/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15579722]

Just started reading plato and I gotta say, I’m not impressed. Are the Greeks really this overrated?

>hurr durrr what is the meaning of justice

[Anonymous No.15579737]

It was like 2000 years ago, you have to contextualize what you read bro

[Anonymous No.15579740]

It’s juicetice

[Anonymous No.15579743]

>>15579722
This book is a lot better if you read it from Thrasymachus' point of view.

[Anonymous No.15579745]

This book is a lot better if you aren't an idiot.

[Anonymous No.15579759]

>>15579745
Oh no, I get what Socrates is trying to say. But it’s still dumb and pointless to argue over the meaning of justice. It’s just another one of those things that doesn’t have a meaning. Justice is a social construct, like morality.

>Judicial Relativism

[Anonymous No.15579761]

>>15579745
Prove Thrasymachus wrong. Actually prove him wrong. You can't.

[Anonymous No.15579769]

>>15579722
You fell for the "Start with the Greeks" meme. In reality the start of the West is in Rome, not Greece, and it is there you should begin. Greece was never a proper nation and never united, all the cities were constantly fighting each other like savage African tribes. Greek religion and mythology is Eastern in origin. Greek institutions were weak and fleeting.

It is Rome where the modern nation-state without internal war was invented. Roman institutions are the basis for the West. The real Republic is pic related.

[Anonymous No.15580268]

>>15579722
Bump

[Anonymous No.15580678]

>>15579769
cringe

[Anonymous No.15580851]

The absolute state of brainlets

[Anonymous No.15580905]

>>15579759
Are you retarded? Go kill yourself

[Anonymous No.15580954]

>>15579759
Imagine believing this.

[Anonymous No.15580964]

>>15579722
>>15579759
Anon you're literally retarded, Plato teaches you how to think, and you're so retarded and lacking in modesty that you both cannot understand Plato, as well as already have made this extreme judgement about one of the most important thinkers ever, while having read nothing else of his works and only some of the republic.

See:
>Such persons I can fearlessly invite to study "Meister." Across the disfigurement of a translation, they will not fail to discern indubitable traces of the greatest genius in our times. And the longer they study, they are likely to discern them the more distinctly. New charms will successively arise to view; and of the many apparent blemishes, while a few superficial ones may be confirmed, the greater and more important part will vanish, or even change from dark to bright. For, if I mistake not, it is with "Meister" as with every work of real and abiding excellence,—the first glance is the least favorable. A picture of Raphael, a Greek statue, a play of Sophocles or Shakspeare, appears insignificant to the unpractised eye; and not till after long and patient and intense examination, do we begin to descry the earnest features of that beauty, which has its foundation in the deepest nature of man, and will continue to be pleasing through all ages.

[Anonymous No.15580969]

>>15579769
Silly.

[Anonymous No.15580972]

>>15579761
>starts book by arguing with guy he can't prove wrong
>sets out on journey to prove him wrong
>doesn't prove him wrong
What did socrates mean by this

[Anonymous No.15580983]

Hey man, I fell for the "start with the Greeks" meme.

But recently I've been sitting down and reflecting , the Greeks did something to me.

It separated me from the way of thought I was following in my early 20s, gave kindle to the idea that there is more to life than mere hedonism. The epics provided me with a vitality that has been lost in this generation.

Even sit and reflect upon Socrates life and one cannot help but strive to learn more. Here is a man, famous for his valour and strength in battle, who even until his death (which was most likely orchestrated by Rich enemies he made through questioning) he was unbreakable.

This guy was Jesus on a testosterone cycle.

I don't advocate you to strive in the steps of any man, but the Greeks give you a sense of life affirmation

[Anonymous No.15580995]

>>15579722
yes read Nietzsche instead

[Anonymous No.15581015]

>>15579769
So dumb, Rome was in continual civil war basically.

>Roman institutions are the basis for the West. The real Republic is pic related.

Have you seen the state of the West today? If Rome is really the ultimate basis for our institutions then I guess they fucked up.


Nice you gave us Cicero, the career politician who today would be the sleaziest of all the shitheads we see on our screen.

[Anonymous No.15581021]

>>15580983
Too true, brother.

[Anonymous No.15581034]

>>15580905
>>15580954
>>15580964
>You’re wrong because I say so
Go ahead then, prove me wrong. What is justice?

[Anonymous No.15581145]

>>15581034
Policies or actions which are beneficial to as much of human life and their future preservation as possible. There is a lot of variability in terms of context for actions, but that core concept is kind of the bar, in subjects like killing dangers to society - or leaving behind the wounded cub vs staying and dying also merely to provide comfort.

We develop these concepts for the purpose of establishing cooperation with each other over common rules and thereby elevating our own human happiness. No, there's no such thing as Natural Rights - they're words - words which are given their power through the collective power of the sword that is willing to defend it. The most fair rules should necessarily be the most worth defending to the majority of people.

[Anonymous No.15581176]

>>15579722
yes, overrated. Nietzsche, Gurdjieff, Castaneda.

[Anonymous No.15581182]

>>15579722
Then don't read it

[Anonymous No.15581189]

>>15581145
justice is social construct.

[Anonymous No.15581203]

>>15579759
This is a really bad way about going about reading philosophy, and if this will be your attitude towards reading philosophy, then you will not be impressed by very much.

[Anonymous No.15581206]

>>15579759
>But it’s still dumb and pointless to argue over the meaning of justice.
i bet you're one of those people who thinks philosophy in general has no purpose because it's debating over things that ultimately don't matter in your eyes
go back to partying and then dying in a drunk car crash by the time you're 25 since you clearly don't care about the world around you enough to use your brain for once

[Anonymous No.15581207]

>>15580964
since I already know how to think is Plato a waste of time for me?

[Anonymous No.15581243]

>>15581015
Completely false, Italy was at peace for hundreds of years (with occasional interruptions), unique in the ancient world.

[Anonymous No.15581248]

>>15581145
>Policies or actions which are beneficial to as much of human life and their future preservation as possible.
>This is justice.
Why? There are people who would argue that the preservation of human life is not a good thing. What about anti-natalists? While we’re at it, what makes life valuable in the first place? Why is it morally right to maintain civilization? There are people who believe that hunter-gatherer tribes are a better alternative.

I do not believe any of these things are right. But there are people who do, and they believe so because morality is subjective. You can make anything seem right by talking about it long enough. So before you even start talking about justice, you first have to prove objective morality.

[Anonymous No.15581252]

>>15581189
Yes and no. There are clearly optimum ways of structuring the balance of our own lives with that of those around us and the planet we are on. Humanity simply doesn't get to dictate nature, or the way it can come back and kill us for our own lack of foresight.

Whatever is the most optimum method for avoiding extinction to either ourselves or from this planet is clearly just and true.

[Anonymous No.15581261]

>>15579759
Sorry, you didn't understand the book. Don't be hard on yourself, it's not an easy read. I recommend you to come back to it a few years later.

[Anonymous No.15581262]

>>15581248
see
>>15581252
If you don't think that your life is valuable then kill yourself. Easy.
The rest of us will do what is natural.

[Anonymous No.15581287]

>>15581262
what if I think my life is valuable but yours isn’t

[Anonymous No.15581302]

>>15579759
>Justice is a social construct, like morality.
How so anon? Can you prove this?
If you cannot, then can you take something that you think is objective, like math, logic, observations, or science, and tell us why they are objective, and not just social constructs?
Or is it so that you believe there is no such thing as ideas without social constructs? In that case, why?

[Anonymous No.15581326]

>>15581287
You don't really individually get to decide that.
This is why humans form states of collective agreement upon rules and value judgments. Obvious, but you're clearly dumb.

[Anonymous No.15581328]

>>15581326
>You don't really individually get to decide that
yes I do retard, I just decided it

[Anonymous No.15581330]

>>15581302
>If you cannot, then can you take something that you think is objective, like math, logic, observations, or science, and tell us why they are objective, and not just social constructs?
I do not think math, logic, observations, or science is an objective fact. Math in particular is literally a social construct. It may have been invented to represent things that are real, and it may also be a useful invention at that, but it’s still an idea that exists only in our heads. Just like morality and justice.

You’re the one who has to prove that something is objective.

[Anonymous No.15581332]

>>15579722
THis blew my mind as a kid

[Anonymous No.15581342]

>>15581330
>Math in particular is literally a social construct.
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.15581346]

>>15581328
>I just decided it
That's not justice.
You don't have to personally agree with the rules of the state, but it would also be a mark of good character to simply exile yourself from a society you don't want to cooperate with.

Otherwise, what is just might have to include us making you.

[Anonymous No.15581356]

>>15581189
true, but you can only get away with saying that if you can admit all systems of thought and all thinking is socially constructed and therefore cannot provide a true understanding of anything. that is to say all thoughts are equal

[Anonymous No.15581362]

>>15581346
>That's not justice.
yeah it is

[Anonymous No.15581364]

It’s not impressive because of the lens in which you view it. Remember that at one point in time it wasn’t 2020

[Anonymous No.15581366]

>>15581342
I don’t see you proving me wrong

>>15581346
Ignore him, he’s trolling. Even if morality is subjective, there are still consequences to ones actions. You don’t do something because something is wrong or right, you do it because you’re acting in your own self interest. It is in a societies own self interest to maintain itself. All I’m saying is that the idea of justice and morality is a social construct.

Social constructs can be useful and beneficial to its adherents, but they’re still social constructs. Much like religion. It might be bullshit, but it still has benefits.

[Anonymous No.15581367]

>>15579722
Plato was dumb, read Plotinus.

[Anonymous No.15581375]

>>15581330
Get the fuck off my board, Terrence Howard

[Anonymous No.15581387]

>>15581362
You're clearly too retarded to even formulate a substantive argument. Why even post? Humans may not have found the optimum method of governing, law, order, and cooperation; nor have we uncovered absolutely every "truth."(Another abstract with a very defining quality that'll blow your autistic little mind)

This is why we discuss them in order to understand better. God bless Plato.

[Anonymous No.15581392]

>>15581261
The funny thing is it is an easy read.

[Anonymous No.15581404]

>>15581330
>It may have been invented to represent things that are real
The things I listed was just examples, but whatever you think is objectively real, can you explain what they are, why they are objectively real and how?
Also, if this is your view, and you’ll find everything you read that disagree with you as not impressive, don’t be surprised when you find a lot of philosophy ‘overrated’

[Anonymous No.15581413]

>>15581387
>Why even post?
for the sake of justice

[Anonymous No.15581423]

I solved it, justice is legal revenge

[Anonymous No.15581427]

>>15579759
>Oh no, I get what Socrates is trying to say
You're adorable.

[Anonymous No.15581431]

>>15579740
In torn between wishing someone that cute and innocent looking never did porn and desperately wishing she had done more of it.
Also, I dunno, I’m starting the republic too, think it’s alright so far. I’m assuming the book will build on the introduction of the argument on justice and build to more complicated ideas.

[Anonymous No.15581435]

was socrates posting real last night or am i finally going full schizo

[Anonymous No.15581447]

>>15581366
Well, you COULD say it's like religion - but it works in the contrary to your own argument. If we say for the sake of argument there is such a thing as a "soul," and that there is a condition of it in death - and we discover absolutely the right method of living for gaming the system, then religion has suddenly become an objective reality.

The only difference is, there is undeniably an objectively optimum method of organizing human life that will be in the best interest of the most number of people and this planet that we have yet to discover. Religion is still in the air.

[Anonymous No.15581454]

>>15581387
If humans found the optimum method of governing, law, order, and cooperation; even if it was perfect in every way and had no flaws - it would be neither wrong nor right. It would just be. Humans would probably choose such a civilization, but not because it’s morally right to do so. They’d just be acting in their own self interest.

>>15581404
>but whatever you think is objectively real, can you explain what they are
Well, to be completely honest, I cannot assume that ANYTHING is objectively real. How can I be sure that the outside world exists? The only thing I know for a fact is that I exist.

But to answer your question, anything that exists outside of the realm of ideas is objective. Things like justice, math, and morality are constructs, because they exist only inside the mind.

[Anonymous No.15581464]

>>15579722
also started with it. I'm not sure whether Plato wrote it to make fun of Socrates. All his arguments are utterly debunked by his opponent. Don't even remember his name. Only thing I've got from this book are the flaws of democracy. I think Plato intended to promote technocracy. The translator explained in footnotes is that he was deeply dissatisfied with the Peleponesian war or however you spell it.
Yeah, not going to read anymore Greeks. It's amazing how much technological progress we have made. The plato's rhetoric is present in literally every book related anyhow to economics. If you are 18+, and you should be, and not find things Plato has said obvious, you better hope that reincarnation exists.

[Anonymous No.15581484]

>>15581454
>not because it’s morally right to do so. They’d just be acting in their own self interest.
Why does self interest and morality have to be separate? They are part of the same thing. Everything is, which is exactly what Plato said. Each part is one collective whole.
The optimum religion is also the one which is entirely in accordance with that nature.

[Anonymous No.15581498]

>>15581447
>Well, you COULD say it's like religion - but it works in the contrary to your own argument. If we say for the sake of argument there is such a thing as a "soul," and that there is a condition of it in death - and we discover absolutely the right method of living for gaming the system, then religion has suddenly become an objective reality.

Well that’s the thing, isn’t it? Objective morality can only exist in a universe where god is real. Therefore, to prove objective morality, you have to prove that god is real. I’ll be waiting. PS, I’m not an atheist. At all. But I’m not a monotheist either, so there is no singular ruler of everything that commands these things either.

>there is undeniably an objectively optimum method of organizing human life that will be in the best interest of the most number of people and this planet that we have yet to discover.
I agree. But we wouldn’t choose that system because we believe it’s the “morally right” thing to do. We’d choose that system because we’re acting in our own self interest.

[Anonymous No.15581500]

>>15581464
>Plato is so dumb and obvious that his ideas are still relevant to math, cosmology and physics today
Ok.

[Anonymous No.15581510]

>>15581207
I mean thinking in a fundamental sense, the forms and such, but that was more of a throwaway line though true, what I really meant was that it is was an exercise in understanding thought, and the complexity here cannot be understated. Because in the philosophy of thought, that is the development in the understanding of thought, it is also a development of thought itself and here lies an array of interests. Take for example Goethe's theory of knowledge and self-awareness of ones own thought as means to an intellectual "transcendence".

The point is, the genius of Plato is in every inch of his work. It's why he's still relevant to modern thinkers like Schmitt, Heidegger or Strauss.

[Anonymous No.15581520]

>>15581498
>Objective morality can only exist in a universe where god is real.
Negative. It also exists in one he isn't, because there is objectively an optimum method of organizing human life which protects us not only from ourselves, and each other, but also inculcates the optimum amount of happiness and fulfillment in the most amount of people. THAT.IS.MORALITY.
>I agree.
Thanks, dumbass.

[Anonymous No.15581531]

>>15581510
Do you have a place that you put work?
I would enjoy to see more of you, nohomo.

[Anonymous No.15581532]

>>15581454
>The only thing I know for a fact is that I exist.
How do you know this? I think if you look for it, you’ll find out it’s because either, you can observe it, or because you can use logic and reason to know it (like, that of Descartes), or in some way using one of the ideas you say you cannot use to do any of this:
>But to answer your question, anything that exists outside of the realm of ideas is objective. Things like justice, math, and morality are constructs, because they exist only inside the mind.
This is also funny for another reason. All you can know for sure exists is the mind, but something being inside the mind is proof that’s it’s not objective?
Anyways I’m off, but my tips is, if you cannot get any value from Plato without understanding this stuff, then go to Descartes and read up to Kant now then, or read more Plato and realise that even someone who thinks nothing is objective can get immense value from him

[Anonymous No.15581534]

>>15581500
which of plato’s ideas are still relevant to physics today

[Anonymous No.15581560]

>>15581534
none, he hasn't got to physics yet. he is still working through the greeks like a fag he is

[Anonymous No.15581569]

>>15579761
That’s the point of the book

[Anonymous No.15581573]

>>15579722
It is a religious and ascetic text on the proper orientation of the soul both in the micro and macrocosm. Most importantly the micro.
It's about preventing your appetitive nature from dominating your intellect. This is done through the thumos, "heart" or "spirit". Proper training and orientation of the thumos is fundamental in education and life. An improper spirit leads to disharmony. A poor education can leave a man wallowing in emotional chaos (see C.S. Lewis the Abolition of Man).

Plato took these ideas from Pythagorean concepts of harmony. Pythagoras himself was initiated in Memphis. The Republic is another landmark text in the Golden Chain of Western Civilization. I'm sorry you don't see it that way OP.

[Anonymous No.15581578]

>>15581534
Here's an epic book on the subject, glad you asked.
Inventing the Universe: Plato's Timaeus, the Big Bang, and the Problem of Scientific Knowledge
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0791426912/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

Description:
A parallel investigation of both Plato's Timaeus and the contemporary standard Big Bang model of the universe shows that any possible scientific knowledge of the universe is ultimately grounded in irreducible and undemonstrable propositions. These are inventions of the human mind. The scientific knowledge of the universe is entirely composed in a series of axioms and rules of inference underlying a formalized system. There is no logical relationship between the sensible perception of a world of becoming and the formalized system of axioms known as a "scientific explanation."
The "irrational gap" between perception and explanation can be appraised historically and identified in three stages: Plato's Timaeus furnishes the first example of a scientific theory dealing with a realm of ideality that cannot be derived from immediate sensible perception; the Big Bang model is constituted on the basis of the purely geometrical notion of symmetry; and in the more recent Algorithmic Theory of Information, the analysis of the purely symbolic language expressing physical reality reveals the level of complexity of any given theory formulated in this language. The result is that the probability of the universe actually conforming with simple mathematics is zero.
In a formal system, a theorem contains more information than can be found in the set of axioms of this system, and it remains undecidable. In Aristotle' s language, the theorems that can be proved within a theoretical model are already potentially contained in the system of axioms underlying these theorems.

And a PDF copy of it from my personal library. I hope you enjoy, I love that one.
https://mega.nz/file/C09H3QIY#IijslpShrYz6zefl-FZOpk6wG-IHvNbqLcBpGoPJnuE

[Anonymous No.15581579]

>>15579722
no, it is you that don't understand shit

[Anonymous No.15581597]

>>15581573
Plato also incorporates the Eleusinian Mysteries as well as a lot of advanced ideas from contemporary thinkers(Anaxagoras, Heraclitus, Parmenides), only adds to part of why he is so great.

[Anonymous No.15581605]

>>15579759
YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND!

Plato is not only so great because of what he believes himself, such as the belief in the failure of democracy, but also because of the absolute genius of what he creates, like the first political philosophy and the recognition of their different elements and their results and so forth, as well as in a spiritual context of meaning. This is one badly worded example because I am currently tired, so please be more modest.

[Anonymous No.15581621]

>>15581520
>THAT.IS.MORALITY.
NO. ITS. NOT.

That’s just humans acting in their own self interest as a group.

[Anonymous No.15581641]

>>15581621
But yes it is. That is entirely what is good and bad. Right or wrong. What use is the moral stance of being against murder if it is not in the best interest of the innocent? Have you taken your meds today?

[Anonymous No.15581693]

>>15581641
>What use is the moral stance of being against murder if it is not in the best interest of the innocent?
To maintain society, and it is also in the interests of the innocent to have laws protecting them from murderers. Social constructs were not invented for no reason. They have uses. Preventing crime is one of them.

Why do you think ancient societies created strict religions? For the same reason.

[Anonymous No.15581705]

>>15581531
Not quite. When I'm done thinking on a topic and I've written/spoken about something as a means to an outlet of that developmental thought, "the philosophical labour of the child", I throw it away until I find interest in it again, something new, and of course some other development arises.

I think I'll write something that I think is original enough to not just be content over at some point, but /lit/ has been very helpful in acquiring that necessary knowledge. But what I want to know is why you thought my post was particularly original at all?

[Anonymous No.15581708]

>>15579722
I love it when mutts get filtered by ancient wisdom.

[Anonymous No.15581714]

>>15579722
>never gonna make it

[Anonymous No.15581728]

>>15581693
Well yeah, I agree with you.
I'm saying that these things are also moral.
>>15581705
Its obvious you actually read people and have a lot more to think about them than the initial post dives into. Why I ask. I understand. I'm the same way.

[Anonymous No.15581804]

>I understand. I'm the same way.
I'm pleasantly surprised anon, and I like you friend. Only occasionally do I find other people like this. The following paragraph which was written prior to this one is indeed a misrepresentation because you have further talked with me and it is interesting. However it does still sadly apply, and my mind is getting foggy, and I feel that I am seeming pretentious and rude in how I write because of this. I really must escape from this addictive place.

I also apologise that I may not be able to henceforward reply, because my brain is numb from a lot of longer posts yesterday on /pol/, that development which seems useless when one speaks too much about it. And so to be happy at all, and have creativity, I am now going to enjoy myself and not return to this site which is at first a stimulation and now a drudgery of responsibility to replies.I find that my intellectual thought becomes more and more abstract and and less fresh the further I am from this relaxing time.

Yours dearly,
Anon.

[Anonymous No.15581813]

>>15581728
See>>15581804

[Anonymous No.15581830]

>>15581804
You're overthinking things now. Get some rest, take care. Thanks for the discussion.

[Anonymous No.15581848]

>>15581830
Yes, that is probably right. A similar habit I guess.

Take care as well anon.

[Anonymous No.15581870]

>>15579722
Best translation of the republic for a brainlet? Wanted to pick it up but I've never read a philosophy book before

[Anonymous No.15581930]

>>15581870
Robin Waterfield
Thomas Taylor
Grube in the Complete Works edition is also fine.

[Anonymous No.15582050]

>>15581435
It was real.

[Anonymous No.15582302]

>>15579759
I think Plato just might be out of your league buddy. How about trying Harry Potter, or a nice Stephan King?

[Anonymous No.15583121]

>>15581392
>it is an easy read.
On the surface and with a modern translation, sure. But if you want to understand its rich cultural references, it's very demanding actually. I know professors who dedicated half of their carriers trying to decode the book.

[Anonymous No.15584104]

context. its not masturbatory statements like all modern authors.
for the greeks everything they write is to be debated, it is upon these few men who debate those point, who must arrive at its application to their society.
there's no daddy government or moral compass mommies who set rules to follow blindly, they are decided if their best friend should be killed or imprisoned for stealing a goat, for the good of society.