/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15540380]

>helps slave to do a math problem
>slave does math problem
>the soul is immortal
What???????

[Anonymous No.15540393]

>>15540380
It's pretty simple... we kill the Batman

[Anonymous No.15540407]

>>15540380
I think the point was that the slave was able to do mathematics despite never being formally taught it, so he must have been learnt it before his current life.

[Anonymous No.15540435]

>>15540407
Why did he need help then? Maybe the slave had a high IQ and was able to do something with the help of a philosopher?

[Anonymous No.15540552]

>>15540380
dude was basado como jodido!!!

[Anonymous No.15540559]

>>15540435
He just needed to reminded of what he already knew.

[Anonymous No.15540568]

And this is really all you need to know to realize that logic is nothing but projection
The Greeks even made fun around proofs that were impossible, in order to get you realize this
And people went >M-muh forms

[Anonymous No.15540576]

>>15540568
Forms are proven by science though.
https://aeon.co/essays/without-a-library-of-platonic-forms-evolution-couldn-t-work

[Anonymous No.15540606]

>>15540576
proven? HAHAHAHAHA BY --SCIENCE--??? AAAAAAAAHAHAAHHAHHHHAHA!!!!

[Anonymous No.15540638]

>>15540576
Science doesn't prove things. It builds models.

[Anonymous No.15540639]

>>15540606
cope

[Anonymous No.15540922]

>>15540576
I don't think the article says that Plato's forms are actually proven by science. As far as I understood, the author is talking about all possible DNA sequences that code for proteins, and how you can imagine a network of all the codes that are viable and are linked by single base pair changes. I think the point of the article is more that the way the author thinks about that network is similar to Plato's forms, because not every viable protein has appeared in nature (there's too many possible ones for that to even happen) but we can think of them as already existing in an abstract sense, analagous to the forms. I didn't see anywhere where he tries to actually prove that the forms exist.

[Anonymous No.15542089]

>>15540380
Mathlets would never understand things like the preparation for death

[Anonymous No.15542210]

>>15540576
>>15540606
The forms are the epistemological and metaphysical medium through which our minds operate and we gain understanding. Their existence is already confirmed simply by the way our minds operate, we don't need "science" to "prove" that they exist.

If you have any other interpretation of Plato, you're a brainlet.

[Anonymous No.15542216]

>>15540380
BUMP

[Anonymous No.15542274]

>>15540638
actually, science proves all the things i think are true, with helpful statistics charts and really smart people to interpret them for me so they can tell me what's true or not

[Anonymous No.15542349]

>>15540576
>Forms are proven by science though
True, but not because of anything to do with your dumb article

[Anonymous No.15542357]

>>15542210
>if you don’t think plato == kant you’re a brainlet
cringe

[Anonymous No.15543503]

>>15542210
Is the endgame of philosophy to learn of the unfalsifiable and accept it as pseudo-truth?

[Anonymous No.15543523]

>2500 dialogue isnt up to my rhetorical standard
>its fucking shit
any kinos for this feel? Anyone who didnt know that the New World existed can kill themselves desu senpai. Aristotle is a retard

[Anonymous No.15543536]

It solves the paradox of iniquiry. How can you inquire into something you dont know? You need knowledge of what you inquire in order to be able to inquire at all. Personally, I prefer Augustine's illumination over Plato's recollection

[Anonymous No.15543547]

>>15542357
>kant isn't a crypto-platonist
>kant doesn't just immanentize the platonic forms as the conditions of experience

bruh look at this dude ohnonono

>>15543503
you lack the intuition for philosophy. either because you're unwilling or incapable of understanding it.

[Anonymous No.15543615]

>>15543547
cringe.

[Anonymous No.15543641]

>>15542210
Can you please articulate to how you came to such conclusion?

[Anonymous No.15543695]

>>15543615
>noooo the school of life video on kant didn't say that

[Anonymous No.15543719]

>>15540576
The words "proven" and "science" don't mean what you're using them to mean.

[Anonymous No.15543768]

>>15540576
basado

[Anonymous No.15543777]

>>15543768
WAIT NO WRONG POST THAT ONE IS NOT BASADO I MEANT THIS ONE NO NO NOOO
>>15540606

[Anonymous No.15544022]

>>15540922
Correct. 'Forms' are really an archaic and hence backwards way of thinking about potential configurations, where one assumes they follow pre-existing templates as opposed to emerging from the physics of our universe. Oh well, mystics gonna mysticize and brainlets gonna brainletize.

[Anonymous No.15544113]

>>15544022
>he thinks Plato's forms aren't emergent or become in time

[Anonymous No.15544119]

>>15540380
Monkey see, monkey do. Study the behaviorists.

[Anonymous No.15544380]

>>15540576
Actually a pretty interesting read, thanks man.

[Anonymous No.15544389]

>>15540576
Forms are proven in themselves by themselves. There is no science. There is only Form.

[Anonymous No.15544393]

>>15543695
cringe.

[Anonymous No.15544457]

>>15544393
>nooo you can't make connections that aren't in the syllabus nooo

[Anonymous No.15544755]

>>15543641
Sure, I'll do my best.

The Forms are the ideal version of any possible conception the human mind could have. The ways in which we reach understanding--sense perception/empiricism and reason, and even less "mind-based" ones like emotion and intuition--are all predicated upon our ability to comprehend the essence of different concepts (their essence being the different Forms that compose them and contribute to their individual, unique Form) and piece them together. The Forms are the basis for every single one of these concepts, and since the way our minds reach understanding about ANYTHING is by using different concepts that are rooted in the Forms and connecting them to each other using other methods or conceptions also rooted in the Forms, I think it's evident that the Forms are then the medium through which we reach that understanding, as I said earlier.

Plato does a much better job explaining this than I ever could.

[Anonymous No.15544762]

Bump

[Anonymous No.15545883]

>>15540380
STOP!

You must be *very* careful reading the Greeks prematurely and in the wrong manner. You are a MODERN. You are profoundly severed from the Ancients, for better and for worse, and the simple fact is that you should not venture into the Greeks without the appropriate framing.

In fact, that the Greeks think in such an alien manner should be the first piece of understanding you gain, that you are deeply historicised. (The Greek's both gain and lose by their early position in the history of thought; personally I think Plato's realist use of analogy - i.e. interpreting analogy as capturing a reality of common pattern & hence cause - which allows him to make comparisons between the growth of a flower and a human's development, is of profound worth and something we lose sight of in our highly specialised and isolated approach to different disciplines of knowledge)

But back to framing: I urge you, if you are interested in Plato's Republic, to seek out Leo Strauss' "The City and Man". This text is not without fault and is often outright questionable, but it will give you a very useful understanding of how a Modern can find a value in the work of Ancients.

As for the particular section of the Phaedo, it is useful to note that Plato's 'immortal soul' is the precedent for the rationalist thought ala Kant's response to Hume (urging for pre-empirical concepts) as well as for an evolutionary concept of innate knowledge.

"The linguist Noam Chomsky describes what he calls “The Argument from the Impoverished Stimulus” as a classic rationalist argument. It notes that we classify physical shapes that we experience (written, printed, drawn, etc.) as inexact representations of geometrically perfect regular figures (squares, circles, triangles, etc.). Why don’t we classify them as exact representations of irregular figures? The idea is that our sensory stimuli are “impoverished.” We never experience perfect squares, circles, triangles, etc. Yet we have these concepts, and we classify things accordingly. How did we acquire these concepts if we have never experienced anything that they (literally) apply to?" (https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/phaedo.htm))

I sought out Chomsky's "Reflections on Language" which I own, taking a photo of the relevant passage. Do read it!

[Anonymous No.15545888]

>>15540559
who reminded the reminder?

[Anonymous No.15545908]

>>15542210
>thinks the aim of philosophy is the aim of science
Now you may be right in one way or another, but you're fundamentally ignoring Plato's belief and understanding of the Forms, as well as that of the Greeks whereas the Romans faltered in the belief of divinity in general. You are merely using the genius of Plato to express an abstract thought, which may indeed be related and indebted to Plato, but is not Plato.

[Anonymous No.15545921]

Are there forms of emotions? If we agree that the artist is striving for his own forms, then what are they?

[Anonymous No.15545969]

Menon just shows that philosophy is, in many aspects, a shittalking competition.

[Anonymous No.15547279]

>>15545908
Tell me where you disagree with me and my interpretation falls short. See >>15544755 for an elaboration on my interpretation. If you've read more than a few Platonic dialogues, you should be able to understand what I so poorly described in the post.

[Anonymous No.15547992]

>>15543503
absolutely based

[Anonymous No.15549442]

>>15540380
I'm not saying I buy the argument, but I found this dialogue incredibly intuitive when I read it when I was 13. The Republic, by contrast, seemed like nonsense at the time.

[Anonymous No.15550769]

>>15540552
please stop using google translate for memes

[Anonymous No.15551885]

>>15543503
Beautiful

[Anonymous No.15551922]

>>15542274
woah baased

[Anonymous No.15551980]

>>15545883
Leo Strauss was literally the dumbest pseud ever to study Plato. He trashed all the cool metaphysics and rolled around on the stinking leftovers, the hierarchy and secrecy and hated of democracy. If Leo Strauss ever went to an all you can eat Chinese buffet, I bet he'd say the shrimp cocktail was an exoteric trick and only east the carved radishes left out as garnish.