/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12994041]

>anticipates Nietzsche's idea of justice by more than 2000 years
>demolishes it
>doesn't even spend an entire dialogue destroying it, just dispenses with it quickly in Book 1 of the Republic

Plato is awesome.

[Anonymous No.12994054]

>>12994041
>t. read Nietzsche before Plato

[Anonymous No.12994068]

>>12994054
you Should read a little aphoristic philosophy before Plato actually. Makes it that much greater.

Almost as if Plato wrote the work knowing that in every age there will be presocratics, ie those who tell you reality is based upon what you perceive.

Socrates is a protoprophet. A veritable Moses or Jesus figure, a precursor to a divine future for humanity. A future that could not happen with moral nihilism

[Anonymous No.12994072]

>>12994068
I’m :3 obv

[Anonymous No.12994077]

>>12994068
Yeah, Empedocles and Heraclitus. Not fucking Nietzsche. If you read Nietzsche before Plato, this is exactly what happens.

[Anonymous No.12994081]

>>12994077
What? You read someone who is effectively the same as Thrasymachus stating the same tired arguments time and time again millennia later?

[Anonymous No.12994087]

>>12994068
>those who tell you reality is based upon what you perceive
That is true, though. Even basic logic principles, such non-contradiction and identity, depends on a basic empirical observertion to be sound.

[Anonymous No.12994088]

>>12994041
an oversimplification of Nietzsche and his entire point of Dionysus vs Apollo ie Plato and the rule of Logic after the Greeks, which he was trying to undermine.

That being said, Plato is indeed a badass, it has been said all of philosophy is just footnotes to Plato, which never seems to far off given just how much he covered. Dude was unreal and Aristotle coming right afterwards was everybit as much a badass

[Anonymous No.12994089]

>>12994041

Really, Anon? I just finished Republic and was surprised by their similarities.

Plato's conception of justice is balance between the classes of the city, or the three parts of a human's mind. He doesn't deny the rank of man - in fact, it is necessary for there to be justice. Reason must rule, and the other drives serve it.

And Nietzsche? A human is composed of drives, and the one with the greatest will to power will rule over the rest. Democracy, equality of man, slave morality - they are all rejected.

The biggest difference to me, it seems, is that Plato still has a quasi-religious belief in the divinity of reason, whereas Nietzsche is more mature and less naively optimistic about what it can accomplish.

Compare Nietzsche to Plato's depiction of a Tyrant - someone with no control over themselves, and chaos in their mind. A Tyrant, according to Plato, is a slave of their desires. Do you really think this tyrant is a model of Nietzsche's self-knowing and self-controlled Ubermensch?

[Anonymous No.12994092]

>>12994041
What is Nietzsche's idea of justice and how does Plato btfo it? inb4 "read it urself lul"

[卐 No.12994098]

>>12994041
Imagine how many philosophers would be obsolete if people had actually read Plato

[Anonymous No.12994100]

>>12994092
Have you read any Plato? Are you familiar with the character of Thrasymachus?

[卐 No.12994104]

>>12994100
No he’s not

[Anonymous No.12994106]

>>12994092
it didnt people just making shit up and everyone else is pretending to understand

[Anonymous No.12994118]

>>12994089
I think Nietzsche just sensed the equality of man taking over. His observations would be obvious to the proletariat of today’s age. He still was somewhat of a sophist and a moral nihilist. And a simple purview of Plato’s Republic will tell you that was NOT Socrates.

[卐 No.12994119]

>>12994106
>having that picture saved

[Anonymous No.12994123]

>>12994089
i think OP is trying more to comment on "power" being a sort of telos and subsequent justification. Nietzsche definitely considered power to be a sort of telos whereas Plato did not for reasons he discussed early on in the Republic. Obviously OP is not being charitable to Nietzsche and oversimplifying him, but regardless it is cool to see that Plato did indeed anticipate many frames of thought and sought to address them briefly so early on.

[Anonymous No.12994134]

>>12994089
>Nietzsche is more mature

[Anonymous No.12994144]

>>12994087
I totally disagree that logical principals need any observation of empirical evidence to be sound at all.

By definition they don't need any empirical evidence at all. They follow a set of pre-established rules laid out in formal logic, as in mathematics, and then build from there. Regardless of empirical evidence one way or the other. I think empirical evidence certainly helped formulate some of those early principals, but once the whole thing got started it has no place.

Pure empiricism and pure rationalism are essentially two opposite extremes in terms of an epistemology. And most epistemological and ways of thinking are usually hybrids between the two. But logical principles do not need empirical evidence to be sound

[Anonymous No.12994164]

>>12994041
Tell me more about Plato.
Which of his works should I read and in what particular order.

[Anonymous No.12994169]

>>12994164
He's a meme and got BTFO by Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.12994178]

>>12994169
Well it stands that I should at least read his work first so I can fully appreciate it being "BTFO" while reading Nietzsche later.
Which of Nietzche's works should I read and in what order?

[Anonymous No.12994184]

>>12994164
Trial and death of Socrates are where I started

[Anonymous No.12994192]

>>12994144
I disagree with you. For example, lets pick the law of non-contradiction. Superficially, it is very agreeable, but it depends on hidden assumptions about the nature of identity, namely that things cannot have simultaneous contradictory characteristics, without really justifying it in a non-emperical fashion ie a ball cannot be all black and all white at the same time, but in order to do that you would need to see/perceive a ball(or something analogous to it) to see that indeed it can't be both(and it COULD be both, then non-contradiction is invalid). It doesn't mean that the law of non-contradiction needs to be "proven" in the same way a scientific theory is, but it needs empirical observation to properly formulated and analysed.

[Anonymous No.12994196]

>>12994192
>and it COULD be both
*and if it COULD be both

[Anonymous No.12994246]

>>12994118
>>12994123

I wonder if Nietzsche's infatuation with power is, as some make it out to be, at all the point of his philosophy. For sure, and as you say, it is a reaction to the democratization of society. Nietzsche says just as much.

But in many places, Nietzsche will quietly slip in his doubts. Here is one of my favorite quotes from BGE:

'Every philosophy is a foreground philosophy-that is a hermits judgment: "There is something arbitrary in his stopping here to look back and look around, in his not digging deeper here but laying his spade aside; there is also something suspicious about it." Every philosophy also conceals a philosophy; every opinion is also a hide out, every word also a mask."'

What I really like about Nietzsche is that he often holds two opposites together at the same time. Really beautiful, and somehow consistent, contrast.

[Anonymous No.12994267]

>>12994054
I think people favor whatever they encounter first. It's rare for someone to change their mind once an idea has taken root.

[Anonymous No.12994317]

>>12994104
Don't ever answer a question on me behalf again, you stupid fucking nigger.

[Anonymous No.12995676]

>>12994041
Plato's whole ethical setup in the Republic makes sense only given the following axioms, both of which are absurd.

1) The sympathetic imagination does not exist.
2) The terror of state and divine sanction will nicely substitute for its absence.

Thus would the conscience make cowards of us all, were that true. And since not, not. But does he really MEAN it, or is it all an ironic edifice that mocks the admirers of Sparta among Athenians? Who knows? Even as that, it's perfectly mad as tragic poetry isn't.

[Anonymous No.12995747]

>dogs are like philosophers because they are only friendly with people they KNOW which means they like KNOWledge

truly the greatest philosopher of all time

[Anonymous No.12995922]

>>12994068
hilarious misreading of nietszche aside, socrates(plato) is kinda maybe this (negarestani argues for this)

[Anonymous No.12996177]

>>12994317
Based
>>12994104
Pls kys tripfag for the good of the board

[Anonymous No.12996188]

>>12994119
didnt realize i hurt your feelings so much lmao >>12994098

[Anonymous No.12996249]

>>12994092
If I recall correctly, in book 1 of The Republic some sophist guy tells Socrates that justice is "the advantage of the strongest" (ie. if the state is the strongest, justice is whatever the state says it is). Socrates btfo's the guy telling him that if justice is a virtue, then it does good to the soul, and if the state makes bad desitions, then justice can harm the soul(virtues can't ever harm the soul, so the argument can't make sense). I may be wrong about the btfo'ing part, it's been a long time since I read the republic.

I haven't read Neetsché yet but he probably argues in favor of the "the advantage of the strongest" definition.

[Anonymous No.12996314]

>>12994196
You only "know" that it can't be both by past experience

[Anonymous No.12996471]

>>12996314
The past doesnt exist.

[Anonymous No.12997602]

>>12996249
"Justice is rule by the strongest" is absolutely what Nietzsche's whole philosophy boils down to. That's the entire point of his discourse on the will to power: the strong can make a world for themselves.

[卐 No.12997896]

>>12994106
>>12996177
>>12996188
Imagine being this lame

[Anonymous No.12998061]

>>12994104
Kill yourself

[Anonymous No.12998778]

>>12996249
>then it does good to the soul
What soul? Do you also believe in Santa Claus? All religious and pseudo-religious concepts are humbug

[Anonymous No.12998809]

>>12998778
You realize that if you're an atheist you can take the term "the soul" and replace it with "the mind" or "the psyche," right? And if you do, Plato's advice will be just as good for you.

[Anonymous No.12998852]

>>12998809
No, you can not do that. Soul implies something external, but in reality we are biological machines.

[Anonymous No.12998949]

>>12998852

All machines require external influence. This is called an 'input', you retard

[Anonymous No.12999009]

>>12998949
>All machines require external influence
What is the human input? There is non, only hormones, genes and electrical processes.

[Anonymous No.12999067]

>>12999009
We have no idea what consciousness is biologically

[Anonymous No.12999588]

>>12996471
What are you saying doesn't exist?

[Anonymous No.12999594]

>>12998852
Not Plato's idea of a soul you fucking retard, the input is immanent to the machine


>>12999009
>basic bitch reductionism

American education was a mistake

[Anonymous No.13000092]

>>12998778
>What soul? Do you also believe in Santa Claus?
I was just explaining The Republic you absolute retard. You are not nearly as intelligent as you think you are.

[Anonymous No.13000439]

>>12994098
>beauty is objective
>how? lol idk just trust me bro
>if i write it over a painting i like it must be true

[卐 No.13000518]

>>13000439
>lol idk just trust me bro

[Anonymous No.13000528]

>>13000439

[Anonymous No.13000653]

>>12995676
retard

[Anonymous No.13001077]

>>12999588
The past doesnt exist.

[Anonymous No.13001148]

>>12996471
the FUTURE doesn't exist EITHER!

[Anonymous No.13001163]

>>13001148
You get it.

[Anonymous No.13001915]

>>13001077
If you're able to talk about it, it does exist.

[Anonymous No.13003208]

>>13001915
Unicorns.

[Anonymous No.13003282]

>>13003208
Nostradamus predicted this brainlet reply

[Anonymous No.13003610]

>>12995747
>philosophers are mongrels
truer words have never been spoken

[Anonymous No.13004754]

>>13000528
I unironically prefer the painting. Religious sculpture is kitschy and melodramatic.

[卐 No.13004768]

>>13004754
Ur preference is subjective and inconsequential to the discussion twat

[Anonymous No.13004815]

>>13004754
kitsch is unironically the highest form of art there is

[Anonymous No.13004835]

>>12994081
>Equating Nietzsche with the dumbest of the sophists

Nietzsche cared about truth, he just redefined it for a world lacking greek sensibilities and lacking christian foundations.

[Anonymous No.13005778]

>>13004754
>I unironically prefer the painting. Religious sculpture is kitschy and melodramatic.

[Anonymous No.13006650]

>>12994089
>the one with the greatest will to power will rule over the rest

That's how hitler rose to power.

But in more general terms this will occur unless he is:

A. Suppressed
B. Murdered
C. Overthrown
D. Despised

You should read The Prince

[Anonymous No.13006713]

>>13004768
I unironically find the painting more beautiful.
There. Is your autism satiated?

[Anonymous No.13007230]

>>12994144
>by definition
>but once the whole thing got started
>started

kek

[Anonymous No.13007284]

>>12994089
the synthesis of religion and philosophy is the ultimate goal. dumbie

[Anonymous No.13007291]

>>13006650
D. Is actually wrong tho. He will be despised by his enemies regardless.

[Anonymous No.13007304]

>>13004815
woah wtf is this dude.
Are you killing my mind?

[Anonymous No.13007517]

>>12997602
That's not what the will to power is,...

[Anonymous No.13007559]

>>13007517
hes not talking about the will to power...

[Anonymous No.13007572]

>>12997602
>the strong can make a world for themselves
More like "everyone should make a world for themselves if they are strong enough"
>>12998852
>Soul implies something external
This shit right here is responsible for quite a lot of crap poisoning Christianity and Western thought in general. What could you expect from Judaic peasants misreading Plato.

[Anonymous No.13007668]

>>12994041
>>anticipates Nietzsche
He was responding to Protagoras, Idiot

[Anonymous No.13007751]

>>13007668
b a i t

[Anonymous No.13008829]

>>12994068
>Socrates is a protoprophet. A veritable ... Jesus figure
That's actually Kierkegaard's thesis

[Anonymous No.13009613]

>>12994077
>Heraclitus
Such a good writer. I mean hooooly shit