/lit/ - Literature

filtered

>>23432560
Any idiot could see that some of his ideas were easily dismissible and absurd, some perhaps even deliberately so. But I'm starting to notice how many people can't read between the lines and end up getting filtered by Plato. Unless /lit/ is just a couple of guys posting which it probably is.

>>23432560
Anything written after the interaction with Thrasymachus is pure cope

>>23432560
It is telling that the only time he actually tried implementing his politics in real life in Syracuse the whole thing went belly up almost immediately. “Not real Platonism.”

>>23432594
Thrasymachus was right, all Socrates could do was throw retarded analogies. And of course Plato makes it look like Thrasymachus lost, portraying him as rage quiting the debate

>>23432589
>But I'm starting to notice how many people can't read between the lines and end up getting filtered by Plato.
part of the problem is everybody wants to jump right into the republic without reading some of his simpler dialogues to get an idea of how he works. i can't really blame somebody for having trouble with the republic if it's their first experience with plato.

>>23432560
How do you, and the innumerable fools like you, read works which have shaped the ages and come away with nothing, as if you'd merely watched an episode of some random television series? If you don't understand why it is profound, you should presume the problem is yours and read it again. Read it twenty times if you have to, or else simply accept your place as a laborer and give up philosophy altogether. Even if Republic consisted merely of Book V or Book IX, it would have stood the test of time. X was probably the weakest book of all, yet, to those with vision, it is increasingly vindicated as the years roll on. You are arrogant.

>>23432589
>easily dismissible and absurd
See my above post.
>>23432594
See my above post.
>>23432649
See my above post.

What I'm realizing is that most people should not even bother reading philosophy. You lot simply do not have the necessary capacity for it. It is not in your blood. Find a simple lot with concrete problems to solve and stop pretending.

>>23434390
>>easily dismissible and absurd
>See my above post.
I said SOME ideas. Like how matter is made up of small equilateral triangles of fire. I said you have to read between the lines but you probably didn't read my whole post. Besides I agree with almost everything you said.
>most people should not even bother reading philosophy
No shit, and most people don't. I'm soon to introduce Plato to a couple of turbo-normies via Socrates' last days... we'll see how that goes; I hope it's not a lost cause as you infer.

>>23432560
see book iv
Plato is a kind of litmus test, if you accept he above other dramatist you accept any theory of substance
A substance is of course a thing that something that could be otherwise invokes for some end, and that end could be noble

>>23434410
>infer
Imply, you mean, but it's not even that it is a lost cause, but that actual harm is done to individuals and society by the miscomprehension. Take OP, for instance, he'll waddle away from his encounter with Plato a more foolish and arrogant man than when he first came to it. He'll no doubt go away and spread his scoffer's attitude like a venereal disease and who knows the harm done then?

>>23432560

>>23434535
Politicians are midwits, no surprise there.

Why does every philosophy discussion in this board always ended up with two chuds debating each other while the rest of the poster watch the entire match like a rooster fight

>>23432589
>Unless /lit/ is just a couple of guys posting which it probably is.
Without a doubt /lit/ is three guys who post semi consistently and randos who show up to make one post every couple of months.

>>23434675
What about this idiotic troll OP says "discussion" to you, downie?

>>23434390
It's impossible for me to take posts like these seriously unless you've substantially interacted with modern analytic philosophy, or at the very least have read some Hume. Have you done either?

>>23432589
couple of guys and some bots, actually

>>23434745
that retard is obv ESL

>>23432589
>people can't read between the lines and end up getting filtered by Plato
why do jews want people to read between the lines over and over?

>>23434535
>plato pisses off classical liberals
whoa i love plato now

>>23434535
This imagine destroys the /lit/ sophists. Posters like >>23434390 assume that anyone who doesn't have the same opinion on Plato as them must be a peasant. Well, are you smarter than Jefferson and John Adams?

>>23434390
/thread

>>23435301
Jefferson and Adams were midwit freemasons whose satanic creation is falling apart as we speak further reinforcing their midwittery. Knowing languages and Anglo-Saxon law doesn't make you intelligent as ChatGPT proves

For most philosophical views there are highly intelligent people believing the opposite.
>whoever doesn't agree with my pet theory can't be intelligent though!
ok

>>23434390
If you speak truly then read Gorgias and remember yourself.

>>23434181
I atleast respect the lack of strawmanning

>>23432560
>the ideal society is one where me and my friends are absolute rulers
If you read any elite theory then you'd understand that yes, the ideal society is one in which your friends are in power.

>>23432589
>Plato says to take children from your parents and indoctrinate them to your ways of metaphysics.

>This is a metaphor, and not literally despite him telling his students this supposedly at one point or some.

>>23434535
The Republic is a satire

>>23432560
You disagree with some of what Plato had to say? Good. Write down the major points you disagree with and give give a brief summary of why you disagree. Try to be more logical than emotional. After you have thought about it all, the most important part of reading philosophy, you should read Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. Similar arguments are made by Aristotle but with a more careful and less ambitious mind. Now he is not the same as Plato obviously, but I find they compliment each other well. Otherwise you are only getting one part of the conversation.

>>23435301
This.

No one understands Plato. Even (you). You are just a dick sizing pseud with an ego

>>23435301
That you think it is a matter of opinion is what outs you as a midwit unsuited to philosophy.

>>23434919
>t. midwit
If you have to know your interlocuters background to argue a stated point, you are a pseud, midwit, poser. Period. But in answer to your pretentious as fuck question, of course I have. Now kys.

>>23435805
>despite him telling his students this supposedly at one point or some.
Never happened

Imagine saying pseud and not knowing greek

>>23437157
C O P E
That has nothing to do with whether or not someone is intelligent. An intelligent person can learn Greek if they wish, but there are many who don't know it and aren't pseuds, you fucking pseud midwit.

>>23437146
It only didn’t if it was satire, which can’t be said, as the quote really doesn’t take the piss out the subject or any concept at hand in the paragraph. Unless the supposed satire has been lost to time on us.

All of Plato is just an ancient Greek Zen koan.

>>23437821
First, point under contention is that he taught his students specifically to take the banishment of adults in the Republic as a doctrine, when none of his students suggest anything like that ever happened.

Second, this take presumes that we're meant to take the passage about banishing the adults as something we should actually want to feasibly do.

But, third, this take is stamped out in the Republic itself. It does so in book 5, 471c-473a, where Glaucon asks Socrates if the hypothetical city can be actualized, and Socrates emphasizes that he's missing the point, and says everything they're talking about is not impossible but improbable, and further in book 9, 591d-592b, when Socrates outright says it doesn't matter if the city is actualizable since it's a model for one's soul. That's pretty definitive that it's not a doctrine Plato thought was actionable outside of the hypothetical thought experiments of the Republic.

>>23434535
The founding fathers were plutocrats so their criticism is a compliment

>>23437906
>when Socrates outright says it doesn't matter if the city is actualizable since it's a model for one's soul.
Finally we fucking got there.

>>23434390
>What I'm realizing is that most people should not even bother reading philosophy. You lot simply do not have the necessary capacity for it. It is not in your blood. Find a simple lot with concrete problems to solve and stop pretending.
>>23437107
>Pretentious as fuck question
Sad autism

>>23432560
Shit is meant to be excreted not eaten, your third world ass got things backwards, and that’s why Plato is important.

>>23432560
>the ideal society is one where me and my friends are absolute rulers

>>23432560
I finished reading the republic a few months ago. I thought it was a pretty cut and dry hypothetical based entirely on "if everyone and everything ran smoothly" hence the need to define justice as it was.
Where the hell are you guys getting opinioms like this?

>>23438314
'Normal' people, apparently even great leaders >>23434535 , apparently read it like that. It's absurd, as the text explains itself that it's exploring an 'ideal', but people just don't pick that up.

>>23438493
That's sad. The whole point of philosophy as I see it is reducing concepts and ideas to easily digestible parts. Like, clarification.
Was the translation back then just poor?

>>23438314
did you just miss the whole part about the tripartite soul?

>>23439116
Nta, but this sounds like a non-sequitor response. "The city is hypothesized for the sake of justice." "Well what about the tripartite soul? Checkmate!" Doesn't follow.

>>23439686
>Doesn't follow.
i'm sorry i can't help you

>>23439692
The tripartite character of the soul is also hypothesized and said by Socrates to be inadequate toward true understanding of the soul, see 435c-d and 504a-c.