over things later, notice certain trends emerging, and then combine them into a single character.

>>20210850
Every time someone says something like "X is Y," they are making a claim about an invisible immaterial reality. They are putting forth an idea.

Plato was wrong about metempsychosis but I can't say why.

>>20210893
>I think that indecision is or ought to be somewhat natural
That's precisely why I ask, because it seems pointless to me to engage in a dialogue as an exploratory tool if you're already certain of your conclusions. There has to be some degree of doubt, of shadow, of dissatisfaction with one's knowledge or assumptions as they stand.
So you believe that the personae will emerge naturally from that indecision? You don't believe that it's more effective to artificially introduce personae to sort of expedite the pursuit of truth?
I'm particularly interested in introducing more than one 'perspective', dialectic is one thing, but what if you can attack the premise from two totally different angles, neither of which is compatible with the others?

>>20210928
Honestly I have no real opinion. In fact, my only real opinion is that going too far in either direction is probably a mistake.

I think you should just get started.

Actually I think that it is possible to write a Platonic dialogue from a rather immobile position of total certainty, but it's probably healthier to do it when you are actually working through an real, pressing intellectual question you want answered.

>>20210949
I already have, I'm just wondering if there's a way to improve or expedite my technique.
In general I've just been very dissatisfied with "writing to think better". Dialogue format seems to be a lone exception to that, but I'm greedy and want to see more obvious results.
I'm also wondering if my real problem is one of 'problem framing' than writing.

>>20206993
To what end?

>>20206993
>Is it possible to do something similar to what someone has already done
Retard alert, of course it is

>>20210825
Pretty much this