/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11318417]

Let's settle this once and for all.

Plato or Aristotle?

Whoever gets the most votes is the winner once and for all eternity.

[Anonymous No.11318425]

Platostotle

[Anonymous No.11318429]

>>11318417
Diogenes

[Anonymous No.11318438]

>>11318425
>>11318429
OP here.

All joke answers or answers against the rules go to Plato.

[Anonymous No.11318441]

>couldn't even make a strawpoll

https://www.strawpoll.me/15892739

[Anonymous No.11318446]

>>11318438
Aristato

[Anonymous No.11318448]

>>11318441
The results of that poll will not count. This thread is what counts. Your response officially goes to Plato.

[Anonymous No.11318452]

>>11318448
Oh, I know! Parmenides

[Anonymous No.11318458]

Clearly, the answer is Plato

[Anonymous No.11318460]

>>11318458
But anon, that's not Xenophon

[Anonymous No.11318463]

If I had to pick one it would be Plato. Aristotle's inclination to empiricism disgusts me, like bro did you even paid attention to the teachings of your teacher?

[Anonymous No.11318466]

>>11318463
But Aristotle btfos Plato constantly, like in Ethics where he points out that the Platonic metaphysics don't account for causality because they don't account for the necessary logical relationships between numbers (i.e. that 2 necessitates 1) but only account for the innate qualities of numbers independently.
That very principle would come to be one of the principal axioms of the Summa Theologica too.

[Anonymous No.11318474]

Aristotle is a joy to read, so I pick him.

Plato is snore worthy

[Anonymous No.11318482]

>>11318474
Are you on cocaine?

[Anonymous No.11318488]

>>11318474
>Aristotle is a joy to read

What the fuck

[Anonymous No.11318497]

They both suck but Aristotle sucks less.

[Anonymous No.11318509]

>>11318417
All these sudden votes for Aristotle right after eachother seems like samefagging. I will be counting them towards Plato.

[Anonymous No.11318521]

>>11318474
You would need a truly virulent strain of autism to find Aristotle a joy to read.

[Anonymous No.11318524]

>>11318521
True. Just look at Joyce and Thoreau.

[Anonymous No.11318565]

>>11318417
Aristotle because so many of his ideas were groundbreaking in both science and philosophy along with many other subjects. He tackled so many different topics, he may not have always been correct but he made strides.

Plato on the other hand was just larping as Socrates most of the time.

[Anonymous No.11318632]

>>11318425
Lmao

[Anonymous No.11318638]

>>11318417
there's almost no difference. both are rationalists, both believe in metaphysical essences (only differ on where they are located in relation to the subject), both are virtue ethicists, both see cultivation of the intellect as the end goal of human practice. Anyone who denigrates Aristotle and his work for "empiricism" has literally not read him

[Anonymous No.11318746]

>>11318463
>Aristotle's inclination to empiricism disgusts me
This. Couldn't be fucked to give empiricism a favoring eye

[Anonymous No.11318751]

>>11318521
>truly virulent strain of autism
nice choice of words i giggled

[Anonymous No.11318753]

>>11318417
Plato obviously

[Anonymous No.11319385]

>>11318417
Parmenides or Zeno?

>Plato or Aristotle?
pleb tier

[Anonymous No.11319391]

>>11318417
Aristotle because his work was taken to it's natural conclusion by the greatest philosopher of all time

[Anonymous No.11319410]

>>11318417
>>11318438
Sextus Empiricus

[Anonymous No.11319417]

>>11319391
>implying Plato->Plotinus did not inform Aquinas' grasp of metaphysics just as much as Aristotle.

[Anonymous No.11319418]

>>11318417
Plato
>So, Glaucon, the tale was saved, as the saying is, and was not lost. And it will save us if we believe it, and we shall safely cross the River of Lethe, and keep our soul unspotted from the world. But if we are guided by me we shall believe that the soul is immortal and capable of enduring all extremes of good and evil, and so we shall hold ever to the upward way and pursue righteousness with wisdom always and ever, that we may be dear to ourselves and to the gods both during our sojourn here and when we receive our reward, as the victors in the games go about to gather in theirs. And thus both here and in that journey of a thousand years, whereof I have told you, we shall fare well.

Aristotle
>hhururrr i dun believe in things that I cannot see, so lets see how does this dirt molecule become form and matter, i dont know probably by a phronesis or some shit also rrrrrrRRRREEEEEEEE i dont like women

What do you think?

[Anonymous No.11319420]

>>11319391
But Nieztsche wasn't even a platonist...?

[Anonymous No.11319429]

>>11319418
please do not post pictures of my waifu on /lit/, thanks.

[Anonymous No.11319452]

>>11319420
Aquinas destroyed Nietzsche 600 years before Nietzsche was even born

[Anonymous No.11319461]

>>11319452
I am on Aquinas side more than that of Nieztsche, but can you show me where he beat Nieztsche? You have me honestly intrigued.

[Anonymous No.11319468]

>>11319429
Weil is no one's waifu

[Anonymous No.11319474]

Aristotle practices Plato's dialectic par excellence to come up with conclusions contrary to Plato. Because Plato was primarily pedagogical anyway, it's hard to say what he believed --the dialogues contract themselves whether through development of Plato's thought or deliberately to make a point is unknown. There's enough in the Statesman, the Sophist and Parmenides, I think, to argue fairly effectively Plato was drifting away from the Theory of Forms, and he realized his main contribution to philosophy were his methods, which were practiced with an unspeakable rigor by Aristotle in his categorization of literally fucking everything.

There are about 3 people on this board who have more than a passing familiarity with either of them, and the rest of you fucking mongoloids are just pretending, so please, stop embarrassing yourselves by turning it into a high school popularity contest. Oooooh, which philosophy was the most based, my epic based bros? You're fucking pathetic pseuds.

[Anonymous No.11319485]

>>11319474
>Plato was drifting away from the Theory of Forms
How dare you

[Anonymous No.11319506]

>>11319485
>Socrates: Yes, Parmenides, I know my Theory is fucking retarded and you've totally BTFO me.
>Parmenides: No, no, young Socrates, because as savagely as I just wrecked your Theory, the reader of this dialogue will see you're absolutely 100% correct if he can decode this cryptic lot of gibberish. *looks at camera and winks*

[Anonymous No.11319633]

>>11319506
Parmenides wasn't even written in his late period. In fact, it doesn't even use the word 'form', it uses the word 'idea'.

[Anonymous No.11319641]

>>11318417
Oh gods, I wish that was me. Unironically, Aristotle is so hot in that drawing.

[Anonymous No.11319657]

>>11318474
I think you've got that backwards, brother

[Anonymous No.11319666]

>>11319633
At least have the honesty and decency to say you don't believe Parmenides was written in his late period. There are arguments for and against, and it can't be ascertained with any certainty. That skepticism is implicit in the post above the one you're responding to. Stop being such a fucking dingus. Plato's dialogues are pedagogical, and the theories presented tentative. He says repeatedly he thinks books are retarded and book learning is for chumps. The methodology is the primary thing.

But if we are to treat Plato how you apparently believe we should treat Plato, Timaeus is one of the dumbest fucking things anyone has ever put down on paper.

I would actually like to know what chronology you put the major dialogues. Parmenides demonstrates the development of the dialectic method further than before, and it's developed further in the Statesman and Sophist. These three dialogues have in common Socrates not as a major character. How are you ordering them, and based on what?

[Anonymous No.11319682]

>>11319666
>These three dialogues have in common Socrates not as a major character
Or rather Socrates overshadowed by Parmenides in Parmenides, and the Eleatic Stranger in the Statesman and the Sophist. They, by the way, do dismiss the Theory of Forms as bullshit, which is, I think, a good argument for the placing of Parmenides slightly prior. He struggles to adjust to the criticisms, which, since Aristotle makes the Third Man Argument himself, he apparently never addresses to satisfaction, and focuses on another character with a different philosophy.

[Anonymous No.11319694]

>>11319666
>But if we are to treat Plato how you apparently believe we should treat Plato, Timaeus is one of the dumbest fucking things anyone has ever put down on paper.
what the literal fuck are you talking about? if you read Parmenides as Plato's abandonment of the theory of the forms you have the philosophical comprehension of a 12 year old. I bet you thought the Laws was a straightforward defense of Athens legal code lmao

[Anonymous No.11319710]

>>11319452
?????

[Anonymous No.11319712]

>>11319694
Oh right it's just faggots who wants to shit talk because they don't comprehend what's being said but want to feel important anyway. I should've realised. Very comfortable being a pseudo-intellectual sophistical know-nothing bad faith actor, and it's easy and accessible for the lowest breed of braindead spasticated cunts too! Good for you, you mouth breathing deadbeat.

[Anonymous No.11319719]

Plate , because aAristotle is hard to read

[Anonymous No.11319738]

>>11319712
I was claiming the work is more nuanced and complicated, and deserves a deeper reading than "Plato BTFO's his own theory". You are the spastic cunt claiming the green text shitpost I replied to knows something insightful about the work.

[Anonymous No.11319754]

>>11319738
You didn't claim anything. You were shit talking. You've not explained anything, elabourated on anything, provided any argument. You came in swinging, and the only point you've got is, "actually, it's deeper than you think!" Is it? How? In fact, what is deep about it is the metholody presented at the end, which I suggested. You don't know fucking anything. You are, like I said, a pseudo intellectual sophistical know nothing, and like every vacuous worm you'll fall back on a posture of indifference and irony. You lower the average IQ of an empty room when you walk into it.

[Anonymous No.11319759]

what about Socrate you moron

[Anonymous No.11319761]

Plato, I always found Autismstotle a bore to read apart from Ethics and his work on Drama. The metaphysics of Aristotle are highly overrated , though that's not his fault, but due to their over complex reworking by the scholastics. Thank god for Descartes and Spinoza that stopped that train of autism in its tracks.

[Anonymous No.11319784]

>>11319754
I claimed Parmenides wasn't written in Plato's late period (something which is generally accepted in the field based on routine stylometry and content analysis). I also claimed the wording wasn't consistent with his earlier work on forms, which is absolutely correct. I skipped the very obvious point that Plato made Socrates a very young man in the dialog, not the mature Socrates who is most often associated in the dialogs with the theory of the forms. You sperged out over a reply to fucking green text; maybe you should move on from Plato and pick up some Epictetus, anon.

[Anonymous No.11319795]

>>11319784
>pick up some Epictetus
lol rekt

[Anonymous No.11319804]

>>11319784
All you've added to your initial stupidity is a dubious citation to some higher authority, not an elabouration of why you believe it. Terrific. You're a fucking spaz with nothing to say but shit talking like I said. Epic troll, big boy! Oh look, and even responding to yourself >>11319795 to draw me further into these silly games. I'll give you this one for free. You seem like you need it.

[Anonymous No.11319829]

>>11319804
You want an elaboration of why I believe what I believe? I don't quite know how to answer that anon. I went to university and had to read a lot of Plato, along with hearing a million different interpretations of each dialog. That sort of engagement makes you appreciate the subtleties of something as seemingly straightforward as a platonic dialog, I suppose. I don't reply to myself by the way.

[Anonymous No.11319856]

>>11319829
Imagine the psychic harm you do to yourself when you have to lie and twist things to appear as anything other than what you are, which is exactly what I've described you as. Does it feel like an escape? Slip into a fantasy for a second, and feel better about yourself. Mmmmm. It's so, so nice, and maybe you can avoid the hot glare of the mirror which hates you, or the sad stare of your mother's disappointment. This snug smug deceit is the coffin you bury yourself in because if you were anything but a piece of shit you wouldn't have to pretend.

[Anonymous No.11319887]

>>11318417

[Anonymous No.11319888]

>>11319856
holy shit anon please take your medication we all love you

[Anonymous No.11319889]

Aristotle
(A thread died for your post)

[Anonymous No.11319893]

>>11319856
you took it too far and now you just look silly.
a shitpost is fast and simple.

[Anonymous No.11319895]

>>11318417
*takes fattest rip that has ever been ripped*
BRO WHAT IF
*coughs out his lungs and then sucks them back in again*
THE WORLD WAS FIRE OR SOME SHIZ

[Anonymous No.11319902]

>>11319895
at least Hegel liked me

[Anonymous No.11319908]

>>11319902
WHAT IF THE WORLD WAS AN IDEA OR SOME SHIT

[Anonymous No.11319916]

Plato
Aristotle is for scholastics

[Anonymous No.11319934]

>>11319887
>the green-robed figure left of Plato is considered to be Socrates by art historians
>not the orange-robed man standing directly beside Aristotle, on his right, who remains unidentified
Hmmmm
>the armored man on the left is believed by some to represent Pericles, not Alexander the Great
>despite him not wearing Pericles' symbolic helmet
HMMMMMMMMMM

[Anonymous No.11319956]

>>11319934
Socrates was supposed to be ugly and snub nosed like the one in green, also he seems to be counting off some issues he has with something using his fingers which would fit

[Anonymous No.11319959]

>>11319934
Y'know, I just noticed too that the orange-robed man is flanked by several animated-looking young men who gesture broadly, and one who appears to be studying. Now the art history snatches I've read suggest these young men are stirred in the direction of Aristotle as he advances, but the man robed in blue and purple seems to be almost touching the orange-robed man as if to draw his attention AWAY from the procession. Additionally, the blonde man on the steps beneath him is looking away from Aristotle's and Plato's procession entirely and is instead gesturing in apparent exasperation at the seated figure of Diogenes.
It seems sound to me that these three men are meant to represent the relationship between Socrates and his many young students, as well as reflecting the social attitude towards Diogenes's brand of Cynicism. If so, that would definitely suggest the orange-robed man to be Socrates, and the student gesturing for his attention we might imagine to be Glaucon

[Anonymous No.11319967]

>>11319956
True, but care has been taken to render a significant age difference between Plato and Aristotle, so why would Plato's own mentor be depicted as younger than Plato himself? The man on the right appears to be the only one significantly more advanced in age than Plato.

[Anonymous No.11320002]

>>11319887
Who's this guy? he seems pretty /lit/

[Anonymous No.11320008]

>>11320002
Unknown, at least on the wikipedia page. Not even a speculation given.

Who was the biggest autistic note-taker in ancient Greece? Maybe Arrian?

[Anonymous No.11320100]

>>11318460
What a comfy writer

[Anonymous No.11320105]

>>11318521
I mean, I think some of his works are really enjoyable to read, and others are interesting for his thoughts, but not...fun.