/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11810551]

Just finish Plato's The Republic

What I just read was a deeply frustrating story about how an old man conjures a utopian, quasi fascist society, in which men like him, should be the rulers, should dictate what art and ideas people consume, should be allowed to breed with young beautiful women while simultaneously escaping any responsibility in raising the offspring. Go figure.

The conversation is so artificial you could be forgiven for thinking Plato made up Socrates. Socrates dispels genuine criticism with elaborate flimsy analogies that the opponents barely even attempt to refute but instead buckle in grovelling awe or shameful silence. Sometimes I get the feeling his opponents are just agreeing and appeasing him because they're keeping one eye on the sun dial and sensing if he doesn't stop soon we'll miss lunch.

Jokes aside, for 2,500 years I think it's fair to say there's a few genuinely insightful and profound thoughts between the wisdom waffle and its impact on western philosophy is undeniable. But no other book will ever make you want to build a time machine, jump back 2,500 years, and scream at Socrates to get to the point!

Unless you're really curious about the history of philosophy, I'd steer well clear of this book.

[Anonymous No.11810554]

>>11810551
I think you don't have a clue about what you read. Please tell me, what is Justice?

[Anonymous No.11810558]

>>11810551
Did you actually read it? Or did you read a review on Goodreads?

[Anonymous No.11810572]

What the fuck?

[Anonymous No.11810584]

t. brainlet

[Anonymous No.11810587]

>>11810551
This is from reddit.

[Anonymous No.11810601]

>>11810587
this

[Anonymous No.11810610]

>>11810601
is

[Anonymous No.11810625]

>>11810610
epic.

[Anonymous No.11810630]

>>11810625
Include me in the screen cap.
Epic win

[Anonymous No.11810736]

I had to put down the book and take a long, hard draw on the vape when he concluded a tyrants life is exactly 729 times more unhappy than the philosopher kings

[Anonymous No.11810815]

Did anyone else think it was kind of sexist? The sooner we can forget the Greeks the better our society will be.

[Anonymous No.11810827]

>>11810815
It was the opposite of sexist. At a time when many cultures would have had their women not participate in the military at all, Plato ordains that the women practice militaristic arts in case they are needed for war.

[Anonymous No.11810843]

>>11810815
Actually, women could be part of the philosopher-king class, which was pretty radical. It's still no Epicurus. It's also still a metaphor.

Aristotle was much more sexist, so it's a shame his legacy would subsume and subvert Plato's for thousands of years in Europe and Africa.

[Anonymous No.11810852]

>>11810843
>le Plato vs. Aristotle false dichotomy

[Anonymous No.11810853]

Everything I don't like is fascism which includes the communist society of the Republic.

[Anonymous No.11810864]

>>11810843
Um sweetie, I'm a woman so you need to sit back, listen, and believe. Check your white male privilege because you've had your time to speak.

[Anonymous No.11810866]

>>11810852
>false dichotomy
A large part of the Aristotelean project was responding to both Plato and the pre-Socratics. They were different, and Aristotelean thought DID end up subsuming Platonic thought for thousands of years. They are distinct, and they take wildly different metaphysical, ethical, and political positions.

[Anonymous No.11810913]

>>11810866
Very often Aristotle did not take definite ‘stances’ on anything. The same with Plato. They were more compilers of thought than anything else. I will agree that their Metaphysics were different, but not wholly incompatible. Platonic forms are a necessary categorization of Aristotleian Metaphysics. The fact that you don’t understand this shows a lack of comprehension, quite frankly

[Anonymous No.11810931]

>>11810864
Tits or gtfo

[Anonymous No.11810938]

>>11810843
>It's also still a metaphor
Why did Plato attempt to train Dion to be a philosopher king if it was just a metaphor?
His (and Aristotle's) ideal state was pretty similar to Sparta too so I'm not convinced it was a metaphor.

[Anonymous No.11810941]

>>11810913
You're the one who misunderstands.
Form and substance in Aristotle are wholly different than Platonic forms in late Platonic metaphysics.
If you honestly believe that Aristotle isn't directly replying to Plato and the pre-Socratics, you should probably read him more.

Would you like me to ennumerate some fundamental incompatibilities, or are you ready to move off this hill before you die on it?

[Anonymous No.11810943]

>>11810815
t. John Green

[Anonymous No.11810961]

>>11810941
Calls that bitch nigga out by name on page 2 of Nicomachean Ethics.

[Anonymous No.11810999]

>>11810941
Here’s the thing: the Platonic form is an idealized understanding of pure reasoning and comprehension. The ‘formal’ similarity of Aristotle is second only to the general similarity, it’s similar to species in a genera, and that’s exactly how it would work for Plato, if he were to think his system out. Plato’s monad is Aristotle’s Prime lover. How do you not see this?

[Anonymous No.11811004]

>>11810999
Prime mover, sorry

[Anonymous No.11811006]

>>11811004
No, I prefer prime lover

[Anonymous No.11811055]

>>11810815

In the part that concerns women and children, socrates make an argument that women can serve as guardians and auxillaries just as equally as men and that traditional motherhood and servititude to the man and family would be abolished, save for breast feeding when required

it is probably the least sexist work for a good

>>11810551

I do understand your frustration, but remember it is the dialogues, and the conversations do have an element of drama and tension in a lot of platos work.

He wasn't actually there, and notice how Thrasymachus jumps in early on but only plato's more aggreeable brothers comment through the dicier argument. It's a literary work, not an actual transcript.

[Anonymous No.11811059]

>>11811006
That makes sense these days. We call the prime lover the BIG K

[Anonymous No.11811068]

>>11811055

for a good thousand years* I meant to say, and that would be optimistic

[Anonymous No.11811101]

The people who unthinkingly praise the book are dumber than redditors

[Anonymous No.11811113]

>>11810554
Justice is the advantage of the stronger.

[Anonymous No.11811116]

>>11811113
Thanks, Thrasymachus

[Anonymous No.11811156]

>>11811055
>In the part that concerns women and children, socrates make an argument that women can serve as guardians and auxillaries just as equally as men

This can be exaggerated by today's standards. It is clear by the same dialogue that most women will not but a few can.

[Anonymous No.11811161]

>>11811113
Haha, we meet again Thrasymachus

[Anonymous No.11811163]

>>11811156
Absolutely not. Did we read the same text? It is mandatory that up till a certain age, women practice ‘gymnastics’ aka military training

[Anonymous No.11811171]

>>11811156

Yes, but sexism is commonly seen as an intention to seperate sexes in roles purely because of gender

but this is based on your ability to fit the role.

can you call it sexist if some of you meet the grade? do you expect to be catered just because of your sex? Isn't that in itself sexist?

[Anonymous No.11811174]

>>11811163
Haha and so all will share equally in the auxiliary and guardian class? The virtues are not as readily found in women.

[Anonymous No.11811175]

>>11811171
Sure and the fact of the matter is and Plato agrees that women can fir the bill but it is not likely.

[Anonymous No.11811183]

>>11811175

So what are we disagreeing on? I was responding to the statement that it was a sexist work, and countered with how it couldn't be because.. etc and you seem to agree?

[Anonymous No.11811197]

>>11811183
Yep but I hate that today, people push that envelope farther than Plato does. It is clear women are not on par with men when considering the virtues.

[Anonymous No.11811199]

>>11810815
I agree, a lot of philosophers and thinkers of old only serve to legitimize the views of young misogynists nowadays.

[Anonymous No.11811228]

>>11811199

yes, thousands of years of intellectual thought there to make you feel bad for reading rupi kaur and jumping on chad's dick

[Anonymous No.11811240]

>>11811174
I would agree with that, yes. They are harder to cultivate in women. This wisdom is found in religious texts as well.

I’m glad we could come to agreement

[Anonymous No.11811499]

aristotle owned this fag

[Anonymous No.11811521]

>>11810551
Ok, this is epic

[Anonymous No.11811534]

>>11810551
>Dude, look how much smarter I am than some old white dude 2500 years ago lol
t. cave sweller

[Anonymous No.11811538]

I unironically hate white people.

[Anonymous No.11811540]

>>11810551
I wish he had managed to take over the city, it would have been probably like early Stalinist USSR

[Anonymous No.11811557]

>>11811171
I’ve read this exact same reply before, weird

[Anonymous No.11811597]

>>11811538
same, but only if we follow the meme definition of only anglos/germanics being white

[Anonymous No.11811656]

>>11810551
How do you spergs even find this website?
OOH OOH THE SCARY MAN FROM 2500 YEARS AGO SUPPORTS FASCISM!!!!
BURN THIS BOOK

[Anonymous No.11811674]

>>11810815
>>11810843
>>11811055
>>11811199
>i share the board with these mouthbreathing redditors

[Anonymous No.11811691]

The Republic is an esoteric (coded, veiled) work of psychology. The ideal republic represents, in fact, the ideal human. Socrates SAYS this clearly in the opening chapters, that he wants to talk about the just person but, since it’s helpful sometimes to make analogies to larger things to understand smaller things, he’ll talk about an ideal republic instead. The point of the book is not primarily political. It’s ethical, spiritual, psychological. Plato conceives of the self as really being one big Self made up of a plurality of little subselves, subpersonalities, split up into his own distinction of physical, emotional, and mental. The ideal Self integrates and orders all these subselves in a harmonious hierarchy. Subversive works of poetry are meant to be banned so they don’t corrupt the guardians when they’re YOUNG, for instance. Instead of being a totalitarian’s manifesto, it’s giving the simple advice that children should be shielded from violent and/or seemingly nihilistic or immoral works of art. It’s also recommending we don’t get too lured by the beauties of art and poetry at the expense of cultivating true wisdom and morality, philosophical understanding. The guardians seem to represent the conscious watchdogs of the mind, that which determines our morality, which filters, selects, discards what we perceive as either good or evil, beneficial or harmful. The whole book can be read in this way. It’s not satirical at all but perhaps somewhat ironic in that he talks about certain psychological ideas in an exaggerated way by magnifying them into political ideas.

Plato makes this fucking CLEAR. He has Socrates say he will only talk about the ideal state as a means to talk about justice in the ideal person. The only reason most academics have not noticed it’s meant to be read in a psychological way is because people don’t understand subtlety and, whatever their IQ is aside, can safely be called clinical retards. A 2000+ year old work which people have consistently been reading wrongly — if you want proof people are retarded, blind, and sleepwalking, what other proof could you want?

(This is a post I made on /lit/ before so I feel I have the right to have edited it a little and reposted it).

[Anonymous No.11811693]

>>11810554
Fascism

[Anonymous No.11811790]

>>11810551
Fuck you OP I can here to post this bait

[Anonymous No.11812090]

>>11811691
This is one of those funny posts I like to read where people like to imagine alternate readings 'deeper' than they actually are. Never ceases to make me laugh.

Thanks for that.

[Anonymous No.11812156]

>>11812090
The Republic is 100% metaphorical, even if it can be applied literally. You are a silly douchenozzle.

You are interpreting The Republic correctly, anon. It is a divine work

[Anonymous No.11812164]

>>11811175
That's just reality.

[Anonymous No.11812613]

>>11810551

I actually hate brainlets

[Anonymous No.11813078]

>>11811691

Indeed, major Biblical themes like the commandments and the sins also lend themselves to the same interpretation. Not coveting your neighbour's wife as in his sacred feminine, Earth and Water, Sophia, etc. etc.

[Anonymous No.11814255]

bump

[Anonymous No.11814337]

Is OP actually embarrassingly wrong or are people just kneejerking and calling him a brainlet because he's being provocative

[Anonymous No.11814730]

Troglodytes, please keep saying moronic things to keep the thread alive so that this might get some more replies:

>>11811691
>>11813078

[Anonymous No.11814738]

>>11810815
>Diogenes-level bait

[Anonymous No.11814743]

>>11811113
>NEETch
>isn't
>dead
Swoon.

[Anonymous No.11814757]

>>11814743

[Anonymous No.11814803]

>>11814337
Why don't you read the book and make your own conclusion you brainlet fuck

[Anonymous No.11814818]

>>11814803
I did, he's not too off the mark.

[Anonymous No.11814824]

>>11814818
It's pasta.