/lit/ - Literature

A featherless biped.

A woman is a vessel for the divine spark.

A spineless biped.

>>20852275
Socrates: Are men featherless bipeds?

>>20852277
Socrates: Are men vessels for the divine spark?
>>20852279
Socrates: Are men spineless?

>>20852286
No, they are not the vessels.

>>20852262
A woman is a woman.

>>20852262
>Diotima told me that woman is a type of daimon who, through seduction, pulls us up to Sophia

>>20852344
Socrates: Then what are they, and how do they differ from women, Anonymous?

>>20852354
Socrates: kek (altho that nigga had barely any humor)

women possess biological organs that men do not, whether they work or not, and their manifested state in this way - materially - is the reflection of the form of the woman, differentiated by this material, bodily signs from men. also something about women metaphysically being dyadic or primordial chaos

also socrates somewhere else in the dialogues states if you reincarnate as a woman it's a step down

>>20852440
>also socrates somewhere else in the dialogues states if you reincarnate as a woman it's a step down
there's the actual Socrates and there's "socrates" i.e. Plato. keep that in mind

>>20852440
>if you reincarnate as a woman it's a step down
don't be a coomer and you won't reincarnate as one

>>20852440
Socrates: Very well, Anonymous. Would you agree, then, that there exists a form of the woman, and of the man, beyond the organs themselves?

>>20852262
Whatever she wants it to be, sweatie

>>20852262
A human is a featherless biped with broad flat nails
In republic and Laws he says men and women have equal souls
So a woman is the same thing as man, a featherless biped with broad flat nails and a rational soul

>>20852462
>In republic and Laws he says men and women have equal souls
he truly retroactively refuted everything, kek. how did he fucking do it? silences both the right and the left wing

>>20852462
You passed the test and closed this thread. Very well. I had hoped for a longer shitstorm of midwittery, though

>>20852462
>In republic and Laws he says men and women have equal souls
Was Plato the original feminist?

>>20852262
this, word for word
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/jW0H8T8Zj5A

>>20852262
A female adult human.

>>20852460
Yes

>>20853729
Men and women have the same potentiality, yet neither the majority of men or women push to actualize it.

>>20852262
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NywG9LOs04s

>>20853916
Definitely not true physically and probably not mentally or spiritually either. Plato is a retarded egalitarian and possibly a kike or shabbos goy (trained in syria).

Socrates: Where is your penis?
Woman: I don't have one.

>>20852262
A featherless biped with broad flat nails and no mind for justice.

>>20852262
He wouldn't give a definition of a woman. The dialogue would describe the dynamics of a a group of women, let's say in a brothel, particularly the madame and all the prostitutes that form the brothel. He would do this in the same way that the Republic explored what is Justice not through what is just for one man, but by allegorically expanding a man to a polis. You soon realize that the brothel is a allegory for a woman.

>>20855546
Kek

>>20852462
There's a more subtle distinction that he makes, which is that every individual nature ought to be oriented to that which it is best suited, and while every nature is its own, as a whole women still tend toward natures that are different from those of men. Meaning for instance any woman who has the means and inclination for guarding a city out to be able to, does not mean that every woman is equally able to, or that their nature is suited for such.

>>20855044
>egalitarian
Not really, egalitarians generally don't posit that people have essential natures, or souls. They tend to believe that people can be molded to fit any shape, and any differences in individual outcomes is the product of material externalities rather than differences in individual natures. Accepting the opposite obviously implies there are distinctions between peoples in any given social schema or hierarchy that are inherent, which is not particularly egalitarian as far as I can tell.

>>20856045
Apologies to >>20852462 meant to reply to >>20853916

>>20856045
>egalitarians generally don't posit that people have essential natures, or souls
The most numerous egalitarians in history (Christians) believe this. I get your points though, and Christians are an unfair exception as many of their views are twisted and nonsensical.

>>20856185
Yeah I see what you're saying, I think probably if I were to make an argument I'd say that Christians in particular believe that all souls are equal before God meaning they all share an equivalent virtue. It's not necessarily a practically egalitarian conceit, as equality before God does not necessarily argue equality before man, but does lend enough room for it as an extension of the theology which might explain why you see it contemporaneously. I think the distinction with Plato is as far as I've read he doesn't posit that every soul shares an equivalent virtue, rather simply that every soul has an inherent nature, some which are virtuous, and others not. This being the case, different souls will reasonably have different outcomes that are not predicated purely on material factors. You're absolutely right imo that Christians atleast today are rabid egalitarians, and I would probably further posit that most modern egalitarian ideology has a basis in Christian theology, which I suppose is ironic because I think a more than a few people have said Christianity is Plato for normies, but I think there's some nuance to the way Plato defines things.

>>20852262
“Umm uhh what?”

>>20852262
Reminder to you incel chuds that Plato argues in the republic that women should have a vast increase in political power compared to the times he lived in

>>20856542
The very small fraction of women. Most women (and men too) would be relegated to a virtual slave class.

>>20856606
Compared to all women being a literal slave class in antiquity that’s what I would call an improvement